AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Hermagoras

form_srcid: Hermagoras

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 23.21.34.188

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Hermagoras

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Hermagoras%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2007/06/23 21:20:01, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (stevestory @ June 23 2007,12:28)
Quote (Bob O'H @ June 23 2007,12:37)
Has Hermagoras been banned yet?
   
Quote


22

Hermagoras

06/23/2007

8:10 am

DaveScot,

So, gleaner’s view of civility’s importance is all for fun. Glad you cleared that up.

Your taxonomy is incomplete: what about the pro-ID a**hat?

The pro-ID asshat is given moderator powers at UD.

Anyway.

 
Quote
23 June 2007
Roy Spencer - Yet Another Global Warming Skeptic
DaveScot


Anybody remember when that blog used to be about Intelligent Design?

Hermagoras, c'est moi.  New here.  This board is really fun.  

As for uncommonly dense, I'm testing the limits.  Most of my comments don't get through.

Hey, does anybody know if the people over at UD have responded at all to the ICON-RIDS/Pleasurian fiasco?  Methinks they're hoping it'll blow over.

Date: 2007/06/23 21:38:12, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (stevestory @ June 23 2007,21:29)
I don't know. I'll check in a minute. I spent several hours looking through UD today, and I'm still recovering.

The last comment on the pleasurian link was on about a week ago: welcoming NoeticGuru, who is clearly a parodist.  I wrote about this over at  paralepsis,  but the UD folks have remained silent.  Either (a) they don't recognize NoeticGuru's comment as snark, which makes them stupider than I thought, or (b) they figure that deleting or responding to the the comment and/or thread would just remind people that Dembski had linked to Brookfield in the first place.  I don't want to burst their bubble, in a sense, as I hope NoeticGuru will continue to post unrecognized snark.

Date: 2007/06/24 10:05:06, Link
Author: Hermagoras
I appear to have been banned at UD.  Or at least my comments no longer appear.

Date: 2007/06/24 10:44:58, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 24 2007,10:05)
I appear to have been banned at UD.  Or at least my comments no longer appear.

Follow-up: the comment that got me banned was a simple response to this:
 
Quote


   YARR! SHIVER ME TIMBERS!

Do you know what a pro-ID pirate’s favorite pastime is?



ARRRguing with DARRRwinists.

I simply pointed out that excessive pirate talk, coupled with a lot of attention to global warming on UD, might lead someone to think the designer was the FSM.  I provided a helpful link to the pirate/global warming graph.

Date: 2007/06/24 19:56:16, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Again I'm attempting to comment on UD.  Let's see if this one makes it out of limbo.  My response is to this.  Here's what I say:
     
Quote
Borne:

First, your martyrdom statistics seem high. Do you have a source?

Second, the idea that Harris and Klebold targeted Christians is problematic at best: see http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cassie.htm

Third, I doubt Wicca is or will soon be anywhere near that popular, and again I ask for a source. Besides, why is that a problem? Wiccans at least are not materialists.

Finally, it’s worth noting that historically, witches have not persecuted and killed Christians. Rather the reverse.

I believe I'm being respectful, and in response to a very stupid comment.  Still  I have my doubts.  What's the over/under on this getting through?   And why should I care?  Why oh why doesn't Dembski love me?

???

Date: 2007/06/24 20:17:11, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 24 2007,20:05)
Quote (argystokes @ June 24 2007,18:40)
Galapagos Finch is almost certainly William Dembski himself.

Not that I'm doubting you, but why do you think so?

If so, it seems that he saves that pseudonym for most of his excursions into adolescent silliness. Note I say 'most'.

I've thought this was probably the case.  Plausible deniability and all.

Date: 2007/06/25 11:08:53, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Dembski's linked to an interview with Mario Lopez.  Isn't he the guy from Saved by the Bell?  Wouldn't it be cool if Lopez got married to the guy from Growing Pains?

Date: 2007/06/25 12:14:52, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (keiths @ June 25 2007,12:00)
A choice Dembski quote from the interview:
   
Quote
CA: Amidst all the animosity and criticisms written about your work, what is your motivation for continuing this ambitious research program?

WD: The work itself is immensely satisfying and intellectually stimulating. Moreover, I see those who seek to shut it down as intolerant dogmatists who encapsulate a tyranny that I despise. So I get to see myself as both a scientific researcher and as a freedom fighter—a rare combination.

Does that quote come with a superhero costume?

Wait, I've got it!  Dembski is . . .



Buckaroo Banzai.

Superhero.  Scientist.  Rock star.

Date: 2007/06/25 18:20:41, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Steverino @ June 25 2007,16:45)
Buckaroo Banzai.

Superhero.  Scientist.  Rock star.

No!.....Buckeroo was not only a smart scientist and rocker......He Was Cool!!!

Demski is just one of those guys you gave swirlies to between classes![/quote]
Laugh while you can, monkey-boy! -- Lord John Whorphin

Date: 2007/06/28 15:51:28, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Kristine @ June 28 2007,15:14)
Quote (dhogaza @ June 28 2007,13:58)
William Dembski
 
Quote
Hermagoras is no longer with us.

What did I say? What did I say? I MADE A TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS!!! :)

You sure did, baby!  :D And I've been banned in precisely the language I've critiqued on my blog, by Himself no less.

Date: 2007/06/28 15:58:40, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 28 2007,15:53)
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 28 2007,15:51)
 
Quote (Kristine @ June 28 2007,15:14)
   
Quote (dhogaza @ June 28 2007,13:58)
William Dembski
     
Quote
Hermagoras is no longer with us.

What did I say? What did I say? I MADE A TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS!!! :)

You sure did, baby!  :D And I've been banned in precisely the language I've critiqued on my blog, by Himself no less.

But see them cry c*nsorship when we wont let them redifne science...

Honestly, I don't know what the fuck I was banned for.  ??? My last two comments, neither of which made it past moderation, were about (a) how scordova's examples of equivocation were not actually equivocating, and (b) some basics in the rhetoric of science (with reference to Bruno Latour).

Date: 2007/06/28 17:57:06, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Louis @ June 28 2007,17:31)


Power up the "laser".

Goodbye.

Louis


You and your "laser."



I have a gun, in my room, you give me five seconds, I'll get it, I'll come back down here, BOOM, I'll blow their brains out!

Date: 2007/06/28 18:13:44, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 28 2007,15:59)
Post them here if you still have them.

Alas, I didn't save them before posting.  

Briefly, this what happened: I was annoyed at that ass Jehu for saying I was a high school teacher and should be up on their idiotic jargon.  In replying, I went into a few basics of rhetoric, using Latour's concept of statements being "modalized" and suggesting that this was a better way of understanding what happens to sources when cited than "literature bluffing."   I also discussed why the facts don't speak for themselves (why'd Behe need a book then?) and why scordova was wrong that Shallitt and Elsberry were equivocating about a term.  I pointed out that I didn't see equivocation in the term "naturally occurring," as there was a difference between the naturally occurring tools of (say) quantum mechanics and the constructed processes of quantum computing.  

I probably got a bit technical, because I was annoyed at being told I didn't know what I was talking aobut in precisely my area of expertise.  In a word, I got rhetorical on their ass.

Dembski's flustered response, which included misspellings and a reference to a bizarre paper called "evolutionary logic," suggests to me that he banned me for being "off-topic" (read: uncontrollable).

Date: 2007/06/28 18:55:09, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 28 2007,15:41)
For someones Sig:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-126406

 
Quote
The arguments from obscrue, irrelevant, and nonexistent reference are relevant to this discussion.
- WmAD

I'll call that.

Date: 2007/06/28 19:32:35, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 28 2007,19:17)
On the thread where Hermagoras is dumped for obscure, irrelevant, or nonexistent references, jerry opines re "darwinists"      
Quote
Is it just a parlor game to see who is the most clever? Do they really think we are that stupid? Or is a deeper feeling that what the person is opposing is so wrong that it will excuse anything that they do in the cause to rid the world or what they consider dangerous.

I guess I'll go with door #2, at least until further evidence comes in.

I'm a big fan of parlor games, but only if they involve the progressive shedding of clothes.

Date: 2007/06/28 20:21:45, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 28 2007,19:17)
On the thread where Hermagoras is dumped for obscure, irrelevant, or nonexistent references, jerry opines re "darwinists"      
Quote
Is it just a parlor game to see who is the most clever? Do they really think we are that stupid? Or is a deeper feeling that what the person is opposing is so wrong that it will excuse anything that they do in the cause to rid the world or what they consider dangerous.

I guess I'll go with door #2, at least until further evidence comes in.

Momentarily serious: count me as one who does not think ID folks are necessarily stupid, liars, or insane.  I think that their viewpoint coheres pretty well for them, and that, like old-style creationists, they make the world conform to fit their viewpoint.  They're wrong, of course, and may change.  But as Barbara Herrnstein Smith puts it somewhere, "in the conflict between belief and evidence, belief is no pushover."  

For what it's worth, and since I'm introducing myself, I am starting a book (to be called The Rhetoric of Anti-Science) on these issues.  (I have to finish my contracted textbook, Writing Laboratory Science, first.  In fact, I should be doing that right now).  Anyway, TROAS will cover the usual suspects (creationism, global warming denial) as well as some murkier territory (psychoanalysis, scientific fraud, and science studies [the Sokal hoax]).

Date: 2007/06/28 20:35:17, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (stevestory @ June 28 2007,20:28)
My classes in technical communications were really wonderful, eye-opening classes. I think I wrote 6 papers just on William Langewiesche's article Columbia's Last Flight. Technical communication, as a field of study, is fascinating.

I'm more rhetoric than tech comm as such, but I agree it's a fastinating field.  One of the odd features of tech comm. is the way disasters provide so much material.  The Columbia disaster was central to Edward Tufte's brilliant critique of PowerPoint, first presented in "The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint" (now a chapter in his book Beautiful Evidence).  Tech comm teachers also found many "teachable moments," as they say, in the design of the 2000 Florida "butterfly ballot" -- another disaster still unfolding.

Date: 2007/06/28 22:22:46, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Wesley,

Howdy.  The comment that got me banned was a response to Sal where I said I was "unconvinced" that you equivocated in the following passage:

 
Quote
Dembski's inference of design is then undermined by the recent realization that there are many naturally-occurring tools available to build simple computational processes. To mention just four, consider the recent work on quantum computation [42], DNA computation [47], chemical computing [55, 89, 74], and molecular self-assembly [79].


I pointed out that his charge of equivocation conflated the naturally occurring tools of (say) quantum mechanics with the (designed) processes derived using those tools.  He claimed this was equivocation because quantum computing is not naturally occurring.  I simply pointed out that that's not what you said: rather, you said it was built on "naturally-occurring tools."  This was not, I said, equivocation.  

Now, I'm sure there's plenty of equivocation in the world.  All of us have equivocated from time to time.  [Raises hand].  But this ain't it.

Date: 2007/06/29 10:52:13, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Apparently I have a residual effect, post-banning, that produces passages such as this:
 
Quote
My claim is that these facts certainly do speak for themselves, and they say that Darwinian claims about the creative power of random mutation and natural selection are bogus.

Meanwhile, my head explodes.  
I was trying to make a pretty simple point, which Gil demonstrates elegantly when he writes "these facts certainly do speak for themselves, and they say" --- STOP RIGHT THERE!  Read that again.  

The facts speak for themelves / and they say

The point should be apparent, right.  Right?

Date: 2007/06/29 14:13:40, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 29 2007,13:57)
Oh, my.

That's very fine.  

Just for giggles, let me ask: has Dembski ever conceded a significant point?

Date: 2007/06/29 19:56:01, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Kristine @ June 28 2007,22:18)
Hold it right there, Duran Duran. There's another person in that link! And then Husband Number One showed up himself and commented! Your fight, should you chose to accept it, is with him. *Sits back with popcorn*

USE THE INVISIBLE KEY! And if you power up that laser I shall have to release the Matmos!

Talked about but never tagged.  What's a guy gotta do around here?

Date: 2007/06/29 23:42:31, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Kristine @ June 29 2007,21:02)
Oh look, I think it's love over at UD! Gil to PaV:      
Quote
You express me better than I express myself.

PaV to Gil: You . .  . complete me.
Gil: you had me at "design."

(I don't know if PaV is a guy, but so what?  Have you seen the T-Shirt on Gil?)

Date: 2007/06/30 08:03:42, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 30 2007,05:37)
Quote (Kristine @ June 30 2007,01:08)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 29 2007,22:42)

(I don't know if PaV is a guy, but so what?  Have you seen the T-Shirt on Gil?)

Um, yes. :) Hawt!

Oh, then do check out one of his album covers

I'm going to defend Gil on that one. Everybody wore ridiculous clothes back then.  [Hermagoras recalls his leisure suits and prom tux, shudders.]

Date: 2007/06/30 10:23:10, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Scordova:
   
Quote
It is evident by the fact that Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Ken Miller, Sean Carroll, and Michael Ruse have written book reviews of Michael Behe’s book, The Edge of Evolution, that the best evolutionary biologists think about intelligent design.

Wha?
Scordova then quotes "a peer-reviewed article by 3 scientists from MIT in the journal of Molecular Systems Biology" (actually, it's just Molecular Systems Biology) which begins:    
Quote
The debate between intelligent design and evolution in education may still rage in school boards and classrooms, but intelligent design is making headway in the laboratory.

As soon as they kick out the writing teacher, the leaders of UD show an uncanny ability to read.  For lo, the article in question goes on, in the very next sentence:    
Quote
In this case, though, the designer turned out to be just some clever scientist. A recent paper in Nature (Yoshikuni et al, 2006) presented the iterative evolution of highly specific catalysts from a promiscuous wild-type enzyme via what the authors refer to as designed divergent evolution.

And it ends:    
Quote
So, scientists everywhere may soon begin their own intelligent designs… and so far, it looks like the best designs are the simplest. At the protein level, at least, it looks like irreducible complexity is out and a rather reducible simplicity is in. Intelligent design, however, may be here to stay.

Question: is scordova really this incapable of understanding tone in writing?

Date: 2007/06/30 10:51:58, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 30 2007,10:31)
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 30 2007,10:23)
Question: is scordova really this incapable of understanding tone in writing?

I'm betting that is a rhetorical question...

More or less. We all know that Dembski, in his Galapagos Finch mode, is astonishingly poor at creating humor.  A commenter at paralepsis pointed out his "inability to 'read' how others will react to his words and actions."  As the son of a mathematician, I understand the mild-to-severe versions of the idiot savant often exhibited in that world.  I see that a lot with others at UD.  I'm wondering if there's a connection between the social tone-deafness of UD and its love of the abstract disciplines (philosophy, math, theology).

Date: 2007/06/30 11:32:18, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Zachriel @ June 30 2007,11:22)
Bob O'H      
Quote
Hermagoras was banned from UD. I have yet to have that privilege, hence I am not banned and can comment.  

I hope these facts speak for themselves.  :D

I have been "privileged" three times. But never by Dr. Dr. Dembski.

We salute your memory, Hermagoras.



And good luck in the trenches, Bob O'H.

Thank you ladies!  I'm "saluting" back, but you can't see it.  :)  

Bob O'H, you are seriously asking for bannage.

Date: 2007/06/30 13:03:46, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Zachriel @ June 30 2007,12:52)
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 30 2007,12:49)
     
Quote (Zachriel @ June 30 2007,11:22)
I have been "privileged" three times. But never by Dr. Dr. Dembski.

So, you weren't The Pixie?

Sorry, no. I never post under another moniker.

I have, however, enjoyed reading The Pixie's posts on Telic Thoughts, ISCID's Brainstorms and Teleological Blog. I'm still waiting, along with you, for him to surface.

How'd you get unbanned?  Did DaveScot invite you back?

Date: 2007/06/30 19:24:23, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Russ on prayer at UD:

 
Quote
From a Judeo-Christian point of view, the whole notion of doing “prayer experiments” is ridiculous if you understand God to be personal, omniscient and sovereign. You don’t “poke God with a stick” to see see if He jumps on cue. He is not bound by some laws of nature.


If an ID critic had said that, he would have been banned instantly.

Date: 2007/06/30 21:41:21, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 30 2007,20:54)
I usually forget to actually use the damned thing, but I love it just for the "Tard Alert!" message all over the comments at UD.

Sweet.

There's a UD greasemonkey script?  Tell me more.

Date: 2007/06/30 21:57:24, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 30 2007,21:52)
Wintermute's Script Page at Userscripts.org

He's only got the one, so it's pretty easy to find.

ETA - (It's the only thing on the whole page...)

:)

Thanks.  Just installed.  That's the funniest thing I've seen since the Abe Vigoda Firefox extension (which, alas, no longer works.)

Date: 2007/07/01 11:46:54, Link
Author: Hermagoras
I seem to have drawn a few UD folks over to paralepsis after my banishment.  Thanks to Zachriel for assisting in the smackdown.

Date: 2007/07/01 13:36:06, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 01 2007,13:24)
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 01 2007,11:46)
I seem to have drawn a few UD folks over to paralepsis after my banishment.  Thanks to Zachriel for assisting in the smackdown.

Which Tard(s) deleted all their comments? Is that because they know big Dembski is watching them and may ban them for comments on other blogs?


At least some of the comments were mine, deleted by me.  In a couple I posted my email address so a person who was "unable to comment" (and said so on UD) could contact me directly.  I deleted it, and another email address, when I got the message.

Date: 2007/07/01 19:54:18, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 01 2007,18:20)
First draft of graphic:


that is some kind of groovy.

Date: 2007/07/01 20:11:35, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Charlie is a tard
Quote

Hi Jehu,
Is there another link? The one you gave to the Drug Resistance Paper isn’t working for me.


Which is worse--Jehu's inability to link or Charlie's inability to google?

Date: 2007/07/01 22:43:13, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote
Well it looks as if JAM has completely discredited Behe’s argument.


Betting table now open on the date of dougcampo's banning.

Date: 2007/07/02 00:39:36, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 01 2007,23:07)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 01 2007,22:43)
   
Quote
Well it looks as if JAM has completely discredited Behe’s argument.


Betting table now open on the date of dougcampo's banning.

I'm sure emails are flying 'round as to the best way of getting rid of him and JAD.

HOLY SHIT now he's begging to join the banned:
 
Quote

If ID people don’t find something to discredit Darwinism soon you are going to lose the American people.

I’m sorry, I want to believe and I really support everything you guys are doing but you are against what seems like overwhelming opposition.

Both from the Darwinists and a culture that just doesn’t care anymore. I hope you can develop some type of answer to what JAM and Patrick Caldon are saying. If not, then perhaps they are right and ID is just all wishful thinking.

Date: 2007/07/02 09:16:56, Link
Author: Hermagoras
DaveScot:

Quote
It’s a proof of concept for intelligent design. . . . What would that prove? It wouldn’t prove it happened that way but it would be a proof of concept - i.e. it proves it *could* have happened that way. In fact it would be the first proof of concept ever for macroevolution.

Intelligent design has been proven in concept by accomplishments in genetic engineering. . . .

This is why it’s so anti-science to exclude ID from hypothetical mechanisms underlying organic evolution - ID is a proven concept. . . .


I can only respond in the voice of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."

Date: 2007/07/02 11:34:44, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Cordova:

Quote
Sadly, the life of George Price came to a tragic end. I think upon the words of Seneca, “there is no great genius without a tinge of insanity.”


George Price?  Talk about your God delusions.  Here was a super-brilliant guy whose conversion is virtually indistinguishable from his obvious mental illness.  He's not a person whose conversion should be pointed to as an, er, example.

Date: 2007/07/02 11:47:05, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Hold on, here's
Paul Nelson:
Quote
There must be more to macroevolution — e.g., the origin of chimpanzees and humans from a common ancestor — than site-by-site amino acid changes in proteins, which was largely the picture drawn in textbook neo-Darwinism at the time (1975). Chimp hemoglobin is pretty much human hemoglobin, and so on, yet it’s always the chimps behind the bars, gazing out, when one visits the zoo:

(Side note: caged apes make me sad.)  Anyway, a bit of bloviating later:  
Quote
What genetic changes have caused the manifold organismal differences between chimps and humans? After all, that’s really what we want evolution to explain.
Somebody help me out here.  Aside from the obvious misunderstandings, what is Nelson really saying about the relationship between genes and organisms?  Is he saying that there's some magical fairy dust that makes chimps chimps and humans humans, and so we have to quit looking at silly things like genes?

Date: 2007/07/02 12:20:26, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 02 2007,11:57)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 02 2007,11:47)
Somebody help me out here.  Aside from the obvious misunderstandings, what is Nelson really saying about the relationship between genes and organisms?  Is he saying that there's some magical fairy dust that makes chimps chimps and humans humans, and so we have to quit looking at silly things like genes?

While I think you probably already know the answer, let me drop a hint on you.


You're quite wrong: it's actually

Date: 2007/07/02 12:45:37, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (jeannot @ July 02 2007,12:38)
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 02 2007,09:16)
I can only respond in the voice of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."

These words are from Wesley, actually (not Elsberry).  ;)

I'm pretty sure it's Inigo.  At least on the IMDB:

Quote
[Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up]
Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Date: 2007/07/02 13:22:18, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 02 2007,13:07)

Must . . . stop . . . looking . . . .
Eyes . . . burning . . . .

Date: 2007/07/02 13:56:46, Link
Author: Hermagoras
MaxAug at UD:
Quote
If it is not too much offensive, can i ask what is Dr. Lennox Christian theological background (romanist? biblical Christian?)?

To which Tedsomebody:
Quote
A ‘romanist’?
Oh, you mean a Catholic. If he is, he probably has the beliefs that were in place with the original Church. Go read some Eusebius.

Discussions of Romanism and Popery to be followed by highly scientific disquisitions on heresy and inerrancy.  Dembski will quiet the fight by saying all will be resolved in a forthcoming book.

Date: 2007/07/02 15:23:49, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Is dougcamp a mole?  

Quote


“romanist”

For the love of God and everything holy, please no sectarianism.

Thanks.

Immediately followed by:
Quote
We will never disprove darwinism and hurl it into the trashcan of history
if we fight among ourselves.


I'm confused.  I thought Darwinism was already disproved.

Date: 2007/07/02 17:15:15, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 02 2007,17:12)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 02 2007,15:27)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 02 2007,15:23)
I'm confused.  I thought Darwinism was already disproved.

No no no. It will be disproved in 5 years. It is just "on the ropes" right now.

There is growing dissent dontchaknow? 500+ "scientists" say so.

Correct. And at the same time the following are all simultaneously true:

1) Darwinism is dead
2) Darwinism will be dead in 25 years
3) materialist scientists who believe in Darwinism form a 'priesthood' blocking all new ideas
4) hardly any scientists believe in Darwinism
5) scientists know Darwinism is dead, that's why they're fighting so aggressively
6) scientists just don't know yet that Darwinism is dead.

There, now toddle off and work on holding all those ideas in your head at the same time. Get back to me when you're done.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Date: 2007/07/02 19:10:05, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote
the IDURC is proud to name Mr. Casey Luskin, a graduate of the University of California at San Diego, an honorary recipient of the Casey Luskin Graduate Award.


Wha?  ???

Date: 2007/07/02 20:13:30, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 02 2007,19:39)
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 02 2007,19:10)
   
Quote
the IDURC is proud to name Mr. Casey Luskin, a graduate of the University of California at San Diego, an honorary recipient of the Casey Luskin Graduate Award.


Wha?  ???

That is amusing. Where did you find that pearl?  I checked on the "What's New" page of the IDURC website, but the newest thing there was dated Jan 2006.

Hmmm, that would be just after the Dover decision, IIRC. No news is good news, I suppose...

Sorry: it's here.  I really enjoyed it as well.  Check out the prize: a certificate, $100, and a copy of the new Behe.  But Luskin's award is just a bonus: as for the real winner, "The recipient of the 2007 Casey Luskin Graduate Award will remain anonymous for the protection of the recipient."

You can't make this shit up.

Date: 2007/07/02 20:54:34, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 02 2007,20:50)
Quote
Sorry: it's here.  I really enjoyed it as well.  Check out the prize: a certificate, $100, and a copy of the new Behe.  


And for the second place winner, two copies...

Actually, reading further, "Casey will receive a certificate of achievement and be listed as a recipient of the award which now bears his name."  They blew the Benjamin on the anonymous recipient, who will unmask him- or herself at the proper time: just after trapping the world's Darwinists in a large fishing net.

Date: 2007/07/02 23:23:32, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Kristine @ July 02 2007,22:18)
It's conclusive proof that Bush is a traitor to the rule of law in this country, in my book. I understand that Keith Olbermann will call for the President's resignation tomorrow night.

What would Bush's resignation do, with Cheney in charge?  Impeachment needs to start with the Veep.

Date: 2007/07/03 13:25:32, Link
Author: Hermagoras
More evidence that "dougcamp" may be a mole:

Quote
Bit off topic here.

I was reading just know about the phenomenon of ‘gingerism’ in Great Britain. In the article it stated that red hair is the result of the mutated MC1R gene. Interesting that it is a mutation and not a result of design.


Followed by:

Quote
I wonder what else is a result of mutation.


Dougcamp: IDiot, or just playing one for yucks?

Date: 2007/07/03 13:50:49, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 03 2007,13:26)
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 03 2007,13:25)
More evidence that "dougcamp" may be a mole:

   
Quote
Bit off topic here.

I was reading just know about the phenomenon of ‘gingerism’ in Great Britain. In the article it stated that red hair is the result of the mutated MC1R gene. Interesting that it is a mutation and not a result of design.


Followed by:

   
Quote
I wonder what else is a result of mutation.


Dougcamp: IDiot, or just playing one for yucks?

Gingerism is real - and I don't think confined to England.


http://wiki.answers.com/Q....it_mean

I'm sure it is. (Those redheads.  Never trust 'em)  I'm just intrigued by a pattern of Dougcampo's remarks that suggest he might be a skeptic in disguise.

Date: 2007/07/03 14:24:28, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Scordova about Behe's blog:

 
Quote
I wish Michael Behe would disable the comment section of his blog.

John Kwak and other Darwinists are just spamming his blog with trash.


Scordova speak; Behe listen.  Most recent blog entry:
 
Quote
Comments disabled  

Date: 2007/07/03 21:24:21, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Prediction confirmed.  

Over at paralepsis, Mark Farmer reposted a comment  he left at UD, about how Behe ignored an article that shows cilia do not require a working IFT.  (Nick Matzke already talked about this, but Farmer's question is nicely pointed and direct.)  I predicted the following:    
Quote
the UD people will (a) stress that such an omission is not literature bluffing, since LB is citing something that does not support your work as though it does rather than (as Behe does) ignoring something that refutes your work; (b) try to say that the paper is either not really relevant or that Behe qualified the claim in question somewhere else in TEOE; (c ) say that the claim isn't that important anyway; and (d) ban you from further discussion as a rabblerouser and ne'er-do-well.


Prediction (a) confirmed by Gil Dodgen:
 
Quote
Omitting something is not literature bluffing. Literature bluffing is citing literature that is not relevant to the question being considered.

Gil also suggests that Farmer ask Papa Behe.  

Now for (b) through (d).  

[Low bow.]

Date: 2007/07/03 22:00:46, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Roland Anderson @ July 03 2007,12:40)
Quote (Louis @ July 03 2007,09:17)
Maggie Thatcher (ex-UK PM)

I do wish that people would refer to Lady Thatcher by her correct title, which is "That Fucking Thatcher Cow".

I hate her more that I hate anyone. I hope she dies in pain.

What's that Elvis Costello line:

"When England was the whore of the world / Margaret was her Madam"

Date: 2007/07/04 11:03:47, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (cogzoid @ July 04 2007,10:39)
Dr. Dr. Dembski says:

   
Quote
Coyne contra Behe in The New Republic; Behe contra Coyne at Amazon; and now Coyne contra Behe at TalkReason. The following comment by Coyne caught my eye:

   
Quote
   Both Richard Dawkins (in his review of The Edge of Evolution in The New York Times) and myself have noted Behe’s remarkable reluctance to submit his claims to peer-reviewed scientific journals. If Behe’s theory is so world-shaking, and so indubitably correct, why doesn’t he submit it to some scientific journals? (The reason is obvious, of course: his theory is flat wrong.)


Let me suggest another reason: Coyne is wrong and doesn’t want Behe upsetting his applecart.


So, the reason Behe doesn't submit his ideas to peer review is because: "Coyne is wrong and doesn't want him to."  Makes sense to me.  Who's going to be first to agree?  Borne?

but-but-but conspiracy!!!!  

Unrelated but mildly amusing Dembski moment elsewhere:
 
Quote
Good point, DaveScot. Jonathan Wells and I make the same point . . .
 Sums up so much.

Date: 2007/07/04 20:46:11, Link
Author: Hermagoras
charlessandwalk may not be a tard
Quote

Before you can get rejected by a journal you have to submit a paper.
Wouldn’t a stack of rejections serve as evidence of bias?


Another issue unmentioned is that Behe, should he want to submit an ID-supportive research article, could state in his cover letter that he wanted to exclude Coyne, Dembski, and anyone else who's done public battle with him.

Date: 2007/07/04 22:08:24, Link
Author: Hermagoras
More from Unendingly Dimwitted (comments in the "Jerry Coyne is afraid of Behe" discussion):

John Jackson writes:  
Quote
On a side note, I was wondering if anyone knows of a branch of science that studies science and the scientific method itself and if someone might have written something along these lines for the lay reader? You know, not being a scientist myself and all.

bFast responds:  
Quote
This would be intriguing study, however the results of such a study could not be published on any “active” topic. Rather, someone needs to study a topic while it is active, then publish the findings when the prevailing opinion proves false. This, of course, may require studying a dozen different topics — in addition to evolution, global warming comes to mind — before one gets a scientific hobby-horse that is finally rejected by science so that findings about it can be published.

Um, the discipline you're hoping for exists, dumbasses.  It's called "science studies" or "science and technology studies"  (STS) or the "sociology of scientific knowledge."  There are hundreds of books on the issue.

Yet again, Hermagoras must educate indirectly.

Date: 2007/07/05 08:05:57, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 05 2007,00:49)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-127092

   
Quote
83

DaveScot

07/04/2007

4:10 pm
I don’t see how we extrapolate from CQR to limits.

May I suggest you read the book and see if that helps your understanding? That’s the purpose of the book, after all.


Or, you could summarize for him.. If YOU'VE read the book, Dave.

I seriously doubt the purpose of TEOE is to help anybody's understanding.

Date: 2007/07/05 08:06:58, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Zachriel @ July 05 2007,06:34)
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 04 2007,22:08)
More from Unendingly Dimwitted (comments in the "Jerry Coyne is afraid of Behe" discussion):

John Jackson writes:          
Quote
On a side note, I was wondering if anyone knows of a branch of science that studies science and the scientific method itself and if someone might have written something along these lines for the lay reader? You know, not being a scientist myself and all.

bFast responds:          
Quote
This would be intriguing study, however the results of such a study could not be published on any “active” topic. Rather, someone needs to study a topic while it is active, then publish the findings when the prevailing opinion proves false. This, of course, may require studying a dozen different topics — in addition to evolution, global warming comes to mind — before one gets a scientific hobby-horse that is finally rejected by science so that findings about it can be published.

Um, the discipline you're hoping for exists, dumbasses.  It's called "science studies" or "science and technology studies"  (STS) or the "sociology of scientific knowledge."  There are hundreds of books on the issue.

Yet again, Hermagoras must educate indirectly.

There is also a philosophical field, the philosophy of science, a branch of epistemology.



There are even the rare sightings of the philosopher of biology.

Zachriel,

Philosophy is soooo twentieth-century.

Date: 2007/07/05 18:27:38, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Uncommonly Dembksi:    
Quote
In my previous post, I cited a Miami Herald article that refers to “The National Center for Science Education, a pro-science watchdog group.” For the real pro-science watchdog group, check out the following links:

   * www.pro-science.com
   * www.pro-science.org
   * www.pro-science.net

That’s right. I own those domain names and they all refer back here. Let me encourage all contributors to this blog to use these domain names in referring to UD when they email Darwinists.


That's right.  Because science is all about the domain names.

Date: 2007/07/05 18:54:26, Link
Author: Hermagoras
nemesis
Quote

Just for the heck of it, someone should get pro-science.blogspot.com. I checked and it isn’t taken.


It is now.

Date: 2007/07/05 19:28:05, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (cogzoid @ July 05 2007,19:23)
Ou Krokodil suggests
Quote

Somebody should also start a site for teens about the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for evolution.


Priceless.

But sadly, I'm sure his tenure at UD won't last much longer.

He's going to be Sternberged!

Edit: I'm a dumbass.

For teens?  What the hell is that about?

Date: 2007/07/07 19:36:57, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (N.Wells @ July 07 2007,15:02)
My apologies if this was already mentioned and I missed it  My hat is off to Irishfather412 (assuming the post is a parody - it's getting hard to tell):
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....omments

 
Quote
I think it is fair to say that in order for one to be an expert in ID thought and have a strong understanding of ID, one need not be an expert in evolutionary biology. While by no means is Mrs. Denyse O’Leary an expert in understanding evolutionary biology, she does have a profound understanding of the the sociological importance of ID and the dangers Darwinism presents to truly understading the natural world.

In the blogoshere one need not be an expert to express ones view. That’s what I like about this site :) UD! We all come diverse backgrounds and none of our thinking is tainted by currently practiced scientific thinking. None of this sites contributors are practicing scientists. This gives them an edge in thinking outside of the curreent paradigm.

Keep up the good work.

Another possible Irishfather412 parody comment?
 
Quote
It seems to me that everything is designed by something. Is there even such a thing as nondesign? Isn’t the only variable left to figure out HOW it was designed? So basically this means that all MATERIAL Phenomenon should be able to be traced back to naturalistic actions that create complexity. For example, a snowflake, or a crystal in some metomorphic rock are examples of complexity that has a basis in natural phenomenon. But aspects of our humanity, like the soul can be traced back to supernatural phenomenon and they can be measured using Dembski’s Filter. When you don’t know the naturalisic cause of some sort of complex object, can you assume design? I often feel that YES you can assume design even though you don’t actually know it. Is there any object that has been proven to be designed where all the natrualistic explanations had been accounted for, even the ones that were not yet known?

Emphasis added.  If that's not parody, it should be.

Date: 2007/07/08 07:50:01, Link
Author: Hermagoras
How long before JAM gets banned?  Selections from the latest:  
Quote

. . . .
Now, since I answered your question, how about answering mine:
1) If terminology is more important than data, why is the term “haplotype” used instead of “allele”?
2) Why are there papers on linkage disequilibrium? Does Behe offer a clue?

3) Why choose Plasmodium to extrapolate to human mutation rates instead of using actual human mutation rates?
. . . .
Keeping our eyes on the science, Behe’s hypothesis (which he misrepresents as fact) suggests radically different strategies for both drug choice and design than does sequential acquisition (particularly including recombination). If he really believes that two substitutions must occur simultaneously, he should be working in his lab instead of doing book tours.
. . . . .
Behe is blowing the smoke here.
. . . .
In my real scientific world, the ecological and experimental data complement each other. Neither replaces the other. We won’t know which substitutions in CQR haplotypes do what until someone does the experiments in the lab.
Would you like to bet some money on what will be found?
. . . .
God forbid you might abandon the “purely random” canard. That would represent real intellectual progress.

Date: 2007/07/10 11:11:09, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (hooligans @ July 10 2007,10:05)
Would you pass Dembski's Final Exam on Rhetoric?

Probably not: and it's my field.  Aside from the ridiculous final question, the whole thing is designed by a philosopher, and philosophers generally have contempt for rhetoric.  Questions are either pointless or philosophical, based on some crudely wielded concepts in logic.

Date: 2007/07/10 16:01:05, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 10 2007,13:21)
Quote (lkeithlu @ July 10 2007,13:18)
Finally, a response to ICR:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/creatio....re-2493

Good bit:

 
Quote
If ID theories were viewed as hypotheses like any other hypotheses in science, then it is easy to see the fallacies Morris is (perhaps inadvertently) promoting.



Emphasis Mine.

And if their conjectures were read as hypotheses... You see ID is SO sciency, all their stuff gets a free upgrade.

Boy, check out the comments on that ICR post. Soooo much contorting to avoid, yet also confirm, that ID is religious.  

Not "Christian"?  No.
But not-not-Christian either.
Not-not Christian?  How about not-not-not-Chirstian?  
No, rather: not-not-not-not-Christian.  

Sal's contortions are so elaborate, they remind me of something I saw on a hotel TV late one night. . . .

Date: 2007/07/10 20:13:26, Link
Author: Hermagoras
May I point out that the plagiarism analogy is very poor?  First, accusations of plagiarism can arise from "mutations" (e.g., copying without the requisite quotation marks).  More importantly, plagiarism is not about design: it's about intent.  There is no one design or set of designs that points toward plagiarism.  Rather, there are a set of resemblances (among memes?) which may be chains of words but may be something else (ideas, concepts, musical notes, etc.)  

There are about a hundred other problems with the analogy, but as the director of a writing program, I have to deal with this stuff all the time, and plagiarism is rarely clear-cut.

Date: 2007/07/10 22:04:09, Link
Author: Hermagoras
scordova appeasing the young-earthers:
   
Quote
I personally think the YEC hypothesis is promising, but we’re light years away from a serious scientific, empirically defensible theory. (emphasis added)

Light years?  Oh no you Di'n't!

Date: 2007/07/11 11:46:27, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Louis @ July 11 2007,10:43)
Quote (guthrie @ July 11 2007,15:46)
It reminds me of a certain Prof Fuller and his work.  

(Work which, the online examples I could find, suggested he was so caught up in his own special view of science, through the sociology lense, he forgot to check if it bore any relation to reality.)

I'd love to talk to fuller, in a public place where we can laugh at him.

I have done this. Twice.

He's a very pleasant, very articulate and intelligent guy. To be blunt he's a good guy to have a beer with and an interesting conversationalist.

However (and you knew this was coming) some of his ideas are whackier than  Daffy Duck on acid, and I say this because I DO understand them, not because I don't. The problem I have is resolving the dilemma this causes: on one hand we have a very smart and accomplished bloke who I quite like, on the other hand we have a perpetrator of some of the most egregious antiscience drivel I have encountered.

Oh well

Louis

I've never met Fuller myself.  But he strikes me as being a very idiosyncratic cat among Science Studies people.  His work indicates that he thinks everybody else has gotten it completely wrong (which is why he cites himself so often).  He sure is prolific, though.

Date: 2007/07/11 13:06:33, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Zachriel @ July 11 2007,11:00)
Meanwhile, JAM is still slugging it out. Odd how researchers discuss all the various mechanisms involved in the emergence of resistance if all we really have to do is multiply two exponentials.

JAM has enormous, really heroic patience.  I'm kind of surprised he (?) hasn't been banned, but I think JAM's been very careful to keep the sarcasm to a minimum.

I think some IDers may learn something from JAM.  Maybe.  Probably wishful thinking. . . .

Date: 2007/07/11 15:35:29, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 11 2007,15:08)
Sal find the best he can say against JAM is the following
 
Quote
The bottom line is that Darwinism, in light of the very large number trials, was relatively slow to evolve resistance to CQ.

huh?  JAM posts a couple of hundred words a post, makes several distinct points and you refute him with that?

The whole of Sal's comment is worth repeating:  
Quote
Well then, how do you account for the fact CQR too longer to evolve than other forms atovaquone.

You’re persistent, JAM, and dialogue with you has been good practice at rhetoric, but I think you’re not persuading the ID side, and I’m not so sure your side is believing what you have to say.

The bottom line is that Darwinism, in light of the very large number trials, was relatively slow to evolve resistance to CQ.


WTF?  JAM has reduced Sal to complete grammatical incoherence in his first sentence.  Meanwhile, "Darwinism" is apparently a species.

Date: 2007/07/11 18:03:22, Link
Author: Hermagoras
DaveScot
Quote

JAM is no longer with us.


Well now.  That took longer than I thought.

Date: 2007/07/11 18:22:56, Link
Author: Hermagoras
gpuccio didn't get the memo:

 
Quote
JAM:

thank you for your comments. I’ll try to answer some of your points:

. . . .

I think I have answered your question, will you please answer mine?
. . . .
I only ask that you clarify, as briefly and clearly as possible, your statement that:
. . . .
Would you be so kind as to say something more?
. . . .
I would like you to specify better your thoughts.
. . . .
Have I understood well?
. . . .
I think we can discuss both explanations,
. . . .
That is Behe’s thesis, and to that you should give a reasonable answer.


Too late!

Date: 2007/07/11 19:30:57, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Holy shit!  It's a purge!
 
Quote
JAM is no longer with us.

Patrick Caldon is no longer with us.

Rather than add the Caldon ban in a separate comment, DaveScot edits the JAM ban.  Later, the pictures will be quietly airbrushed, Stalin-style.  
UD now:


UD tomorrow:

Date: 2007/07/11 19:42:59, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (stevestory @ July 11 2007,19:35)
Wow. The One-Comment Double Ban.

I heard rumors, but I thought it was just an urban legend.

:D

The one-comment double-ban is a tricky and dangerous maneuver, best attempted only by highly trained experts.  By attempting to "convert" a single ban to a double, DaveTard failed to "stick the landing" and will be out of commission for several days with a pulled groin.

Date: 2007/07/11 20:20:21, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Zachriel @ July 11 2007,20:14)
 
Quote (stevestory @ July 11 2007,19:35)
Wow. The One-Comment Double Ban.

I heard rumors, but I thought it was just an urban legend.

:D

JAM "I make my living designing mutations that enable proteins to utilize new substrates that aren’t found in nature." didn't stand a chance.

scordova        
Quote
You’re persistent, JAM, and dialogue with you has been good practice at rhetoric.

As any student of rhetoric will tell you, banning wins every argument.

But JAM has already had an effect, I think.  From Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric (U of Notre Dame Press, 1969), pp. 58-9:
 
Quote
Prohibition of the resumption of a given debate may be just as much a sign of intolerance as prohibition to question certain problems.  There is, however, one major difference: any final verdict, as long as it is conceived as such, will not be entirely detached from everything that preceded it.  From the moment the decision is taken, the social life of the community carries with it not merely the decision itself, but the arguments that preceded it.

Date: 2007/07/11 20:37:55, Link
Author: Hermagoras
scordova  salutes his masters:
Quote

Many thanks the admins for dispensing with jam.

Date: 2007/07/11 22:37:17, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 11 2007,22:12)
Meanwhile, the juggernaut moves on.

In his latest post, Sal claims victory on Behe's behalf, but fails to note that Behe's flailings on Amazon can't be challenged, since the comments are disabled there.

Heckuva job, Mikey. By now he's probably passed enough wordage that he could have written a grant proposal and a couple of papers.

Can I just piggyback on that to note a lie scordova told back in 06?  

Today he talked about John Sanford, "renowned [sic] Cornell geneticist."  The link he provided led me back to this, from a little over a year ago:
 
Quote
It would be easy to think from Jack [Kreb]’s characterization that Sanford rejects Darwinism because of his religious views, actually, it seems the opposite: Sanford adopted a religious view because he rejected Darwinism.

But in the very link Sal uses to support this claim (Sanford's Kansas testimony), Sanford tells the opposite story:
 
Quote
Q. So you-- 20 years ago you became a Christian and then at some subsequent time and you-- let me ask you this; do you use evolutionary biology in your operational science?

A. I don't use it. And when I was an evolutionist, I would have argued that evolutionary theory is critical to being a good scientist. I actually realized that it's-- my best science has been done since that time. I've also realized that historically all the founding fathers of science were non-evolutionists and many of them were anti-evolutionists. So I realized that good science is not in any way conditioned upon accepting the evolutionary theory.

Q. The-- is it fair to say then that-- well, you-- you tswitched from Christianity-- from atheism to Christianity 20 years ago and then there was a period of time where you were a-- I think you described a theistic evolutionist; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And then during that period of time, did you have any cause or reason to or did you challenge or critically analyze evolutionary theories?

A. I-- I did not generally question the-- the documents that I had been taught. They were like foundational beliefs and I did not generally question them.

Q. And then at some point in time something caused you to begin to question it?

A. So I had--

Q. Is that correct?

A. Yes. I had friends who basically said, have you looked at the other side? And I said, what other side? I honestly had been at Cornell at that point 20 years and I really did not know that there was a-- a legitimate position which could contest evolutionary assumptions.

Q. And so then you began to look at it critically?

A. I began to look at it critically and for several years I was intrigued by alternative explanations for many different things. And so this was a-- a time of great intellectual excitement for me. So looking at alternatives to evolution, I did not find mental-- mentally deadening but rather incredibly stimulating. And I basically went back and reassessed everything I had ever knew.

To recap:
1. Scordova says Sanford became anti-evolutionary before he became religious.  
2. Sanford, however, says he converted to Christianity first, then questioned Darwin.  

Did scordova ever correct this "egregious error"?  Will he?

Date: 2007/07/12 11:38:14, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 12 2007,10:41)
I don't know if this deserves its own thread or not, but you can all head over to Young Cosmos, Sal's blog (thanks to FtK for the initial link) and decide for yourself. Or maybe it's old news; I haven't been here long enough to know if it has already been discussed.

I gotta admit I was amused by Sal's notions about the best way to promote his own particular brand of woo.        
Quote
Soooooo, where was I headed with this. I think, rather than a $27,000,000 museum, a major motion picture of Noah’s ark with hydroplate theory is in order. Most of the flood movies were kind of bland. But man, a story with Nephilim, Dinosoars, an exploding Earth would be pretty exciting. We can kind of do it with the model of Princiess Bride, where we are taken to the modern day, and we look back as each piece of evidence is studied. I was thinking of tying it to the story of Astronaut Jim Irwin as he examines each piece of evidence and meets with the creation scientists. Then we’re taken back to flashbacks in the Genesis account.

I think the idea of infusing it into popular culture will be a more effective use of money. I could of course be wrong.

Lots of other (unwittingly) good stuff there too, of course.

Wow.  I didn't know Sal was a young-universe kind of person.  I noticed his post on Mantle Plumes and was truly flabbergasted.  
 
Quote
The demise of the mantle plume hypothesis will improve the chances of various YEC geologies, particularly Walter Brown’s hydroplate theory. If lava flow and plate techtonics can be refuted, then there is room for YEC geology to succeed. Hydroplate theory ties current volcanic activity and lava flow to the mechanisms that caused the great flood. Plate techtonics have a passing relation to mantle plume theory, and thus the demise of plumes furthers the chances of Brown’s hydroplate theory prevailing over old Earth, plate techtonics.

It would be good if Sal could start by spelling tectonics correctly.
(Unrelated plug: my sister is kind of an expert on the actual science on this issue.)

Date: 2007/07/12 12:04:11, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 12 2007,11:47)
Quote

It would be good if Sal could start by spelling tectonics correctly.
(Unrelated plug: my sister is kind of an expert on the actual science on this issue.)


Then send her to UD and see how long it takes for her to get banned. :p

Nah.  Life being short and all.

Date: 2007/07/12 21:50:56, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (JAM @ July 12 2007,15:06)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 12 2007,15:01)
Of course not, Jesus was watching.

Jokes aside, I'd like to know your impressions without having to wade through the sewage of another mind so soon after my UD marathon with Sal and Jehu.

Do you think we could be disciplined enough to test these rhetorical approaches experimentally?

Welcome, JAM!  I really enjoyed your work on UD.  As far as changing minds goes, their reaction to your arguments confirmed one of my favorite sentences in modern prose:

"In the confrontation between belief and evidence, belief is no pushover."

That's Barbara Herrnstein Smith, from her book Belief and Resistance: Dynamics of Contemporary Intellectual Controversy (Harvard UP, 1997).

Date: 2007/07/13 16:13:50, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Here's a brilliant new piece of fiction I'm working through slowly: Sacred Games by Vikram Chandra.  An enormous, sprawling crime novel set in Mumbai.  Filled with delicious writing.

Date: 2007/07/14 19:24:49, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 14 2007,14:37)
Quote (lkeithlu @ July 14 2007,13:48)
Does this make sense?

"PT: Just wondering. Have you ever been skeptical of skepticism? Doing so is required to be consistent in your philosophy in the Gödel sense. Otherwise your “method” is self refuting.

I’m up to being a skeptic of skeptical viewpoints about skepticism of skeptics and am working hard on the next meta level. It isn’t easy my friend, but it can be done. Baby steps, PT. The secret is baby steps. I know it’s rough - but we can do it! We can be skeptical of all things!"

http://www.uncommondescent.com/informa....omments

I just came in from working outside in the sun. Can't tell if I am addled or that really is as stupid as it sounds...

I read that earlier today and it didn't make sense. It still doesn't, and I have been inside keeping cool (and working on a manuscript) all day long.

When WAD goes into his Galapagos Finch mode, there is no limit to the inanity.

This is WmAD's attempted demolition of the spectre of relativism (here playing the role of "skepticism") through a clever word game and apparent paradox: the skeptic who is told to be skeptical of skepticism is supposed to muse on this for a half a minute before crying "Norman, co-ordinate" and then falling into a coma.*  This is because "skepticism" (or relativism, or what have you) is supposed to be self-contradictory.  These kinds of arguments are all related to the "Atheists have no reason to be moral" argument.

Apparently Dembski doesn't understand that "organized skepticism" is one of the norms of science (see Robert Merton).  


*Star Trek episode, "I, Mudd."

Date: 2007/07/14 19:30:03, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 14 2007,16:24)
Patrick wants a simpler answer.      
Quote
I think someone needs to summarize the argument and conclusions in this thread and post it as a front page thread.

That's actually pretty simple.

Sal posted a pile of dishonest crap.

JAM demolished that pile, and proceeded to bulldoze several other piles excreted by jehu, PaV et al.

Larry F, by now immune to the stench, wandered by and bitched about Judge Jones.

DT aroused himself from a diet-induced coma and banned JAM, and, for good measure, banned Patrick Caldon as well.

Sal kissed DT's behind for saving him from even more lying for Jebus.

The rest of the tardsters kept putting exponents up their noses for a while, talked about science as if they actually read peer-reviewed primary literature, and then congratulated themselves on fighting the good fight.

Now they feel so good about it that they think it should be repeated in a new post, unsullied by the likes of JAM and Patrick Caldon.

I actually agree with Patrick, because I think this all needs to be explained to someone with a lay understanding of the issues. However, my way of doing this would differ from what he hopes for.  Clearly, nobody at UD got the picture.  In particular, I don't think anybody over at UD got how Behe's confusion was related to the differences between molecular biology and population genetics.  I get that (and I also think, IIRC, that such confusions are present among mainstream molecular biologists, as well) but I don't have the tools to walk someone through it.  (If someone more expert wrote it up -- along the lines of "why don't IDers understand the flaws in Behe's math?" -- I'd be willing to help with the translation.)

Editedto clarify that although we can't create posts on UD, the need to clarify in simple terms what actually went on is real.

Date: 2007/07/20 16:17:53, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Such good tard.  I go on vacation, manage to login on my in-laws' kludgy computer and UD is down.  Perhaps Dr Dr Dembksi is correcting his degrees.

Date: 2007/07/20 16:28:06, Link
Author: Hermagoras
More Dr. Dr. Dembski while UD is down: his Jesus Math article (not the 1+1+1 = 3 proof  :D ) is listed on the Design inference web site as the "Lastest."  Also, it's the coolest and the bestest.

Date: 2007/07/20 17:59:43, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (ck1 @ July 20 2007,17:42)
   
Quote (JAM @ July 20 2007,17:20)
Is quoting an "accurate representation of data," Paul? Why is it that real scientists don't generally do it, and you fake scientists do it all the time?
   

This is an understatement.  I have never used a direct quote in any paper I have written, and the only paper I can think of from a peer-reviewed journal that makes liberal use of quotes is one that Afdave (remember him?) brought up a lot.  I guess this literary device appeals to creationists (because it is a common tactic in religous apologetics).

As a teacher of scientific writing, I totally agree with JAM.  Many of my undergraduate students were trained to cite in Freshman English classes, usually taught in English departments, where the rule is to cite via quotation.  This is a humanities model that is actually disabling in scientific education.  Students in scientific writing classes have to learn that scientists almost never quote (a few exceptions are almost always found in complex and anomalous articles such as, say, Gould and Lewontin's "Spandrel's" essay).  I comment briefly on this in a paper I published with Cary Moskovitz:

Moskovitz, Cary and David Kellogg. "Primary Science Communication in the First-Year Writing Course." CCC 57.2 (2005): 307-334.

For what it's worth, CCC is College Composition and Communication, the leading journal in the field.  (I'd quote the relevant passage here, but I'm on a relative's computer and don't have access to the paper directly.)  

I also have a reply to Paul Nelson's endlessly repeated comment re: figure sizes.  In general, as graphic design experts such as Edward Tufte have noted, scale provides information that is lost (!) when rescaling occurs without noting the activity.  Obviously some notation is better than none.  See his books The Visual Display of Quantitative Information and Envisioning Information.  If biology textbooks print such comparisons without a "not to scale" note, I actually agree with Nelson on this minor point.  But such failures to reach an ideal representation are (a) common throughout technical illustration, and (b) nothing compared with the regular and repeated distortions characteristic of the ID community.

Date: 2007/07/20 18:51:22, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Dembski's latest:  
Quote
Here’s a fun interview with my friend and colleague Robert Marks. I hope you catch from the interview the amibitiousness of the lab and how it promises to put people like Christoph Adami and Rob Pennock out of business (compare www.evolutionaryinformatics.org with devolab.cse.msu.edu).

Let the comparing (DING!) begin!

Date: 2007/07/20 19:04:12, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 20 2007,18:58)
 
Quote (stevestory @ July 20 2007,18:14)
Back when you guys imagined yourselves scientific revolutionaries, did you ever suspect this is how it would end up? No accomplishments, no theory, no experiments, no solution to any scientific problems whatsoever? Just sitting around complaining that an irrelevant aspect of a diagram maybe gave someone a wrong impression? While evolutionary science rolls on, unaffected, publishing thousands of papers a month. Looking back, would you have spend the last decade in the same way, if you could see that nothing would come of it?

Psalm 37:7  Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; do not fret when men succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes. 8  Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret--it leads only to evil. 9  For evil men will be cut off, but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land.

Or something like that.

I prefer the word of Jules:  
Quote
There's a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you. I been sayin' that sh** for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never really questioned what it meant. I thought it was just a cold-blooded thing to say to a motherf****r before you popped a cap in his ass. But I saw some sh** this mornin' made me think twice. Now I'm thinkin': it could mean you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. 9mm here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could be you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that. But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd.

Date: 2007/07/20 22:38:50, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (ck1 @ July 20 2007,21:17)
 
Quote (JAM @ July 20 2007,20:32)
Quote-mining also is a favorite of the equally corrupt animal-rights movement.

It is not the quote-mining I am referring to here (although doctored quotes are an obvious issue with creationists) - but the odd use of direct quotes to support an argument rather than a simple reference to the actual data.  This is not as much a question of dishonesty as it is a question of how arguments are made by actual scientists as opposed to religious apologists.

Is this use of direct quotes also seen with other denialists (HIV/AIDs, vaccine/autism, global warming...)?

ID produces no data as such, so it has nothing to pit against the scientific data.  ID's interpretive focus, and its use of quotes, is a direct consequence of this.  

This is, of course, an old creationist tactic.  Old-style creationists would acknowledge (for example) a universal genetic code, similar structures in related species, etc. etc. They would say that such evidence shows not universal common descent but a God with a common plan.  (The creationist god is like Isaiah Berlin's hedgehog: he's got just one good idea.)  

Creationists don't accept the claims of biology, but they have to deal with the data.  So for each claim, they focus on the warrant connecting them.  



All of the IDCs, from Johnson to Wells, practice what is essentially rhetorical criticism.

Date: 2007/07/21 20:54:08, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (GCT @ July 21 2007,17:12)
Maybe she's confusing Simon Baron-Cohen with Sacha Baron Cohen?


They're cousins, don'tcha know.

I maybe get to make sexy-time with Canada creatorish grandma, yes? Niiiice.

Date: 2007/07/21 21:06:00, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (BWE @ July 21 2007,19:51)
the blowjobs are sort of gratuitous. . .

I"m sorry, but this writing is jibberish.  You're making no sense at all.

Date: 2007/07/23 10:23:13, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Bob is upsetting the UDers.  The regulars over there are commenting in a way that often precedes a banning.

Date: 2007/07/24 10:03:17, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 24 2007,08:53)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 24 2007,08:49)
Come on, let's at least get the mythologies right... movie zombies eat brains, and the vampires suck blood. Mummies strangle,

Oh, sure. Next thing you will tell us is that they all evolved from a common, undead ancestor to fill those particular niches.

Well, there's this interesting discovery:

Quote
"The evidence of an evolutionary link between humans and skeletons is sparse at best," said Dr. Terrance Schneider of the University of Chicago. "Furthermore, it is downright unscientific to theorize that skeleton life originated in Egypt merely because mummies, another species of monster, are indigenous to the area. Spooky creatures are found all over the world, from the vampires of Transylvania to the headless horsemen of Sleepy Hollow."

Date: 2007/07/24 11:11:42, Link
Author: Hermagoras
I gotta say that I've always thought Pinker to be kind of a blowhard: he tends to simplify things a bit much (see The Blank Slate) and has a very high opinion of himself as a cutting-edge dude.  Plus he was on the wrong side in the Summers debacle.  But watching Denyse try to engage his not-very-good column with her own responsive idiocy . . . well, it's hard to describe.  Slow-motion train wreck, perhaps?

Date: 2007/07/24 17:58:01, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Oh my god Acquiesce is an idiot and and ass:
   
Quote
For the benefit of those lurkers not familiar with evolution theory, Bob is claiming that you cannot compare fitness (the number of surviving offspring). . . .

No, Bob already corrected you on the definition of fitness, to no avail.
   
Quote
Bob first replied by attacking my understanding of evolution theory (we call this ad hominem – attacking the person not his argument).

No, that's not ad hominem, you dope.  It's an inference from evidence.  Ad hominem is my calling you an idiot. Idiot.  
   
Quote
Then Bob suggested I learn from books written by famous, highly intelligent evolutionists who, by implication, know more about evolution than myself (we call this the argument from authority)

No, he didn't have time to educate you and thought you could benefit by reading some good books.  Argument by authority is something else.  
Etc., etc., etc.  Who has time to deal with this crap?

Date: 2007/07/24 18:02:15, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Over in the Exploring Evolution discussion I pointed out that IDers engage in what amounts to rhetorical criticism because they produce no actual evidence.  Nothing wrong with rhetoric; that's my bread and butter.  But as Acquiesce is showing right now, they can't even do that well: Acquiesce misunderstands every tactic he claims to find.  Every single one.  

Bob has infinite patience with these scruple-free morons, and yet  he has to defend his good intentions.

Date: 2007/07/25 12:06:19, Link
Author: Hermagoras
PaV accuses Bob thus:

Quote
you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world


How dare you take refuge in reality!

Date: 2007/07/28 11:13:54, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (jeannot @ July 28 2007,03:14)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 28 2007,00:06)
A masterpiece. But PLEASE tell me you're making this one up:

   
Quote
19 August 2005
My Retirement from Intelligent Design
William Dembski

The rancor and daily vilification directed at me by the Pandasthumb has finally taken its toll. Never a kind word or a gesture of appreciation for all I’ve done to advance science and enrich our understanding of the world.


(my boldfacing)

For the first time, Bill has left me speechless.

His contribution to the advancement of science can be assessed by the number of articles he published in scientific journals, ie none (PCID doesn't count).

What a clown, the true "Paris Hilton of information theory".  :D

I think he was trying to be funny -- making a joke about leaving ID to play piano -- but he has such a tin ear that he was only funny unwittingly about his non-contributions to science.

If Dembksi does play piano, it's hard to imagine him as a bluesman.  I tend to think ID's engineering/math/piano/chess software personality profile is classical in a tightly wound, mildly autistic sort of way.  For Dembski to play blues piano he'd have to embrace at least some elements of an improvisational tradition, which would open him up to (gasp!) chance.  So I don't see that happening.

Date: 2007/07/28 15:30:33, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (stevestory @ July 28 2007,14:35)
Quote (JAM @ July 28 2007,15:19)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 28 2007,11:13)
If Dembksi does play piano, it's hard to imagine him as a bluesman.  I tend to think ID's engineering/math/piano/chess software personality profile is classical in a tightly wound, mildly autistic sort of way.  For Dembski to play blues piano he'd have to embrace at least some elements of an improvisational tradition, which would open him up to (gasp!) chance.  So I don't see that happening.

As someone who loves to play the blues, I'm not sure you're being fair. First, the bobbing and weaving required to promote ID requires considerable improvisational skills, and ID itself is a wild improvisation only loosely based on science.

Second, the blues, despite involving improvisation, is otherwise one of the most highly structured musical genres.

I see Dembski playing a lousy, original blues lick for 36 bars straight while the crowd (if any) groans in pain, while he desperately hopes that repetition will make them embrace his creation.

doot-doot, doot doot
Got da Darwin hatin blues
doot-doot, doot doot
I got em real bad
doot-doot, doot doot
ID's down da tubes
doot-doot, doot doot
and it was the best cha-a-a-nce I ha-a-a-ad

Woke up early this morning / and it occurred to me
Yes, woke up bright and early / and it occurred to me
Ain't nobody can define / specified complexity

I got followers by the dozen / O we're a tight-knit bunch
Ban the mockers when I find them / or when Springer has a hunch
They buy my books and feed me / at least I get a free lunch

Date: 2007/07/28 21:29:26, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (stevestory @ July 28 2007,19:37)
I haven't even had a chance to read this article yet, I just got this issue today, and already Grandma Bonehead is trying to ruin it for me:

Quote
Apes R Not Us, and we have to get used to it
O'Leary

In a beautifully written article in the New Yorker, Ian Parker describes how he shared the hot, damp work of studying the elusive bonobo (lesser chimpanzee) - long lauded as sexy and peaceful - with one of the only people in the world who actually knows much about them in the wilds.

Well, people who actually studied the “hippie ape”, came away with a different view.

Posted in Intelligent Design | No Comments »


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....d-to-it

"Grandma Bonehead."  Fantastic.  Almost fell off my chair.

Date: 2007/07/29 07:19:18, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (JAM @ July 29 2007,01:25)
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 28 2007,15:30)
Woke up early this morning / and it occurred to me
Yes, woke up bright and early / and it occurred to me
Ain't nobody can define / specified complexity

I got followers by the dozen / O we're a tight-knit bunch
Ban the mockers when I find them / or when Springer has a hunch
They buy my books and feed me / at least I get a free lunch

I like it, but I to make it work, you need to sing it as far behind the beat as you can stand, and then some.

Can I get some songwriting credit if I add the chords?  :D

Have at it.

Date: 2007/07/29 17:54:12, Link
Author: Hermagoras
bFast serves the Tard in thick, juicy slices:  
Quote
I, for instanct, am quite convinced that man truly has free will. If God ultimately controlls each particle/wave then free will does not exist. My theistic perspective, therefore, is that there is something truly outside of God’s control within the universe, something that God chose to give up control of.

Whew!  I'm glad this is a science blog and not, for "instanct," a religion blog.

Date: 2007/08/01 20:53:51, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (JAM @ Aug. 01 2007,14:22)
 
Quote (Rob @ Aug. 01 2007,13:12)
In his debate with Professor Olofsson, kairosfocus comes across as much more knowledgeable than most of Dembski's defenders, but he still manages to fall for Dembski's specious rhetoric... It would be interesting to talk with him outside of the UD cloister.

Really?

Try reading 3 of his comments and see if you're feeling as charitable. Sitting next to kairosfocus on a transcontinental flight would unquestionably lead to severe nausea, if not self-perforation of my eardrums with one of those plastic airline knives.

I've been traveling for a couple of days and my crappy motel didn't have an internet connection in my room.  (The Comfort Inn in Newark, Delaware is a fleabag horror-show).  

I come back to find a fascinating new character on UD, Professor Oloffson, and this little moment by the inimitable Kairosfocus:  
Quote
there is serious reason to infer that Mr Sokal betrayed a trust put in him by the editors of the relevant experimental journal, then trumpeted it to the world as a triumph.

Social Text is an experimental journal?  Like PISCID is  (excuse me, was) peer-reviewed, I suppose.

(For the record, I think the Sokal affair is fairly complicated, and I'm on the side of many so-called "social constructivists," including Latour and Pickering.  But that's just idiotic.)

Date: 2007/08/03 00:47:50, Link
Author: Hermagoras
My contribution to the Young Cosmos rhetoric forum:
Quote
Rhetoric is civic discourse. It depends on the willingness to engage the other. Given the passionate commitment of participants in the YEC debate, it's not surprising that passions get engaged.

In this regard, notions of "politeness" can morph very easily, and have already on these forums, into practices of policing that always end up protecting the owners of the forum. The Young Comos "discussion" forums are quickly morphing into a set of manifestly unfair forums -- among the least fair I've ever seen -- where "civility" is used like a cudgel and rhetorically suspect practices (such as changing the words of a poster) are not treated as gross violations of decent practice.

Date: 2007/08/03 01:20:11, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 02 2007,15:51)
 
Peter Olofsson,


  meet the legendary DaveScot.

Olofsson looks kind of like a sexier Phillip Seymour Hoffman.  No comments about DaveScotSpringer.

Date: 2007/08/03 08:21:02, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 03 2007,06:54)
Sal is, of course, a dishonest coward.

Always has been.

Always will be.

Let's see how long I last over  there:

Quote
The moderators seem to have taken Tiggy's posts and moved them silently to a location called "the recycle bin." These posts are apparently called "uncivil" because they say that Sal doesn't know what he's talking about with respect to C14 and that Sal's "refutation" of C14 by means of random numbers is "stupid."  Apparently such comments are deemed too much for the delicate sensibilities of the moderators.  So:

Forums then:


Forums now:

Date: 2007/08/03 08:32:17, Link
Author: Hermagoras
My latest at Sal's fiefdom, while I still can:

Quote
SC sez:

Quote
After ignoring my querry [sic] to do a simply calculation, I do the calculations.

Tiggy then offers his unuseful opinion after I make the calculations. Tiggy's posts on my C-14 thera [sic] are subject to the follwoing [sic] rule: If I find them uninformative, they'll end up in the recycle bin.

He can reciprocate on any thread he starts and treat me the same way. He is a co-moderator in that respect. Although, I have no intention of making too many appearances on his threads if any at all.

Offering the opponent a chance at reciprocal moderation abuse is hardly symmetrical behavior. especially when the major dialogue opponent refuses to engage in any forum he does not control.  

Date: 2007/08/03 10:36:38, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 03 2007,09:44)
Oops!  Two other posters noticed the rash of deletions, and had the nerve to question the Mighty Sal

     
Quote
chunk: Hi,
If you believe in freedom of expression why are you editing peoples posts and deleting peoples accounts and posts?

/confused


     
Quote
rrf:Sal quoting from John Stuart Mill

     
Quote
But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. …


You know, Sal, as you pretend to honor Mill while concurrently editting and deleting the comments of dissenting posters, you would do well to remember Psalm 101:7 which says "No one who practices deceit will dwell in my house; no one who
speaks falsely will stand in my presence."


Sal deleted these from the Board Comments as soon as he saw them, but forgot that they are still visible in the Recycle bin.

Hermagoras' posts (see above) got waxed too.

Looks like Sal has a mini palace revolt on his hands.   :p

How old is Sal anyway?  He seems like such a child.

Date: 2007/08/03 10:59:37, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 03 2007,10:37)
Hermagoras:

     
Quote

especially when the major dialogue opponent refuses to engage in any forum he does not control.


I limit where I will participate, but I know of some open fora that I don't control that I would trust for a discussion, the USENET newsgroup talk.origins being the most prominent. I have tried to treat discussions where I am moderator with care; you may have noticed that any post that I edit automatically is labeled as having been edited by me. So far, my changes to content of comments has been limited to fixing up broken URLs and the like. Spam gets deleted on sight, and banned people's comments are likewise deleted as they are recognized.

Sal Cordova himself has previously used the fora here to criticize things I've written, and his posts, filled with falsehoods as they are, remain unmolested here.

Cordova:

     
Quote

His posts violated forum rules and thus were free game for mutilation and humiliation and pranking. It was marginally entertaining.


I have found that Sal's comments require no further changes to be humiliating. Of course, humiliation requires a capacity to experience shame, and it appears that many antievolutionists have a conscience-ectomy at the same time they get their moral compass degaussed, depriving them of a range of human experience that would be good for them.

We all limit where we will participate.  What Sal has done is egregious on many, many levels, as I am pointing out:

Quote
scordova"
Quote
reciprocal opportunity is Tiggy setting up his own website and seeing who wants to listen to him and engage his arguments

Invitation to the public to participate is dropped.  People interested in sophistry rather than science are shown the door.  You can set up your forum the way you want.

I have prominently posted critical objections to my ideas by qualified scientists like Dr. Cheesman and Dr. Jellison in this forum.  Tiggy couldn't even solve a simple algebra problem yet claimed years of grad level math.  Heck,the problem was hardly arithmetic!

His posts violated forum rules and thus were free game for mutilation and humiliation and pranking.  It was marginally entertaining.


Not really.

Show me one respectable board where the moderator plays by your rules (mutilating posts and only acknowledging such mutilation when caught).  It's unethical behavior, pure and simple.  Besides, Tiggy's posts were not ad hominem. They questioned your behavior, not your person.  If anything was off-topic, your algebra problem was.  Why should Tiggy be your performing monkey when you won't even answer his on-topic questions and when you ask him questions in a thread to which you will not admit him entry?

Date: 2007/08/03 11:05:17, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Please join my thread The Rhetoric of Moderation over at Young Cosmos.  I do not believe Sal can remove items from this thread without my permission, unless he violates his own stated rules.  (Well, I mean violates them worse than he usually does.)

Date: 2007/08/03 11:26:57, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Sal responds to my challenge.  Kind of.

I wrote:
 
Quote
Addendum: I started this thread and so I decide who gets invited. And I say everybody should come here (Sal included), discuss the rhetoric of moderation, and nobody on this thread should be moved to the Recycle Bin. Those are my rules.

Sal responds:
 
Quote
I will do my best to honor them.


WTF?  How hard is it to honor?  Just don't kick anybody off.

Date: 2007/08/03 11:44:22, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 03 2007,11:41)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 03 2007,12:05)
I do not believe Sal can remove items from this thread without my permission,

Oh, to be young and naive again...

:p

he he.  

Meanwhile, Sal responds:

 
Quote
Regarding moderation and rhetoric.

One rhetorical move is:

1. Heckle and troll an otherwise sound argument

2. The Heckler gets himself tossed

3. The Heckler claims his arguments were so powerful and could not be dealt with therefore the orthodoxy had to resort to Draconian measures

Tiggy's rhetorical maneuvers were excellent tactics for shutting down debate. It is known as "the nuclear option".

Contrast the treatment I gave Tiggy versus the critiques of my ideas prominently posted and highlighted in this forum

My critics like Dr. Cheesman and Dr. Jellison have forced several reversals and retractions of ideas I and other YECs have held. I and Barry have publicly acknowledge them.

I removed Tiggy because Heckler's can destroy a good rhetorical exchange. The ARN Rule 9 was to allow one-on-one or limited debate to take place and drive Hecklers from the fray.

I allowed some Heckling by Tiggy, but when a concerted spam attack was mounted on the forum last night, I decided enough was enough.

Sooooo, the bottom line. Good rhetorical exchanges need to allow order and exclusion.

Not hecklers shouting at each other. Heckling and shouting matches destroy interest level by the readers.

Finally, my absolute disdain for Tiggy's stupidity was showing, and that did not reflect well on me. When some loser like Tiggy claims to have grad level math and can't solve a high school algebra problem, I flip my lid. It's ok not to be able to solve a math problem. But for Tiggy to be claiming intellectual superiority when it's so obvious the guy is clueless, I quickly lose patience.

I think, "why the hell do I have to deal with such scum." It's better for my sanity to keep heckler out of my sight


To which I respond:

 
Quote
I did not think Tiggy's questions were either stupid or answered. He asked about multiple confirming lines of evidence with respect to C14 data. In response, you quoted a 30 year old paper which has gotten almost no attention in the scholarly literature and asked him to prove his bona fides by solving an algebra problem. Further, you accused him of engaging in circular reasoning when he clearly was not.

You say he could not solve the problem. I say he did not, and that it was irrelevant.

Finally, you're right that your disdain "did not reflect well on [you]." Nor does this post. What kind of person talks of other people as "scum"?

Date: 2007/08/03 11:50:58, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 03 2007,11:47)
Things are not going well for Sal.

No indeed.  I refrained from commenting on his final sentence:

 
Quote
It's better for my sanity to keep heckler out of my sight.


I think anybody who's openly worried about his sanity should stay off the Intertubes.

Date: 2007/08/03 11:51:40, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 03 2007,11:50)
You're not going to win a debate on a forum Salvador controls. You're going to make him look stupid, and then get banned and whitewashed.

Natch.

Edit: That's why I'm copying my posts over here.

Date: 2007/08/03 12:10:57, Link
Author: Hermagoras
The latest:

Hermagoras:      
Quote
I did not think Tiggy's questions were either stupid or answered.

Sal:      
Quote
I'm quite sure it appeared that way to you.

I'm well aware from a rhetorical perspective the advantage the other side has in preying upon the lack of familiarity by the audience with the subject matter.

Then chunk complains I haven't convinced him. I ask if he even understands rate constants or read the papers. Attributing his lack of understanding to my inability to explain is infuriating. It does not reflect well on me when this button is pushed.

It would be like me spending two hours giving a mathematicl proof for something, and then someone casually saying, "I don't see your point." I then realize they didn't even understand the basics and are uwilling to even learn the basics before they offer reasoned critiques. I honestly thought to myself, "YOU RETARD, you complain I didn't explain myself well, when in fact it's your inability to understand the science."

I'm willing to help and teach, I'm uwilling to spoon feed. When I get objections from people demanding to be spoon fed, I'll happily shove the spoon down their throat. When I get that mad, it does not reflect well on me or this forum.

In contrast, someone willing to learn, who does not know anything, I'm willing to teach.

Let me just pause for a moment to say, what an a*****e.

Whew.  I feel better.  

Ok, now I, Hermagoras, respond:
     
Quote
Wow. Condescend much? You have no idea how much I know or don't know about the issues.

As for your opponents generally on C14, they can't all be stupid -- unless my merely mentioning the overwhelming scientific consensus constitutes an illegitimate appeal to authority.

A gedanken experiment: If you submitted your graph in a paper to a real scientific journal, would they reject it because (a) they adhere to the Darwinian conspiracy, (b) they're "retards," (c ) they're embarrassed to be proven wrong by some young pup like yourself, or (d) your argument is wrong? Or would they just give up?

A final observation: Your violent fantasies are disturbing. If you're really worried about your sanity, as you implied earlier, you should consider whether running a contentious forum is a good idea for you.

Date: 2007/08/03 12:49:32, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Rob @ Aug. 03 2007,12:25)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 03 2007,12:10)
Wow. Condescend much? You have no idea how much I know or don't know about the issues.

As for your opponents generally on C14, they can't all be stupid -- unless my merely mentioning the overwhelming scientific consensus constitutes an illegitimate appeal to authority.

A gedanken experiment: If you submitted your graph in a paper to a real scientific journal, would they reject it because (a) they adhere to the Darwinian conspiracy, (b) they're "retards," (c ) they're embarrassed to be proven wrong by some young pup like yourself, or (d) your argument is wrong? Or would they just give up?

A final observation: Your violent fantasies are disturbing. If you're really worried about your sanity, as you implied earlier, you should consider whether running a contentious forum is a good idea for you.

That was simply awesome.  When Sal starts swearing, you know you're doing something right.

Ah but Sal's responded.  He says it's all in Bender's 1974 letter to Nature (quote-mined by creationist RH Brown).  So Sal
responds:
Quote
The answer was given by Bender:

Quote:
"The differences [re 14C age] can be reconciled if it is assumed that the 14C age is wrong, but such an assertion would undermine other conclusions."

They would reject it because it does not conform to what they believe to be true. Darwinian evolution takes precedence over physical evidence.

The scientific community had people who were fully cognizant of these problems.

I have far less at stake than they do if I'm wrong. For me, a little embarassment. For them, it means everything they lived for was false.


Fortunately, I can read the original.  So I respond:
Quote
Again with the Bender. You're taking one sentence out of a 33 year old letter to Nature that has had virtually no impact. Google Scholar has it cited 5 times, and 2 of those cites are by creationists: Brown and Gish. So I'd say its impact is virtually nil.

Why? Perhaps because Bada, who is the target of Bender's critique, gave a devastating reply in the same issue. (This is not cited by Brown. I wonder why?) Bada's response begins:

Quote:

Bender's review of my work is both inaccurate and incomplete. He has not cited two of my publications dealing with aspartic acid racemisation dating. (Although one paper was only recently published. I sent Bender a preprint the first or this year when he informed me he was writing a review.) In those articles I show that after ‘calibrating' the amino acid racemisation reactions using a radiocarbon dated bone, it is then possible to date other bones from the same site, which are either too old or too small for radiocarbon dating. The only assumption in this approach is that the average temperature experienced by the calibration sample is representative of the average temperature experienced by the other sample. Ages thus deduced are in good agreement with radiocarbon ages determined on the same samples.

No wonder nobody took Bender's critique seriously since then. Meanwhile Brown quotes one sentence as though it proves something and you quote indirectly (via Brown) rather than from the original paper. If you'd read the original, as I have, you'd see that it was dispatched immediately.

Date: 2007/08/03 13:04:23, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Because I can't resist:
Quote
About Bender (now at Princeton).  He seems like a fine scientist.  Note that he's not published any rebuttal of Bada since 1974.  So if his 1974 critique was so great, why hasn't he picked up on it?  He provides the answer in his final paragraph:
Quote
Their findings, and the fact that reasonable ages and temperatures are sometimes obtained, indicates that the method has potential. It clearly faces many basic problems, however, and in my opinion no palaeoclinatic or geochronological inferences should be drawn from racemisation data until the basic geochemistry is thoroughly understood and the bases or the method firmly established.

Since then, of course, the geochemistry has advanced considerably.  Bender, as a major geochemist, has apparently not seen fit to attack the dating method since 1974.  Which suggests that quoting that 1974 paper (indirectly, via Brown) as support of anything today is not really going to solve anything.  

Are you saying he's some sort of a coward or co-conspirator?  Or perhaps a "retard"? Or, maybe, you know, "scum"?

Date: 2007/08/03 13:45:31, Link
Author: Hermagoras
And finally:

Quote
scordova wrote:
I'm suggesting the racemization data as it stands shows serious systematic errors in C-14 dating.


I've probably missed it, but I haven't seen you quote from any contemporary scientific literature on the issue, so it's hard to see any contact with the literature "as it stands." Rather, you quote (via a secondary source) a sentence from a 33 year old rebutted letter.

I have recently learned of the competing terms "quote mining" and "literature bluffing" to refer to various tactics allegedly used by opponents in this debate.

This example isn't literature bluffing, since it shows no contact with the recent literature. But it's sure quote mining.

I think this is a common rhetorical tactic of creationists: take a sentence, quote it out of context, and then circulate it -- it's a game of "telephone" or what the British sometimes call "Chinese whispers." What it is not is a responsible use of sources.

Again, I'm pointing out something very specific about the rhetoric of this debate.

Date: 2007/08/03 13:48:22, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Rob @ Aug. 03 2007,13:26)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 03 2007,12:51)
By the way, Granville, can your side get some new f&%$ing arguments?

 
Quote
Claim CF001:
The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 38-46.


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

1974 is bleeding edge for ID.  kairosfocus defends ID by quoting Plato!

Interesting. I'm going the rounds with Sal right now on a quote-mine from 1974 (on Young Cosmos, rhetoric thread).

Does a convergence of 1974 references constitute CSI?

--
http://paralepsis.blogspot.com

Date: 2007/08/03 14:10:58, Link
Author: Hermagoras
OK, Sal has now officially gone round the tardy twist.

Just read it.  I can't bear to quote any more of this crap.

Date: 2007/08/04 09:30:49, Link
Author: Hermagoras
bornagain77 knows where the exclamation point! is! on his keyboard!!!! and hits it!  It's hard evidence!    
Quote

Hawkeye:
You always refer to highly speculative evidence and ignore the conclusive evidence that is in favor of ID.
The hard evidence indicates complex photosynthetic life appeared on earth as soon as it was possible. Does that hard fact even phase you? The simplest bacteria ever found on earth is exceedingly more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. That is a hard fact Hawkeye!!! You can postulate abiogenesis all you want but you have absolutely no hard physical evidence to back you up! The harmful mutation rate to DNA is proven to have an extremely high rate of deletirious [sic] mutations, the majority of these mutations are proven to be slightly detrimental, thus below the culling power of natural selection. You have no mechanism for change since genetic entropy is now proven with hard evidence to be a fact of biology!
Similarities or homologies do you absolutely no good until you prove with hard science that the change is possible. The hard science proves it won’t happen.

Emphases added in hardbold.
Bornagain has a "hard" on.  But he still doesn't know what "evidence" is, and as for "prove" . . . . Well.

Date: 2007/08/04 09:38:02, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Give me some love, peoples:
scordova:    
Quote
I was trying to point out the focus on rhetoric can compromise the focus on facts. The racemization data are facts. Opinions, even by scientists are secondary. Even less relevant to truthfulness are the rhetorical forms used to debate the issue.

When engineers build spaceships they'll either fly or not. The rhetoric they use to claim their invention will work is irrelevant to the truthfulness of the claim.

If you are making judgement based on the rhetorical form I used, that can only have traction if I used an invalid illogical rhetorical construct. The more important question is whether the math, physics, and chemistry are correct when argued from first principles.

Tiggy could not refute the math. Heck, he couldn't even do it.

Hermagoras (using Tiggy/OC's fine post here as inspiration):
   
Quote
This is rich, considering that the vast majority of ID and creationist writing amounts to rhetorical critique.

You didn't actually provide any facts or data.

Let me point out again that Tiggy didn't try to refute the math because that wasn't his point. His point was rather about the use of the math. I believe the term you engineers use is "GIGO."

The fact that nobody who actually works in the field would accept your critique suggests that something's at issue besides the blindness or stupidity of everybody but you. Unless you're really the smartest guy ever (but that position has already been claimed by autodidact DaveScot at UD).

Date: 2007/08/04 19:38:12, Link
Author: Hermagoras
My favorite post to Sal ever.  Do you think he'll get the double meaning of the last paragraph?  

 
Quote
Following up on some comments earlier:
 
Quote
I was trying to point out the focus on rhetoric can compromise the focus on facts.The racemization data are facts.

A couple of points:
1. You continue to have a really strange view of rhetoric, one that is best described as outdated.  In this statement, for example, you hold to a notion of "rhetoric vs. facts," as though facts can be known outside of their articulation.  Rhetoric is nowadays best understood as "a way of knowing," that is, as epistemic.  

2. Which data are facts?  The ones you posted that were admittedly made up?  

 
Quote
Opinions, even by scientists are secondary. Even less relevant to truthfulness are the rhetorical forms used to debate the issue.


I won't comment on the even cruder distinction between "fact" and "opinion," which is one that I complicate in the first day of the composition classes I teach.  Suffice it to say that you set up this forum by declaring your stated interest in the importance of rhetoric.  For you to dismiss it now as not "relevant to truthfulness" (in a creationist forum, I want to say "truthiness") is a bit strange.  But that is the way of your flock.  A great many of your compatriots spend the bulk of their time doing nothing but rhetorical criticism.  That's where I would put Jonathan Wells's Icons and pretty much the entire output of Philip Johnson.  Dembski is more than rhetoric in philosophical drag: his work also includes pseudo-mathematics and theology ("explanations of the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing," as Mencken put it).  But "rhetoric" suddenly becomes unimportant when you think you've got a fact in your hand -- when in fact, you don't even have one in the bush.  

 
Quote
When engineers build spaceships they'll either fly or not. The rhetoric they use to claim their invention will work is irrelevant to the truthfulness the claim.


That's interesting but wrong.  Didn't you take technical writing?  The rhetoric of documentation in engineering is crucial to whether it will fly or not.  For example, one of the most important thinkers in visual rhetoric of science, Edward Tufte of Yale, has blamed the rhetorical structure of PowerPoint for the Columbia disaster.  See his Beautiful Evidence (Graphics Press)  for details.
 
Quote
If you are making judgement based on the rhetorical form I used, that can only have traction if I used an invalid illogical rhetorical construct. The more important question is whether the math, physics, and chemistry are correct when argued from first principles.

I'm actually judging based on your failure to provide actual evidence.  Like your man Dembski, you are overrating the importance of philosophy in science (hence words like "invalid," "illogical," and "first principles").  

Look, I don't know you.  But I'd bet dollars to donuts you've never really been trained in how dating works.  You've never dated anything yourself, and you're arguing from the literature rather than from experience.  Am I wrong?


Seriously, I'm really proud of that last paragraph.

Date: 2007/08/04 19:54:21, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 04 2007,19:46)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 04 2007,19:38)
Look, I don't know you.  But I'd bet dollars to donuts you've never really been trained in how dating works.  You've never dated anything yourself, and you're arguing from the literature rather than from experience.  Am I wrong?

Seriously, I'm really proud of that last paragraph.

Hermagoras

You SHOULD be proud of that last paragraph.

But I can't imagine that Sal will ever get it.

Which, of course, makes it even more delicious!

Well done.

Thanks!  

Disclaimer: as a major free speech advocate, I'm not against learning from "the literature" (wink wink).  In fact, I spent most of my teen years deeply immersed in "the literature."  But what I learned was unrealistic, and real-world experience tempered my views.

Date: 2007/08/04 20:54:56, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 04 2007,20:45)
A look into the Recycle Bin over at Young Cosmos offers some interesting, if disturbing, insights into the machinations taking place inside Sal's noggin.  He apparently commandeers people's login, and post the most juvenile of rants under their name, then may even follow up using other pseudonyms.  

I guess I understand why he doesn't have moderator duties over at UD.  He could actually make UD even more of a farce.

Holy thread convergence, Batman!  My post on this very practice of moving and erasure used Stalin's picture editing as an example, and has itself been removed to the recycle bin, thus perfectly illustrating  my point.  :angry:  

And then . . . wait for it . . . someone at Uncommonly Dense mentions the Stalin editing in the comments following that strange Dembski rant about the (non) editing of some comments by Wolpert.  

Naturally, the commenter gets it wrong on the specifics as well, adding Lenin to what was really Stalin's practice of removing Trotsky and other former friends from pictures.

Date: 2007/08/05 00:11:19, Link
Author: Hermagoras
One more before I turn in:

Quote
Here's an interesting thing, Sal.  You write:

Quote
With no training in 2004 I deduced Reiner von Protch's [sic] numbers (which by the way are represented by some dots in that graph), were fabricated, bogus, and useless. He got away with fraud for 30 years. I'd say, even with no training, I can smell a rat. But you don't have to believe one iota of what I say.


I found where you made this claim on Uncommon Descent, but only after von Protsch's fraud was discovered.  Should I believe that you found this out months earlier?  Should I ask you to prove that you knew von Protsch was fraudulent  before anybody else?  That's an extraordinary claim to make, and yet you've provided no evidence for it.  

Why is this relevant?  Because you say that Tiggy could not do the math you asked him to do.  But if your asking was a red herring (as I think it was), and not relevant, then he has no reason to prove his bona fides to you.  The thing is, I think that Tiggy could do the math, but chose not to because he recognized that it was not relevant to his original, unanswered question.  

As to your ability to concede some points: Congratulations.  I agree that your conversation with Jellison, for example, was unproblematic because, as you put it:

Quote
1. He knows what he is talking about
2. He doesn't willfullly [sic] misrepresent others
3. He is cordial and civil
4. He takes time to understand the opposing position, spending hours analyizing [sic] it and carefully considering it, going to great pains to represent it accurately.


These are all behaviors characteristic of Dr. Jellison in that exchange.  I am not sure they represent your behavior in, for example, your exchange with Tiggy.

Date: 2007/08/05 09:26:11, Link
Author: Hermagoras
tribune7, patronizing tard
Quote

Oh yes, the pillars and the roof. Sure, we all infer design when we see them beacuse we know what they are,
Not always. Sometimes we just find piles of broken stone, but we still infer they were once pillars.
not because we run them through the explanatory filter. How would you even do that?
That’s one of the neat things about Dembski’s work. Design exist, it can be inferred and Dembski is trying to present a way in which it can be quantified.
Now there is room for improvement, but you have to admit it is an interesting and worthy endeavor. Since, you have a background in statistics get in now on the pioneering stage and you might be mentioned in a textbook 120 years down the road.

Date: 2007/08/05 10:48:03, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 05 2007,08:40)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Sal is getting tired of being publicly humiliated on his own forum, so he's making YC invitation only

   
Quote
Asshat Cordova: Finally, things could get awfully boring at YoungComsos from now on. We're closing the gates and making it an invitation only forum. I will aim for dialogue like I had with the qualified scientists here.


If you can't stand the heat, run screaming from the kitchen. :D  :D  :D

I've responded to Sal's latest rant with selections from OA/Tiggy's message to me.  Thanks for permitting me to do that.  Let's see if he bans me for bringing you back in by proxy.

Date: 2007/08/05 12:06:32, Link
Author: Hermagoras
And again:

 
Quote
scordova wrote  
Quote

There is a different interaction when trying to persuade than when trying to solicit corrective review and feedback.


Hey, what do you know?  We agree.  I'm sorry, however, that you're getting this impression:

 
Quote
I'm getting the impression you're trying to put a one size fits all evaluation of what I write. What the rhetoric applied in one venue (like UD) is inappropriate for another (the discussion forum).


The problem, IMO, is that although there are important differences between the kinds of rhetorical moments you identify, they are really points on a continuum and the boundaries are very, very fuzzy.

Consider what happens when a scholar submits a work for publication.  Now, there is a crucial sense in which the work is persuasive: in the first instance, the contributing author is trying to convince two anonymous peers that the work is worth publishing.  Later, should the work be published, one goal is to convince readers that the work is correct.  (Note that I'm using "convince" for your "persuade"; these have subtly distinct meanings in rhetoric.  One form of the distinction is that people are convinced of a view but persuaded to action.  We might say, for example, that some author(s) are trying to persuade others to perform follow-up experiments.)  

OK, so in all of these ways the work attempts to persuade (or convince).  The act of seeking publication is even kind of aggressive, in that the author(s) think the work should be out there and that it demands attention (at least of the tenure committee!;).  

But there are other ways that the act of seeking publication is profoundly submissive.  We say that works are "submitted" for publication, and the word is meaningful.  The authors will (generally) submit to the judgment of the peer reviewers.  The authors will (generally) submit later to the scientific reception of the work.  Publication is an attempt an convincing and/or persuading, yes, but it is also and at the same time a submission to the judgment of the scientific community.  

The problem I'm seeing is that it's not clear where this forum lies, or what the boundaries are.  For example, you've been persuaded to drop some of your arguments.  Good: that shows something, including that the forum may be persuasive from the perspective of the other (if not from your perspective).  But in a dialogic forum, persuasion and convincing go on all the time.  Perhaps your recent decision to close the forum to all but the invited is an acknowledgment of the ambiguous status of forums like this.  But as I've suggested earlier, it's easy to use doctrines like "civility" to avoid uncomfortable questions.  

Aristotle famously defined rhetoric as "the counterpart of dialectic."  The precise meaning of this phrase has been debated ever since, but the general view now is that rhetoric and dialectic are not easily separated -- no more than "fact" and "theory," to go back to my old debate (cut off at UD) with Gil Dodgen.


Visible here, at least for the moment.  ???

Date: 2007/08/05 13:19:59, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Occam's Aftershave: Thanks.  I do what I can.

Date: 2007/08/05 14:12:58, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Again with Sal.

 
Quote
Hermagoras sez:  
Quote
Sal, you're going to have to help me out on this, because I'm no expert.  You write:
 
Quote
Tiggy has misrepresented my views. The green line represents what racemization rates would look like if they were unchanging. It does not mean I believe or I assume they do not change, because we know they do. Tiggy employed a strawman rhetorical form and attributed arguments and ideas to me which I did not make, nor intended to make.


But earlier you wrote:

 
Quote
The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie. There is of course some temperature issues, but I will visit that in a subsequent post and respond to the supposed exterme error problems and show they objections are insufficient to weaken the plausibility C-14 dating is badly flawed beyond about 1000 years.


If "The green line represents what racemization rates would look like if they were unchanging," and "The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie," then doesn't it follow that good data (for you) correspond with unchanging rates?

Date: 2007/08/05 17:05:34, Link
Author: Hermagoras
So Sal has responded:

 
Quote
Good data correspond to changing rates that are changes within reasonable physical and chemical limits. The green line represents the ideal, and some amount of variation from the ideal is permissible. Too much variation from the ideal ought to raise suspicion!

Some of the dots are well beyond reasonable physical and chemical limits, so much so that some scientists are arguing that yet-to-be-discovered chemical laws must be at work since C-14 is "God's truth". But this is like Bill Clinton trying to explain the DNA evidence with Lewinski by some yet-to-be-discovered chemical law. Something doesn't ring valid with such a promisory note.

The difficulty is using the English language to express mathematical concepts. Thus it is easy to mis-interpret the intended meaning. It is also easy for me to express my idea in a way that confuses the issue rather than clarifies it. I could express it mathematically, but making it more rigorous does not make it more clear (like a legal document is more rigorous, but not necessarily more clear). This is perhaps THE greatest challenge in scientific rhetoric...

But anyway, consider this illustration. Let's say college students did an exothermic chemistry experiment and the ideal result would be their thermometers would read 78.0000 degrees. The good data will tend to congregate around 78.0000 degrees. Now, we may have slight erors and variations in each student's test tube, and that results in differences from the ideal. We can define the range of results about 78.000 that would be deemed "good", i.e. say numbers from 68 to 88 degrees.


In similar manner, the green line demarcates the ideal result. When I said "The Green Line is where we would expect good data to lie," it is in the sense of the temperature experiment I described. Some dots ought to be above the green and some below. But in actuality, most if not all are below the green line, some way below.

Further, the actual distirbution of dots is clearly non-Random, but systematically down. Hence, this is not suggestive of random error but a systematic error (exactly the point of my thread). It would be like us expecting to see students get lab results from 68 to 88 degrees, but instead they ALL report results from 48-58 degrees. Something would be really wrong in that case.

If your issue is my wording, I accept the editorial objection.

Another way of saying it is that we would expect lots of dots above the green line. The plot suggests systematic errors because all the dots are below the green line, and some VERY far below it.

Now, how far above or below the green is tolerable? The graph itself suggests what are tolerable variations, namely the width defined between the purple lines. But this variation is centered about the red line, not the green line. This is suggestive of a systematic error (meanin an error resulting from the way we make measurements).


This seems like obvious BS (ideal?  what the hell? -- and also, there's that whole decay thing which is evaded), but I'm not knowledgeable enough to respond beyond the obvious, and he's kicked off all the people who know anything. Could somebody help me in responding?  On the board or in a private message -- either is fine.

Date: 2007/08/05 22:43:27, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Thanks for the help OA.  Here's my response (posted over there):

Quote
Salvador,
Quote
It is . . . easy for me to express my idea in a way that confuses the issue rather than clarifies it.

You ain't kidding, buster.  But I object to a lot more than your wording.  You write,

Quote
The difficulty is using the English language to express mathematical concepts. Thus it is easy to mis-interpret the intended meaning.


True enough.  But the problem is not the English: what you said would be contradictory in any language.  It's practically a syllogism.  I'll call it

Cordova's Rule
Premise A: The green line represents an unchanging rate constant.
Premise B: Points far away from the green line represent fraudulent data.
Conclusion: Non-fraudulent data must show a rate constant that is or is very close to unchanging.

If you hold the first two premises, the conclusion follows.  If you think the rate constant changes, then  either Premise A or Premise B must be wrong.  

But the rate constant diminishes, it does not go up, with age.  Hey, even RH Brown accepts that, and Michael Brown.  So why would we expect any of the dots to go above the green line?

A few more questions:
Quote
Good data correspond to changing rates that are changes within reasonable physical and chemical limits

What are those limits, and how did you determine them?
Quote
The green line represents the ideal, and some amount of variation from the ideal is permissible.

I don't see why it's the ideal, or how you've determined what's a permissible variation. It certainly doesn't seem like an ideal that anyone in the scientific community buys.  And please don't quote that 1974 letter again -- as I mentioned, that was refuted at the time of publication, in the very next pages.  
Quote
But anyway, consider this illustration. Let's say college students did an exothermic chemistry experiment and the ideal result would be their thermometers would read 78.0000 degrees. The good data will tend to congregate around 78.0000 degrees. Now, we may have slight erors and variations in each student's test tube, and that results in differences from the ideal. We can define the range of results about 78.000 that would be deemed "good", i.e. say numbers from 68 to 88 degrees.

Argument by analogy: a nice rhetorical form.  It's a bit simplistic, though, and it assumes a lot.  It's only appropriate if the unchanging "ideal" rate in your premises is correct, which requires (I believe) rejecting either the kinetic equation and the accuracy of empirically measured D/L ratios.

A more appropriate analogy would be if you gave everybody a thermometer in a room at 72.0 degrees F and then sent them out in different directions in the dead of winter.  Each person was told to check the thermometer at a different time: the first at 1 minute, the second at 2 minutes, etc.  Probably there'd be some variation depending on where they walked, the different conditions, etc., but the measurements taken later go lower and lower.  

H

Date: 2007/08/07 00:55:57, Link
Author: Hermagoras
I can't seem to reply on Young Cosmos.  I can log in, and preview a message, but I when I try to submit a post it kicks me back to the editing board.  I've been able to post a message to that effect here.  I wonder what will happen next . . . .

Date: 2007/08/07 08:24:38, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Also of note: www.jesustombmath.org has also disappeared.  Which brings to mind the following question:

If evolutionary informatics is dead, why can't they find the body?  

You see where I'm going here.  

(Edited for poor phrasing)

Date: 2007/08/07 16:10:26, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Stop the presses!  Denyse is right about something!

In the comments to this post, UD regulars are attacking Denyse for saying that Canada lost more, as a proportion of population, than the US in the World Wars.  But Denyse was talking about both wars combined, while her critics only are interested in World War II.  

It's a small dust-up, but it gives DaveTard the opportunity to brag about his old man.

Added: And, of course, Denyse plugs her book (this time with an endorsement from Behe.)

Date: 2007/08/07 19:06:04, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 07 2007,17:36)
Quote (GCT @ Aug. 07 2007,17:32)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 07 2007,18:20)
[That's what Denyse gets for casting her lot with a bunch of fundy doofuses who think Jesus is American.

Of course Jesus isn't American.  He's an illegal immigrant.  He just wants to be American, but we're actually too good for him, which is why he needs to be deported.

Baloney.  If that was true, the Bible would be written in Mexican.  But you just look at it, it is written in English (which is just a fancy word for 'merican).

I promise this is true: I have heard a fundie preacher say that if the King James Bible was good enough for Jesus, it was good enough for him.

Date: 2007/08/07 19:07:41, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 07 2007,10:08)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 07 2007,10:05)
It would be cute to photoshop (mspaint) a vial of ebola into Professor Steve Steve's paw, but vicious adolescent William Dembski would start calling federal agencies on us.

please, get your copy of mspaint and burn it and then download this
http://www.getpaint.net/

instead. Far far better then mspaint and is more like photoshop then anything else (without all the bits you never use anyway!)

How does it compare with GIMPshop?  (Move to bathroom wall if necessary).

Date: 2007/08/07 19:17:51, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 07 2007,19:10)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 07 2007,19:06)
I promise this is true: I have heard a fundie preacher say that if the King James Bible was good enough for Jesus, it was good enough for him.

I'm afraid I have to call bullshit on this one.  I've heard this from dozens of different people, who all heard from a friend of a friend that it was a Georgia/Alabama/Mississippi/Arkansas preacher/professor/state senator/school board member.  It's a good story, but I won't believe it until I see a primary source.

It's possible that he was joking in part: but he was a "King James Only" person -- that is, he believed that the KJV is the only "inerrant" English version of the Bible, and that all other English Bibles, including the evangelical-friendly NIV, are corrupt.  So I may have relayed his words with a literal sense they didn't entirely carry.  As I think about it, he may have been playing on that line, which may be a kind of joke among fundamentalists.  My sense is that he took it to be at least kind of true, in the sense that the KJV was the version Jesus preferred for his followers.  

I'll have to stop now, lest I have a fundie flashback.

Date: 2007/08/07 20:59:35, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 07 2007,19:10)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 07 2007,19:06)
I promise this is true: I have heard a fundie preacher say that if the King James Bible was good enough for Jesus, it was good enough for him.

I'm afraid I have to call bullshit on this one.  I've heard this from dozens of different people, who all heard from a friend of a friend that it was a Georgia/Alabama/Mississippi/Arkansas preacher/professor/state senator/school board member.  It's a good story, but I won't believe it until I see a primary source.

Maybe I was thinking of Ricky Gervais:

At 5:45:

 
Quote
It's a talking snake, did I not -- yeah.  Oh yeah.  You don't believe he can make a talking snake?  You having' a laugh?  Of course he can, he can do anything.

And perfect diction as well.  Not a mumbling snake.  He didn't make him and go Oh, fuck'n I've got a cleft palate.  Why'd I do that?  Perfect.  Again, that's how he wanted it. Right.

And it speaks English.  Which is lucky for me, because I'd be fucked. I don't -- I don't speak another language.

Date: 2007/08/08 08:28:08, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 08 2007,07:22)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 07 2007,19:07)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 07 2007,10:08)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 07 2007,10:05)
It would be cute to photoshop (mspaint) a vial of ebola into Professor Steve Steve's paw, but vicious adolescent William Dembski would start calling federal agencies on us.

please, get your copy of mspaint and burn it and then download this
http://www.getpaint.net/

instead. Far far better then mspaint and is more like photoshop then anything else (without all the bits you never use anyway!)

How does it compare with GIMPshop?  (Move to bathroom wall if necessary).

Cannot say, as I've never used Gimp (I will check it out!)

The GIMP and GIMPshop are a bit different.  GIMPshop is a GIMP hack to make the commands comfortable for Photoshop users.

Date: 2007/08/09 09:21:10, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 09 2007,09:14)
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 09 2007,09:10)
 
Quote
William Dembski: What happened to the last three weeks at UD?

I just learned that the last three weeks of UD disappeared. I’m checking into what happened. –WmAD

It's either

1.)  an Evil Atheistic Darwinista Conspiracy

2.) A friggin' Miracle - The Designer made Peter Olaffson disappear.

3.) DaveScot got carried away and pushed ALL the Bannnanator Buttons.

4.) Who Cares?  The last 3 weeks of UD are just like all the other weeks on UD.  A whole lot of hot air about nothing.

When was PO's first post?  When did the entry to which he responded get posted?  Hmm.

Date: 2007/08/09 09:56:46, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 08 2007,13:29)
Is this the art of banning without banning?

http://www.virtual-creations.net/~youngc....tart=30

OK, I'm now able to post as Hermagoras2.  Nothing substantive yet -- I'll respond soon with more substance and aggression.

Date: 2007/08/09 10:22:05, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 09 2007,10:06)
Why is it that Biologists run servers better than Engineers?

It is strange.  YouCantpost is almost as bad as UsuallyDown in that respect.  

Elsewhere at Young Comos, Thought Provoker is quietly kicking ass.

Date: 2007/08/13 10:11:50, Link
Author: Hermagoras
I wasn't on this forum when the thread started, but now that it's been non-revived, I thought I'd try to clarify the MacGuffin.  

The best example, the one Hitchcock coined the term for IIRC, is the money Janet Leigh's character steals at the beginning of Psycho.  You may recall that Leigh steals money from her workplace on impulse and drives away (because it's Friday, she thinks she has the whole weekend.)  It gets Leigh to the Bates motel and it gets her sister and the detective searching for her, but it has nothing to do with her murder. (Norman Bates, who knows nothing of the money, sinks it into the lake with her body and car.)

Now, of course, we know how the movie ends, but think about the original release.  Put yourself in the seat with those first viewers.  When the movie came out, all the danger seemed related to the money for the first half hour.  In following the money, we are led down a completely irrelevant path.    The money is the MacGuffin.

H

Date: 2007/08/14 19:41:29, Link
Author: Hermagoras
What's up with the global warming denial, when there's so much cool evolution to deny?  From Gene Expression blog:

 
Quote
I'm on the road/traveling for the near future, so posting will be light, but these four papers look interesting (haven't had a time to look closely).

* Accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations in mitochondrial protein-coding genes of large versus small mammals

* Varying environments can speed up evolution

* Evolution in the hypervariable environment of Madagascar

* Innovation and robustness in complex regulatory gene networks


On the Cape, so not thinking too much, Hermagoras.

Date: 2007/08/15 09:40:51, Link
Author: Hermagoras
olofsson leaves with a bow:
Quote

DaveScot,
How civil of you to threaten me. What a gentlemanly way to end the discussion.
I think the parasite is doing just fine considering that it is still around in abundant numbers despite the fact that it has been under enormous selective pressure. To be constantly bombarded by man-made chemicals threatening extinction of the entire species is an evolutionary challenge that I think has few parallels. You can dismiss it as “denial” if you wish.
Thanks to the rest of you (including Kf despite our occasional verbal jabs) who have been willing to maintain a civil, factual, and interesting discussion!
I will now leave for good before the almighty DaveScot bounces me.
Prof PO

Seriously, I love this guy.

Date: 2007/08/15 11:39:01, Link
Author: Hermagoras
geoffrobinson overloads the irony meter:
Quote

Don’t ask me no questions. I’ll tell you no lies.

(Hermagoras head-splosion to follow.)
The inanity!  Oh, the inanity!

Date: 2007/08/15 18:51:37, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Rob @ Aug. 15 2007,10:53)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 15 2007,09:49)
Anybody invited him here? :)

A few of us have pointed Dr. Olofsson to the parallel discussion taking place here.  I have to say that he's as gracious over email as he is on UD.  He's truly a class act, which is probably one of the reasons that Dave felt so threatened by him.

I've invited him, but he's pretty busy.  I think he was surprised at how much the pileup of nonsense at UD cost in terms of time.

Date: 2007/08/15 18:55:15, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Beautiful.  

Art2 asks:
   
Quote
(If this goes thru, then I have a question - do some URLs cause a comment to be deleted without warning? I?m trying to figure out where another comment went.)

DS lies in response:
   
Quote
art

Comments sometimes get eaten for reasons unknown.

You know why, Dave.  You ass.

Edit: I've added that to my signature quotes.

Date: 2007/08/16 06:26:02, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (keiths @ Aug. 16 2007,03:52)
Tardboy:
 
Quote
Comments sometimes get eaten for reasons unknown.

Yeah, like when a "server glitch" "accidentally" deleted the comments of my second UD alter ego, woctor.

(Not that it made any difference. I came back under at least seven other names before getting too bored to bother with it any more. I might very well hold the record for "most banned" at UD.)

Kairosfocus labors under the illusion that Olofsson has not been banned.  I sent Kf the following email:

Quote
Dear Kairosfocus,

Hermagoras here.  Like me before him, Professor Olofsson seems to have been banned by DaveScot, and he can't answer your questions on that forum.  In fact, DaveScot scrubbed his last post but not before it briefly appeared.  It is captured here but the link [to UD] no longer works.  Atom followed up, but DaveScot scrubbed that too.  Then Art2 asked a question about that, and DaveScot responded by claiming ignorance, when everybody who's watching UD from the realm of the banned knows perfectly well what happened, and that DaveScot lied about doing it.

You've been very quick to accuse those with whom you disagree of using "rhetorical" tricks and of arguing in bad faith.  You did it with me, and you did it with Professor Olofsson.  I think you're trigger-happy with that accusation and usually wrong on the merits (for example, PO did not engage in ad hominem).  Further, you argue strongly -- I would say rhetorically -- while accusing others of making "rhetorical" points.  Hence PO's mention that having you as a referee is like Federer referee Wimbeldon. You always see the rhetorical splinter in the other's eye, not the rhetorical planks in your own.

But that's neither here nor there. Rather, I wanted to write and let you know two things: (1) you're making those accusations on a forum moderated by DaveScot, a documented liar (see above); and (2) If PO does not respond to your latest post in the thread at UD, it's because DaveScot has banned him, erased his last posting, and then lied about it.    

Hermagoras

Date: 2007/08/16 12:00:45, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Louis sez:  
Quote
Now I think I can honestly say that on occasion I've smoked a bit of weed (not any more, obviously. Honest, Officer/Mum, it was just a phase).

Etc.
That whole post is the funniest thing I've read in a long time.  I cried laughing.

Date: 2007/08/20 10:39:09, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 20 2007,09:03)
Oh Davetard!

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

 
Quote
Intelligent Design Research: Proof of concept in 3-10 years say scientists
DaveScot
While they don?t call it intelligent design research? that?s in fact what it is. In the article a scientist is quoted saying once a container (cell wall) is synthesized and nucleotides are added in the right proportions then Darwinian evolution will take care of the rest. Yeah, right. Darwinian processes won?t do jack diddly squat. It?ll require intelligent design every step of the way. Mark my words. ID will be proven in concept and Darwinian evolution will (again) be disproven in concept.


That's right, DT. Abiogenesis disproves NDE. I suspect if this happens, it will have the same effect in the 'big tent' as one of Arden's "dead cat farts".

DaveScot is really into the notion of proof of concept:
Quote
It?s a proof of concept for intelligent design. Imagine that someone in a lab somewhere were able to apply selective pressure to bacteria that caused them evolve a nucleus and become a prokaryote. What would that prove? It wouldn?t prove it happened that way but it would be a proof of concept - i.e. it proves it *could* have happened that way. In fact it would be the first proof of concept ever for macroevolution.

Intelligent design has been proven in concept by accomplishments in genetic engineering. NDE in its larger claims has no such proof - the only direct observations are all microevolutionary in nature.

This is why it?s so anti-science to exclude ID from hypothetical mechanisms underlying organic evolution - ID is a proven concept which is more than any competing hypothesis can claim. It?s not just a peer to NDE but a superior hypothesis based on experimental evidence.

Date: 2007/08/20 14:16:57, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 20 2007,13:08)
This artificial cell has the potential for generating alot of egg-on-face for the ID crowd, if their comments are any indicator. GilDodgen says
     
Quote
These guys are truly living in fantasyland. They might as well have aspirations to create the first perpetual-motion machine. The sad thing is that many intelligent, highly educated people have been conned into accepting the biggest get-something-for-nothing scam in the history of science: Darwinism.

If these guys want a realistic look at what Darwinian mechanisms can do for their concoction, even if they succeed in creating it, they should read The Edge of Evolution.


I'll enjoy watching that smug twerp Gil eat his words, in 3 to 10 years time! Link
Directly after, Jehu compounds his error
     
Quote
They should also look at the historical results from corporations like Applied Evolution and others that have tried to evolve novel enzymes. The result? Nada. Nothing. Zippo. Zilch.

IDiots

Psst!  Hey, Gil! About that perpetual motion machine . . .

Didn't some ID people fall for the Orbo?  
Didn't DaveScot claim to violate the 2LOT every time he writes a sentence?  

I wouldn't go talking about perpetual motion in that crowd.

Date: 2007/08/21 01:40:16, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Jkrebs @ Aug. 20 2007,22:10)
Sal doesn't understand that ad hominem refers to dismissing an argument because of some irrelevant characteristic of the arguer.  If I say that your ideas about ID are wrong because you are a jerk, that is an ad hominem argument.  If I just call you a jerk, that is not an ad hominem argument.  It may be rude and impolite, and it might be quite wrong (or not), but it is not ad hominem.

I'll also point out that Sal is not banned - his last foray at KCFS was sent to the Home for Wayward Comments, our version of the bathroom wall, but that is not the same as being banned

And the thing that Sal is most wrong about, and I am just sure he know this, is his statement that his post was moved because of its content, which was something about a quote from Lewontin.  His post was moved because of his outrageous quote-mine about Darwin beating a puppy, and his absolute refusal to apologize, or even admit any wrongdoing, when the context of the quote was pointed out.

I have posted about this on the Rhetoric forum at Young Cosmos.  See it here while it lasts.  Meanwhile, for posterity:
Quote
On issues of respect. I see that Sal is upset at Jack Krebs. Follow me here. On UD, Sal writes:
Quote:

Quote

Jack Krebs argues:

Sal is not banned at KCFS. Any further discussion about this should take place there, not here, as it really doesn?t pertain to this site at all.

Yeah right, Jack, where I can?t plead my case before your over there where you act as Judge and Jury. I can plead my case here however, and since you?re here, it is an opportune time to mention it.

Any way, feel at home here at UD Jack, I have no intenetion of suppressing what you have to say.

I'm merely pointing out that I have extended much more courtesy to you than you have to me at KCFS, where people have the freedom to ignore threads that I start there (unlike a blog, where they have less choice about what they read).

I've asked UD commenters to treat you with respect like an opponent visiting under flag of truce. I?m complaining you hadn't gone the extra mile on my behalf over at KCFS where it seemed you?d tolerate any level of vulgarity directed toward me.

Your toleration of vulgarity and accusations of lying didn't bother me as much as the fact you would tolerate that and yet stop a limited number of discussions on scientific topics that I started and which I took care to stay on scientific grounds.

I posted material on Lewontin which you shut down, yet you regularly allow bandwith for insults and ad homs to be directed at me. I can take the trash talking, but I find it a bit inequitable that discussion of things like Lewontin?s Santa Fe 2003 paper get quickly labeled as spam, yet stuff on your board that should clearly count as frivolous is permitted.


Okay. But at Kansas Citizens for Science, Krebs writes:
Quote

[Moved to the HFWC. For Sal to post here, he must a) offer something other than a drive-by posting on a topic that he does not in fact discuss, b) drop his unconscionable sig line, and c) demonstrate that he will discuss rather than just provoke. Until he does otherwise, his presence here will be considered unacceptable trolling]
__
"I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power" -- Charles "Gas" Darwin

I don't see how this is different from the "Recycle Bin" here, except that here some comments were also changed, mocked, etc. (Respect? Hmm.)

And I agree with Krebs about the signature line.

Anyway, I'm sure Jack feels treated with respect generally. Witness this:
Quote
I'm pleased to announce that Jack Krebs, President of KCFS (Kansas Center For Sewage, a Darwinist organization for indoctrinating public school children into Darwinism) and author at PandasThumb is the recipient of the 2007 Darwin Awards conferred by the NCSE.

Who wouldn't feel respected?

Date: 2007/08/21 15:28:14, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Robo is a tard
Quote

?I?ve asked UD commenters to treat you with respect like an opponent visiting under flag of truce.?
People who believe we are made in the imago Dei will treat others with respect.
Those who believe we are made in the imago animalia however have no reason to treat others with respect (other than pragmatic reasons).


Rule: when treating others with respect, be sure to insult their behavior in the process.

Date: 2007/08/21 21:39:00, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Jack Krebs, your writing is a thing of beauty:
Quote
Many materialists have reasons other than just pragmatism for treating others with respect. I believe they would claim that their reasons are sound, based on both the exercise of logic and human reason as well as experience and knowledge of human nature and the human condition.

I understand that you, and many theists, are as dismissive of this position as the materialists are of theism. The current point I am making is not who is right, but rather what kind of respect does one show one with opposing viewpoints. In discussing materialism, should one make an effort to accurately present their position as they themselves see it, or can one just dismiss their position as wrong and then portray them as you - the anti-materialist - see them.

And let?s be sure to turn this around: how should the materialist look at the theist? Should he make a genuine effort to understand the reasons the theist believes as he does, and to understand the overall context of the theist?s religious beliefs?, or should he dismiss the theist as having totally unsubstantiated beliefs in imaginary entities?

There are people on both sides of this discussion who do not show respect for persons on the other side, and there are people that do. There are many people - good people - who have thought deeply about these matters and have reached opposite conclusions. What kind of respect should one have for someone who has reached the opposite conclusion as one?s self, and how should you treat such a person in discussing these matters with him?

I am impressed both with your patience over at UD and with the elegance of your writing.

Date: 2007/08/21 22:39:55, Link
Author: Hermagoras
More on Jack's decency and, well, other stuff.  BarryA responds  
Quote

JK writes, ?So from this understanding of human nature and of the human condition both reason and emotion tell us that we should care about others.?
I grant that reason (always) and emotion (sometimes) tell us we should care about others. That is not the important question. The important question is, on what ground does the materialist choose to be guided by reason and good emotions instead of bad emotions such as envy, lust and malice? Again, from a strictly logical point of view, it is quite simply inescapable that the true materialist (i.e., a materialist true to his beliefs and not living on our culture?s rapidly dwindling store of Judeo-Christian moral capital) bases all of his decisions on pragmatic grounds, for to him, by definition, there are no other grounds upon which to base a decision.


I'll just note a couple of points here.  First is the predictable evocation of reason and logic, as though theism were based in those things and as though Jack's well articulated emotional claims were meaningless.  (This makes the earlier evocation of Nietzsche ironic -- should I say unwittingly?  Whoops, I just did.)  Second is the notion of pragmatism.  Now, I would grant Barry's point in a broad sense, that is, morality is relative.  I happily embrace the label of relativist.  Hell, I'm even a postmodernist.  But as Barbara Herrnstein Smith says, all politics is local, but sometimes the local includes the whole world.  In other words, I think that everybody makes moral decisions in relative terms, all the time, including the absolutist. From my perspective, it's not the relativist's morality that needs explaining.

And third: the pettiness of the responses is most striking.

Date: 2007/08/22 11:07:09, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 22 2007,09:11)
JK destroys BarryA, nicely.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/humor....-133527


Barry, and I so wanted you to defend Michael Vick, you muddled thinker.

"Your honour, I have in front of me the basis of all law, the bible. Can you please point to the commandment that says 'thou shall not strike thine hound?' I thought not" *Smug grin*.

Shorter BarryA (paraphrased):

 But you have to discuss Nietzsche!  Waaa!

What a baby.

Date: 2007/08/22 15:13:17, Link
Author: Hermagoras
scordova can't make up his mind:  
Quote

Ed writes:
 
Quote

Indeed, the fact that this very same first and only ?intelligent design textbook? used precisely the same definition, word for word, for ?creation science? in its pre-Edwards manuscripts as it used for ?intelligent design? in its post-Edwards manuscripts is quite a problem for ID advocates.

Only for those non-existent ID advocates who still promote this antiquated definition of ID:
 
Quote

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact - fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appear in the rock record with their distinctive features intact, rather than gradually developing

Ed does not appreciate that the definition of ID has evolved.

Holy crap!  This whole thread is based on scordova's view that intelligent design's meaning goes back pre-Darwin! Yet in 1987 the meaning changed, and then changed again?

Date: 2007/08/22 23:26:17, Link
Author: Hermagoras
I really wish I weren't banned at UD, because BarryA so needs a pimp-slap:

Quote
In an effort to deal with the logic of materialism at least insofar as it has to do with ethics and morality, I referred the conversation to Nietzsche, perhaps the most famous materialist who ever lived. Surely, I must be given credit for trying to present the materialist position as they themselves see it.


The most famous?  Hmm.  Marx?  Freud?  Dollars to donuts they're more famous in terms of sheer numbers than FN.  Freud was of course influenced by Nietzsche, but in a complicated, indirect way.  

The point is this: Nietzsche doesn't represent materialism, he represents Nietzschianism.  All Jack was saying is that people come in more flavors than two, and you, BarryA, keep mucking that up.

Date: 2007/08/23 13:37:56, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Aug. 23 2007,13:31)
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 23 2007,13:26)
?  
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Aug. 23 2007,12:56)
Dembski:
? ?  
Quote
Rocket is no longer with us. ?WmAD

Do not seek to know the identity of the Designer, ever.
So saith [redacted]!

And later in the post, we have a post from old friend and Seeker -Of- Truth FTK applauding the bannation. ?Jesus Christ has she sunk herself in the mire.

Should Dembski have said "Rocket is EXPELLED."?

Post 100, can any of you guys top that? ?:p

I'd been jonesing for some "no longer with us" bannination.  

Whew!  

Finally the WMaDman peeks his head out now that PO has left the building.

Date: 2007/08/23 19:43:23, Link
Author: Hermagoras
I wanted someone to smackdown BarryA, and Jack Krebs does not disappoint.  

Here's a lot of it, in case DaveScotSpringer respects it out of existence:
Quote
I think the reason Barry is enamored of Nietzsche is that Nietzsche represents the far end of a spectrum of materialistic thought, and Barry, being both a staunch anti-materialist and one who appears to see things more in black-and-white than grey, wants Nietzsche to be the representative of materialism so he can stand firmly against it.

But I don?t accept that. People have a right to think for themselves, and there is no inviolable logic that leads one from believing in a strictly material world to the ideas of Nietzsche. However, Barry doesn?t seem able to consider these other views, dismissing them as cowardly, and dismissing any positive emotions such as love and compassion as ?warmed over sentimentality.?

Given that the topic that actually drew me into this conversation was the statement that theists have an inherent respect for others and materialists have nothing but pragmatic grounds for offering such, I have to say that Barry?s lack of respect for the beliefs of the many people who hold materialist but non-Nietzschian ideas doesn?t bode well for any further constructive conversation.

I?d also like to say that Barry does not know what is in ?my heart of hearts,? and that once again it is a considerable sign of disrespect for him to think he does.

Beautiful.

Date: 2007/08/24 13:01:53, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Let the red-baiting begin!  
Quote

?Then there is the amazingly self-righteous Christopher Hitchens, a socialist, who applauded Lenin?s efforts to dechristianize Russia, callinig it Lenin?s ?greatest achievement.??

People should probably make more noise about this sort of thing, given the communists approach was essentially to kill or imprison anybody who disagreed with them.

Maybe a picket of the conference ? Something to attract attention to the actual opinions of these degenerates.

Date: 2007/08/25 20:26:30, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Joseph accidentally makes sense!  
Quote

First morality is in the eye of the beholder.
What is "moral" in one society isn't "moral" in another.

Welcome to my relativist world, bub.

Added: this moment of clarity was followed by a tremendous cave-in in the Tard mines:
Quote
As for ?love? do other organisms experience it or is it entirely a human thing? I know there are other species that mate for life but is that because of ?love??
Do we need it to survive? No.
Do we need it to hunt or gather food? No.
Do we even need it to find a mate? No.
Do we need it to successfully mate? No.
Compassion can get one killed. Help the weak so that the gene pool is muudied by their genes goes against the heart of the theory of evolution.
Sorry JK but the materialist position can only explain love, compassion and morality with a hand-wave and a wink.

Buried thus, will Joseph ever be heard from again?

Date: 2007/08/26 07:43:36, Link
Author: Hermagoras
kairosfocus nails it!  
Quote

The onward exchanges since yesterday, sadly but aptly, underscore that evolutionary materialist thought simply cannot ground morality relative to its premises ? other than reverting to some version of relativism/ subjectivism or might makes right, etc. which simply underscore that tit cannot account for ought based on is ? as a part of the larger problem it faces grounding the credible mind we need to think rationally at all.

blah blah blah etc.
I dunno.  I think tit accounts for a whole lot.

Added: like, for example, Love, the "queen of the virtues" (kf) upon whose royal tit we all suck.  

Kf is apparently going on vacation, but can't resist talking and talking and talking:
Quote
Okay, let me stop here, now. See you all in about a week or so.

followed by another 1200 plus words.

Date: 2007/08/26 14:06:37, Link
Author: Hermagoras
jerry drinks the Kool-Aid:
Quote

?he does not believe that materialists are less moral than theists?
I am not so sure I agree with this claim that materialists are as moral as theists. While you can claim that some materialist lead exemplary lives and there are many theists who have caused much harm to society I am not sure they balance out as two on a see saw.
I could point to events, struggles, policies since the beginning of the 20th century that have caused hundreds of millions to die and I am not sure theists are behind many if any of them. For example:
Abortion - 100 million plus
AIDS - 30-50 million and climbing
Malaria - 30-60 million and still climbing as a result of banning DDT.
World War I and II - 60-90 million
Communism - 100 million
You can definitely point to non-theist support in all these whether you want to call it materialistic is another issue, however I believe non theistic thinking is behind most of these. When people point to religious excess or wars, things like the Inquisition, 30 Years War, Crusades etc come up. Hey folks, the most recent of these is 400 years ago and even these were mostly political or in the case of the Crusades, self defense.

Where to begin? Is it even possible to talk with such a person?

Date: 2007/08/26 14:46:03, Link
Author: Hermagoras
BarryA muses:
Quote
But on what possible grounds can the materialist explain the artistic (or more broadly, the ?creative?) impulse?  I puzzled and puzzled about this and drew a blank.  Since art has no practical value and does not confer a selection advantage, how does the Darwinist explain the fact that every normal person has at least some urge to create?  Does the Darwinist have an explanation for this that does not sound like a post hoc ?just so story??  I would be interested to know what our materialist friends who visit this blog have to say.

How about reading some books instead of asking "the Darwinist" to do your homework for you?  Eh Barry?  Howaboutit?

Date: 2007/08/26 15:07:23, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Not for the faint of heart: bornagain77 attempts a poem.  Excerpt:
 
Quote
Is it of no meaning as the blind sages insist..
Only a quirk of fate that may make my survival best fit?

Oh but NO! Their fairy tales I shan?t believe,
For only of timeless beauty does this tear dare be!

Holy crap.

Added: seriously, don't go there.  You'll burn your eyes.  Remember the warning of Dembski:
Quote
If fully successful, Intelligent Design will unseat not just Darwinism but also Darwinism's cultural legacy. And since no aspect of western culture has escaped Darwinism's influence, so no aspect of western culture will escape reevaluation in the light of Intelligent Design.

Date: 2007/08/26 15:26:03, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 26 2007,15:16)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 26 2007,15:07)
Not for the faint of heart: bornagain77 attempts a poem. ?Excerpt:
?    
Quote
Is it of no meaning as the blind sages insist..
Only a quirk of fate that may make my survival best fit?

Oh but NO! Their fairy tales I shan?t believe,
For only of timeless beauty does this tear dare be!

Holy crap.

Wow. In 200 years, Western Protestantism has gone from THIS:

   
Quote
THE DIVINE IMAGE

To Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love,
All pray in their distress,
And to these virtues of delight
Return their thankfulness.
For Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love,
Is God our Father dear;
And Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love,
Is man, His child and care.

For Mercy has a human heart;
Pity, a human face;
And Love, the human form divine:
And Peace, the human dress.

Then every man, of every clime,
That prays in his distress,
Prays to the human form divine:
Love, Mercy, Pity, Peace.

And all must love the human form,
In heathen, Turk, or Jew.
Where Mercy, Love, and Pity dwell,
There God is dwelling too.


To THIS:
 
 
Quote
Is it of no meaning as the blind sages insist..
Only a quirk of fate that may make my survival best fit?

Oh but NO! Their fairy tales I shan't believe,
For only of timeless beauty does this tear dare be!


Ouch.

One of the things that kills me about this bit of doggerel is bornagain77's inability to handle rhyme. The piece contains some obvious true rhymes (cry/sky, day/say) but then some really bad attempts at slant rhyme (insist/fit), etc.  But in this couplet--  
Quote
Oh but NO! Their fairy tales I shan?t believe,
For only of timeless beauty does this tear dare be!

--believe can't possibly rhyme with dare be, even by stretching all the rules of slant rhyme.  The upshot, for me at least, is that I'm compelled to pronounce "tear" to rhyme with "dare," so that there will be at least one rhyme (albeit an internal rhyme) in the couplet.

(I won't even begin to dissect the atrocious syntax.)

This is what you get when an English professor reads Uncommon Descent.

Date: 2007/08/26 15:54:44, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Daniel King rocks:
Quote

God willing, I intend to post tomorrow a solid rebuttal of kf?s argument that ?materialism is based on self-defeating logic.?
I will show that his argument is fatally flawed by an unproven, unprovable, and disproven assumption.
With the demise of his argument, there is no onus on materialists to provide any answer pertaining thereto.
In the meantime, I thank the management for its hospitality and this thread?s participants for their thoughtful and courteous contributions to a debate that I have enjoyed.

Nice opening, DK.  (Hey, my initials too!).  

Hey, if Daniel King is here, could he send me a private message or email (via my blog, paralepsis.blogspot.com?)

Date: 2007/08/26 20:23:21, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 26 2007,15:04)
Slimey Sal links to this in his posts:

http://media.coralridge.org/customp....ucation


No religion there, then..

D. James Kennedy (the link Sal provides) is one of the sleaziest, most dangerous figures of the American religious right.  He's not as famous as, say, James Dobson, but his show is viewed by many millions every week, and he knows a lot of DC insiders.  (He's been sidelined with a heart attack for some months, but his show goes on.)

Date: 2007/08/26 22:51:40, Link
Author: Hermagoras
I'm pretty sure, from the evidence of his comments, that BarryA has no idea what he means by the sublime.

Date: 2007/08/27 12:53:00, Link
Author: Hermagoras
I've caught UD regular Joe G at my UD-inspired blogtrap.  He's a persistent little guy.  Does anybody want to come over  and help me whack him around for a bit?

Date: 2007/08/27 14:16:48, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 27 2007,13:54)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 27 2007,12:53)
I've caught UD regular Joe G at my UD-inspired blogtrap.  He's a persistent little guy.  Does anybody want to come over  and help me whack him around for a bit?

Joe should work in a sideshow tent.  Truly a wonder of the modern world.

You bet.  What a maroon.  And thanks for the help blipey (and Smokey).  

Joe G has provided me with a new line for my sig:

"I will show you what you want when you show up at my door."  

Tard.

Date: 2007/08/27 14:46:12, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 27 2007,14:44)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 27 2007,14:41)
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 27 2007,14:26)
He's going to be really surprised when I show up at his door. ?He should ask DaveScot for an escape plan with regard to clowns actually showing up in your hometown as promised.

Watch out for freon poisoning!

Why?  It didn't seem to affect Joe that much....

I don't understand the allusion.  Freon?

Date: 2007/08/27 15:16:47, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 27 2007,15:08)
Joe is the Maytag Man.  The Frigidaire Biologist.  The Astrophysicist of the Deep Freeze.  The Kitchen Muslim....

Really?   He's a repairman?  Fantastic.

Date: 2007/08/27 15:22:42, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 27 2007,15:20)
WOW. Salvador says Creation Science was another name for ID.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....hp#more

I'm a little ticked at Ed.  It was me, after all, who first noted Sal's admission.  Yet do I get any credit?  Nope.  See here.

Date: 2007/08/27 17:48:31, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Daniel King posted his devastating response to Kairosfocus, but I never saw it in the "recent comments."  Did it ever show up, or was UD somehow  manipulated to keep it out?  Perhaps by keeping it in the moderation queue until a sufficient gap existed between the stated posting time and the ones in the recent comments?

Anyway, here's the nub:
Quote
I think this is a fair representation of kf?s argument, but to make it clearer, I will reorder it, with premise II, which I consider to be the major premise, on top:

I. Mind cannot be reduced to the physical.

II. Materialists believe that everything is physical.

III. Therefore, materialists deny that they have grounds for believing they have minds.

In a nutshell: Materialists can?t account for minds, because minds are not physical (material).

I argue that premise I is unfounded. A premise is either an a priori truth or a hypothesis. Since a priori truths are true by definition, they are tautologies. Since I do not believe that kf is arguing that premise I is true by definition, it must be a hypothesis.

However, hypotheses are statements about the world of experience that must be tested for truth. As such, they require evidence and they can never be proven with certainty.

Evidence against premise I: There is much empirical evidence against premise I in the medical literature, and an easy test for the person who doubts the physical basis of his mind is to try to do arithmetic when he is unconscious.

Unproven nature of premise I: If there is empirical evidence for an entity (mind) that exists independently of the brain, it must be presented.

Unprovable nature of premise I: Since the premise is a hypothesis, it can never be absolutely proven. If its proponent accepts this limitation and then says, ?Premise I is probably true,? then the conclusion (III above) is also a hypothetical and its truth is not logically binding.

In summary, kf?s premise that mind cannot be reduced to the physical is fatally flawed, and therefore so is his argument. I have already argued in this thread that any claim of intellectual or moral incoherence on the part of materialists has no practical consequences (the pragmatic test) and now I have disposed of the logical basis of that claim.

A final note: Premise II is also flawed, because it imputes to ?materialists? globally a belief that some (philosophical) materialists may hold, but this is not true of methodological materialists. The latter do not categorically deny the possibility of a non-material mind; they simply await evidence that such an entity or substance exists.

Sweet.  And in terms that kairosfocus, with his syllogism fetish, can grasp.

Date: 2007/08/27 17:51:55, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Apparently I've inspired Joe to  produce CSI for Dummies:
Quote
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..

I can't keep track of how that definition differs from all the previous ones.

Date: 2007/08/28 07:30:10, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 28 2007,06:49)
Quote (khan @ Aug. 27 2007,22:19)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 27 2007,14:16)
   
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 27 2007,13:54)
?  
Quote (Hermagoras @ Aug. 27 2007,12:53)
I've caught UD regular Joe G at my UD-inspired blogtrap. ?He's a persistent little guy. ?Does anybody want to come over ?and help me whack him around for a bit?

Joe should work in a sideshow tent. ?Truly a wonder of the modern world.

You bet. ?What a maroon. ?And thanks for the help blipey (and Smokey). ?

Joe G has provided me with a new line for my sig:

"I will show you what you want when you show up at my door." ?

Tard.

Sounds like a country song.

Iambic quadrameter (first syllable dropped).

It's "tetrameter" (there's no such meter as quadrameter) but who's counting? :D  

Versions of a chorus for the Joe G country ID anthem (refrain modified for meter).

Quote
You say I got no evidence
and that my argument is poor
I'll show you what you want
soon as you show up at my door

You say I got my finest thoughts
at the creationism store?
I'll show you what you want
soon as you show up at my door.

You want to know what scientists
I have used to wipe the floor?
I'll show you what you want
soon as you show up at my door.

You don't believe me when I say
I've used the EF once and more?
I'll show you what you want
soon as you show up at my door.

Date: 2007/08/28 09:48:44, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Scordova at UD:  
Quote
If you?re presuming we arrived at our disdain for Darwinism because we lack appreciation for science or that we are Biblical litearlists, you are wrong. The majority here at UD are NOT Biblical literalists (including myself) with respect to Genesis.

Scordova at Young Cosmos:
Quote

I started getting interested in ID in 2001 when my father was terminally ill and I was searching for meaning in life. There were also future missionaries from my churches and Bible studies who were risking their lives for their faith. It bothered my conscience that if the Bible were false, I was merely encouraging them toward their doom. One of the missionaries was Heather Mercer who became world famous in 2001 when US Army rangers rescued her from the Taliban. Thus, I had to be assured that ID was probably true so I could sleep at night, for their sake. If ID were false, the moral thing to do would be to discourage them from being missionaries.

Discuss.

Date: 2007/08/28 21:00:51, Link
Author: Hermagoras
ERV does battle in the Tard Pits.  Oh my god.  Nostalgie de la boue??

Date: 2007/08/29 07:02:38, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Why is DaveScot itching to spring the trapdoor?
Because he's jealous of Sal for inviting ERV.  

Love triangles.  They make fools of us all.

Date: 2007/08/29 07:57:52, Link
Author: Hermagoras
ERV has DaveScot's nads.  DaveScot wants 'em back:
Quote

ERV
You didn?t even read Behe?s book did you? If you had and you still wrote this

There is no excuse for you to write an entire book on the premise of HIV not being able to do something, when it is clear that these impossible feats did happen.

then that would make you (in the words of Richard Dawkins) ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I?d rather not consider that).

HIV was barely mentioned in comparison to the focal point of the book - the eukaryote P. falciparum, the parasite that causes malaria. If you?d read the book you?d know that.
And what exactly was the reason for all the sarcasm and insult directed at Professor Behe? Do you think that adds something substantial to your points? Here?s a clue, it doesn?t. It?s juvenile and adds appeal for the juvenile audience at Panda?s Thumb. Grow up.
WTF?  This is batshit crazy even for DaveScot.

Date: 2007/08/29 10:23:53, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Holy shit this is fun.   But ERV's latest response (posted at her own blog) will be pummeled for using the word "creationist."  

Meanwhile, Daniel King tries to hold his sarcasm in check:
Quote

Phinehas #162 (163):
You have made some clarifying points that have increased my slow-witted understanding of your position.
Quote
The essential point is whether there is a substance, which we call ?thought,? that exists independently of the brain.
Nope. That is what is at issue, but it is not at all the point. The point that KF made and that I reiterated is part of a logical argument relating to what is at issue, not a bare assertion of what is at issue. I?ve outlined that logical argument above, but you?ve chosen to be dismissive instead of addressing the argument on points.

Yes, please pardon my confusion at failing to give sufficient weight to what you consider to be an important distinction between ?what is at issue? and ?what is the point.? However, I rejoice in your acknowledgment that the underlying issue is the existence of a metaphysical entity called ?thought,? and I take it by extension that includes related metaphysical entities called ?mind? and ?soul,? etc.
To counter the charge of being dismissive, I will address point III of your version of kf?s logical argument, to wit:
III. The physical explanation for the origin of thought relies heavily on chance plus necessity.
We agree that a logical argument is only as valid as its premises, and point III is clearly a premise. I am especially indebted to you for fleshing out what you mean in point III as follows:
Quote
?I am not aware that there is a mountain of scholarship within evolutionary materialism that accounts for thought apart from blind reliance on chance and necessity. Exactly what does this mountain of scholarship rely on if not RM + NS?

The scholarship relies on: observation, experiment and analysis Random mutation and natural selection address a theory of origins, not a theory of mind. See below.
Quote
How does evomat account for the origin of thought? If by other than RM + NS, then please enlighten.

Precisely put. This is the kernel of the nut. Evomat I take to be an acronym of ?evolutionary materialism.? Current evolutionary work provides an account of the evolution of the brain, incomplete though it is, because all science is a work in progress. Inevitably you have brought us us back to what I asserted earlier to be the gounding premise of your argument, which I will restate in the context of your premise III:
If (and only if) there is a substance called ?thought? that exists independently of the brain, it follows logically that naturalists have not provided a coherent explanation for its origin.
Some questions that you might want to consider for possible relevance:
Do you claim that thought is possible without a brain to think it?
Do you deny that other creatures, such as the chimpanzee, have brains?
Do you deny that the chimpanzee?s brain enables him/her to exhibit purposeful behavior?
Do you know that a chimpanzee is incapable of thought? If so, how do you know?

Another beautiful comment which will be promptly misunderstood.

Date: 2007/08/30 11:47:29, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Well that didn't take long.  

Why do I have a mental image of DaveScot having to clean his keyboard?

Date: 2007/08/30 14:47:19, Link
Author: Hermagoras
tribune7:
Quote

Zed, one of the problems in these debates is that Darwinists have a very annoying strategy of using data dumps and lit bluffing. These replies always sound reasonable and almost always appear conclusive until someone takes the time to delve into what the lit cite actually says or to wade through the data provided to determine its reliablity and germaneness to the debate.
I suspect that was the motivation of the mods for giving them the boot.

Translation: ERV was banned because she was winning.

Date: 2007/08/30 23:49:25, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Wow, the comments at ERV's blog are fun.

Date: 2007/08/31 13:20:59, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Latest post at Young Cosmos: Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:23 pm.

Between Overwhelming Evidence and Young Cosmos, who will win for the least activity?  

Date: 2007/08/31 19:09:12, Link
Author: Hermagoras
I love that 85% number.  My oldest son, when he was in second grade, loved to pull numbers out of his ass.  It's what kids do. He's going into fifth grade now, and he's gotten over that practice. Same cannot be said for Sal.

Date: 2007/09/01 13:22:40, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Amazing!  I got Sal to stop quote-mining me.  Frankly, I'm too tired of this crap to determine if he did something like change the question along the way.  And also, my position may not be exactly correct -- hey, cut me some slack, I'm a humanist!  But at least he quoted me  accurately.  And that's something.

Date: 2007/09/01 15:27:01, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 01 2007,15:18)
QuoteMine!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-135193

 
Quote
For the reader?s benefit this phrase is a abmiguous:


It certainly is, Sal.

Yup.  See here and comments following for discussion of this quote mine at ERV.

Date: 2007/09/01 16:17:35, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 01 2007,16:01)
 Why did the image of someone silently pulling a sheet over someone's face  immediately enter my mind there?

I think this is what you're thinking of:



Date: 2007/09/01 17:03:25, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 01 2007,15:28)
In the smarmy quotemine comment linked above, Sal brags      
Quote
I am perceived by the other side as loathsome because my rather unsporting behavior of rubbing it in.

Not exactly. It probably would not be possible to list all of the behaviors that get Sal over the top in "loathsome". But I'm pretty sure he has never won an argument, so how can we loathe him for "rubbing it in"?.

Now Sal is hijacking Massimo Pigliucci (sometimes called "Pigliucci," sometimes "Massimo") as tacitly supporting ID.

Date: 2007/09/01 17:15:00, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Won't have Sal to kick around any more.
Quote
Thus, on the advice of professors from other universities, I have decided to play it safe and retreat from further public debate (at least under my own name).

I will limit my posting under my real name at UD or the blogsphere in general. I would like to thank the UD community for all they have meant to me.

Date: 2007/09/01 20:04:58, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 01 2007,18:25)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 01 2007,18:19)
President Lilley of Baylor:
? ?    
Quote
Prof. Marks was hired to do research and obtain grants for work in engineering, not to devote the bulk of his time to work in religion
...
? ?    
Quote
Academic freedom comes to an end where reason and common sense give way to ignorance and nonsense.

... ? ?    
Quote
The short of it is that ID is not welcome here in Waco and professors who want to work in this area can do so on their own time.

Read the rest, most amusing!
Link

Ho-lee shit, let's quote the whole thing:

?  
Quote
nt:

Dear Mr. Botnik,

The removal of Prof. Robert Marks? so-called ?lab? on the Baylor server is entirely consistent with Baylor?s stance on academic freedom. Prof. Marks was hired to do research and obtain grants for work in engineering, not to devote the bulk of his time to work in religion. I am not moved by Prof. Marks? protestations that he is working in the field of intelligent design and that this work falls under his job description. Judge John E. Jones III ruled decisively in Kitzmiller v. Dover that intelligent design is religion, and that?s good enough for me. We have a religious studies program here at Baylor as well as a seminary. Unfortunately, Prof. Marks is not qualified to serve in either of these programs otherwise I would recommend his transfer.

In any case, academic freedom does not warrant the toleration of labs and groups willy-nilly. Surely you would not object if I took measures similar to those I took with Prof. Marks? lab if a Baylor history professor proposed to start a ?holocaust reexamination group? or a physics professor here proposed to found a ?zodiac and astrology lab.? Academic freedom comes to an end where reason and common sense give way to ignorance and nonsense. I plan to issue an official statement concerning Baylor?s stance on intelligent design in coming months. The short of it is that ID is not welcome here in Waco and professors who want to work in this area can do so on their own time.

Thank you for your concerns. I hope that we can put this matter to rest quickly and that Prof. Marks can get back to being a productive member of the Baylor community.

Very truly yours,
JL


Found ship, sank same.

That sound you hear is a couple dozen fundies' heads splitting open.

Something's fishy here.  The end of the first paragraph especially sounds false.  Is this an authentic letter?  I have my doubts.

Added: should I have seen that this was a hoax letter immediately?  I think so.  Who is this Botnik character anyway?  He's barely existed at UD before now.  Perhaps he's Sal's new pseudonym.

Date: 2007/09/01 20:14:58, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 01 2007,20:12)
Well, supposedly it's an email to some UDer named 'Botnik':

 
Quote
Botnik

Despite the Labor Day Weekend, President Lilley of Baylor got right back to me about his flap with distinguished professor Robert Marks and his erstwhile Evolutionary Informatics Lab at Baylor (see Denyse O?Leary?s post below). His email is to the point:


So no, there seems to be no way to verify this.

The tone of the email is out of the ordinary for the president of a university emailing some nobody at an ID blog (rather indiscreet, seems to me), but if Botnik *is* making it up, I don't see what his motive would be.

(Who's 'Botnik'?)

Current guess as to Botnik's identity: Sal.

1. Sal's leaving the blogworld under his own name.
2. He wanted to go to Baylor, apparently.
3. "Botnik" posts immediately after Sal leaves.  

I'm going with Botnik = Sal for now.

Date: 2007/09/01 21:41:24, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 01 2007,21:22)
Sal leaves us with this:

 
Quote
I spoke of books, but let me add one more illustration: spacecrafts.

Sal, don't forget sheeps, fishes (like trouts, salmons, and pikes), buffalos, and antelopes.

(PULEEZE don't LEAVE US!!)

And Hobbitses.

We loves the Hobbitses.
We hates the Hobbitses!

Date: 2007/09/01 21:45:14, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Forthekids is a tard
Quote

ROTFL!!!
There is a God?I was having trouble believing he?d made someone as stupid as psuedo-Lilley.


At a certain point, everything becomes proof of God.

Date: 2007/09/02 07:56:08, Link
Author: Hermagoras
It's all for you, folks.  Especially DaveScot pretending he knew about it all along ("hook, line, and sinker").

Date: 2007/09/02 07:59:47, Link
Author: Hermagoras
DaveScot is a tard  
Quote

Hook, line, and sinker. I hope it passes through.

Like a kidney stone, Dave.  Like a kidney stone.  

DaveScot desperately hopes people will forget about his earlier comment:
 
Quote
Presumably Lilley is a Christian. Does he realize the people he is pandering to think he?s a blithering idiot for believing in Christianity?


link

Date: 2007/09/02 08:05:15, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Once, years ago, I wrote a letter in a professional context that I should never have sent.  I learned a lot from that: in particular, I learned that some letters are best deleted rather than sent.

You would think that Dembski's "Waterloo" comment would have taught him the lesson: But nobody at UD seems to have any sense of self-restraint.

Date: 2007/09/02 13:31:09, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 02 2007,12:49)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 02 2007,12:40)
On his cover letter, he wrote "I want to work at that secret Intelligent Design lab that Marks runs that the administration doesn't know anything about".

Oh yeah, and Dembski wrote one of his recommendation letters.

LOL. "Remember that pseudoscientist jerk you chased out of here a few years back? I wanna do me some of that."

Request Denied.

I wonder what Marks feels about this. With friends like Dembski, . . . .

Date: 2007/09/02 18:18:17, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 02 2007,17:58)
Dembski does it again.    
Quote
Clearly, readers of UD fell for it, but so did many people on the other side, judging by all the many emails they sent President Lilley to confirm whether Botnik?s parody actually represented Lilley?s words. In retrospect, it?s clear that this piece of tomfoolery went too far. I?m therefore removing the thread. I hope Baylor and President Lilley take its removal as a gesture of goodwill on the part of UD as they reconsider what to do about Robert Marks and his Evolutionary Informatics Lab.


What good does it do to delete the thread after the fact? Somebody got it? repost it!Parody at UD

The last sentence kills me:

 
Quote
I hope Baylor and President Lilley take its removal as a gesture of goodwill on the part of UD as they reconsider what to do about Robert Marks and his Evolutionary Informatics Lab.


Translation: Robert Marks is seriously pissed off.  Why, he must be thinking, did I ally myself with someone who does this to his allies?  

Also, Dembski proves again what a tin ear he has.

Date: 2007/09/02 18:44:52, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Anybody want a website?  

Date: 2007/09/03 09:03:24, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 03 2007,08:05)
The biggest problem with having a discussion with Intelligent Design advocates is that they so quickly lose track of the thread of an argument.

 
Quote
PaV: ERV's basic challenge--although it wasn't formally accepted as such on her blog--is that, contrary to what a.) Behe says in EoE, and contrary to what he should clearly have been aware of, b.) HIV presents an example of multiple protein-to-protein binding sites (4) in c.) much less the number of replications in a CCC (10^20), thus d.) falsifying Behe's claims.

No. That is not "ERV's basic challenge". She challenged this very specific false statement by Behe:

 
Quote
Behe: Like malaria, HIV is a microbe that occurs in astronomical numbers. What's more, its mutation rate is 10,000 times greater than that of most other organisms. So in just the past few decades HIV has actually undergone more of certain kinds of mutations than all cells have endured since the beginning of the world. Yet all those mutations, while medically important, have changed the functioning virus very little. It still has the same number of genes that work in the same way. There is no new molecular machinery.

She took this particular statement to task because as someone with some expertise in this field, "a graduate student studying the molecular and biochemical evolution of HIV within patients and within populations," she immediately recognized it as a false statement. She then provided appropriate cites from the scientific literature to support her position.

Zachriel, you beat me to it!  But since PaV is commenting at ERV's blog, I asked him (?) about it there.  I also ask PaV to distance UD from scordova's accusation of dishonesty (I know, I know, the jokes write themselves).  I already asked kairosfocus to do the same, but so far they've been silent.

Date: 2007/09/03 13:18:06, Link
Author: Hermagoras
scordova
stands up:

Quote
My third loose end which I would like to tie up is that I would like to apologize to Ms. Smith if I have said anything that may be construed as an accusation of dishonesty on her part. Some concern has been expressed that any suggestion of dishonesty could be damaging to her career and I do not wish to damage Ms. Smith?s career as I?m in a similar boat as her. I vigorously disagree with her on various matters, but this should not imply that I am accusing her of lying or dishonesty. Perhaps I made some ill-tempered remarks, but it was not my intent to accuse her of lying or dishonesty. I simply disagree and at times was very irritated?.


I told scordova in emails that I would publicly laud him if he did this, and I have, on my blog.  This is the decent thing to do, and I'm not going to say anything against it.  

(There's a lot of other stuff in the post, but this is a rare moment.)

Date: 2007/09/03 16:14:28, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 03 2007,16:12)
And even more bizarrely, [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/backgrounder-to-robert-markss-lab-shutdown-baylor-revokes-dembskis-research-fellowship-200


6/]Grandma Tard posts something for Dr. Dr. Dembski![/URL]

Have his posting privileges been revoked?

He asked Botnik to fork over the keys to the office. Later, he remembered that he was Botnik.  D'oh!  

Actually, I imagine he's on the phone with Robert Marks, apologizing for being such a tool.

Date: 2007/09/03 17:01:55, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 03 2007,16:07)
Special Guest Tard:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-135492


Casey Luskin!

What a a repulsive comment by Luskin.  Rehearse your bogus conclusions as though they are proven, and then throw in an irrelevant quote-mine of your opponent in the service of character assassination.  (Click on the link Luskin provides and you'll see precisely why ERV hates missionaries.)  Followed by kairosfocus, in usual righteous mode:    
Quote
#36 Casey, thanks for your last response, which is (such as all the other you have written) very clear end precise. Concerning the kind of language used by the other side I begin to supect that it is not a matter of discussion anymore but of behavior analysis.
Sickening.

Date: 2007/09/03 17:57:13, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Hey ERV,

Welcome to our little group.  It's like Mystery Science Theatre except without the popcorn.  We do, however, have robot puppets.  

Hermagoras

Date: 2007/09/03 20:55:22, Link
Author: Hermagoras
What the hell is the Lifeworks foundation anyway?  A google search seems to bring it up mainly as a patron of the arts.

Date: 2007/09/04 16:05:06, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Evolutionary info website is back up.  But Dr. Dr. Dr. Dembski is not listed under "people."

Date: 2007/09/04 18:02:35, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Joe's back on my blog.  He refuses to admit he's wrong.  Surprise!

That is: my joke blog pro-science (linked above), not paralepsis.

Date: 2007/09/04 19:26:17, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (GCT @ Sep. 04 2007,19:22)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 04 2007,17:25)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 04 2007,16:01)
Just had another thought...

The whole Dembksi / UD / ID saga is perfect for TV.

Great idea!

But I'm afraid it's already been done...


That's what I was thinking.  Pinky and the Brain was genius though.

Let me sure I've got the casting right.  Dembski is the brain -- that I understand.  But DaveScot is too malevolent to be Pinky.  Could Pinky be Denyse?

Date: 2007/09/04 19:29:16, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote
DEMBSKI:  The plans, Denyse, for the super-conductive magnetic infindibulator.  Shall I explain how it works?

DENYSE: Narf!  Challenge me!

DEMBSKI: I'm sure I will.  By using the infindibulator to deplete hydrogen and promote gravitational collapse, we will produce a magnetic charge in the center of the earth so strong that every person who has loose change in their pockets will be magnetically drawn to the ground and stuck there.

DENYSE: Egad, Brain, brilliant!  Uh, oh no, wait.  What if they take off their pants?


Works for me.

Date: 2007/09/05 20:06:15, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Rob @ Sep. 05 2007,18:54)
O'Leary:  
Quote
Baylor does NOT want anyone adding more mathematical bad news to the ol? Darwinian magic

Denyse doesn't know valid math from a puddle of cow puke.  Dembski must be positively giddy that his groupies lap up any old swill he pours in their trough.  I don't know who's more at fault, Dembski or his enablers.

Sorry, I just read some Joe G and it put me in a bad mood.

We've been pummeling Joe G at my joke blog.  What a guy: can't remember what he said last week.

Date: 2007/09/06 09:19:41, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Has anybody experienced anything threatening from Joe G?  He recently responded to a comment on his blog by identifying me by name and by my institution.  I responded on my blog and his, but I'd like to know of previous instances like this.

Date: 2007/09/06 11:23:24, Link
Author: Hermagoras
In Which I cry "Uncle" to Joe G:
Quote
Joe G has taken to physically threatening me if I do not stipulate that what he says he meant now is what he meant then. He also knows who I am, and where I work, and he lives not too far from me. He has said, "And I am being very generous by saying that on this blog as opposed to driving a few miles to say it to your face," and also "I will do whatever it takes to stop it." So, agreed Joe G. You win. What you say you meant now is what you meant then.

Someone identified your name and town on this blog, and like a decent person, I deleted it.

See how we can resolve arguments amicably?

I'm so glad you are able to convince people by way of reasoned argument.

Also, I'm fat.

Date: 2007/09/06 11:37:49, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Rob @ Sep. 06 2007,11:30)
Joe G and JAD are in a class of their own when it comes to instability.  There's gotta be something in the New England water.  Do you drink Evian, Hermagoras?

If Joe G is in New Hampshire, we drink different water.  Mine comes from the mighty Quabbin, and it's fine indeed.

Date: 2007/09/06 11:51:27, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 06 2007,11:41)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 06 2007,11:37)
 
Quote (Rob @ Sep. 06 2007,11:30)
Joe G and JAD are in a class of their own when it comes to instability. ?There's gotta be something in the New England water. ?Do you drink Evian, Hermagoras?

If Joe G is in New Hampshire, we drink different water. ?Mine comes from the mighty Quabbin, and it's fine indeed.

Then I must be south of your location.

Did you ever see the Quabbin special on PBS?  Fantastic special with divers diving the bottom to show the old town, bridge and railroad and golf course remains.

I'm in the Boston area.  As to documentaries, I only know Haunting the Quabbin, a great radio documentary produced by WBUR.  The former town residents still hold ceremonial town meetings every year.  Very poignant.  

Also there's James Tate's poem "Quabbin Reservoir" (in Distance from Loved Ones, 1990), which includes the following passage:
Quote
There was a village at the bottom of the lake,
and I could just make out the old post office,
and, occasionally, when the light struck it just right,
I glimpsed several mailmen swimming in or out of it,
letters and packages escaping randomly, 1938, 1937,
it didn't matter to them any longer.  Void.
No such address.

Date: 2007/09/06 12:15:32, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Not content with identifying me by name in comments, Joe G has put me in the subject line of two of his posts at Intelligent [sic] Reasoning.  

Edited:  Links removed from this post.

Date: 2007/09/06 18:25:26, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 06 2007,17:08)
DT quoted by Chatfiefd: ?  
Quote
At one point, about 18 months ago, I wrote an article saying I was going to delete all arguments against common descent


Even if common descent is a fact, that speaks volume about DT's policy at UD. "Everything that goes against my opinion will be censored."

What an ass.
:O

Because you don't want arguments against common descent at a blog called "Uncommon Descent."  That would make no sense at all.

Date: 2007/09/07 21:27:00, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (ERV @ Sep. 07 2007,21:05)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 07 2007,18:45)
People in Oklahoma who have 'never heard the gospel'? ? ?

Nononono-- Theyve HEARD it.  They just havent been 'penetrated' by the gospel yet.

In our effort to penetrate the university campus with the gospel...

At least theyre honest.

To get properly penetrated, they're gonna experience The Wedge:



Or, for maybe The Wedge:

Date: 2007/09/08 09:31:20, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 08 2007,04:45)
DaveTard
     
Quote
It is my understanding that the EIL charter was to further the understanding of random mutation in biologic machinery.

It is my understanding that DT is talking out of his arse.

C'mon Bob, quote the whole DT post, which shows his profound autodidactic understanding of bioinformatics:    
Quote
Bioinformatics is the new frontier. Understanding and harnessing bacterial genomes opens up an almost unimaginable world for engineering and manufacturing.

Random mutation from a bioengineering perspective is as welcome as rust in structural engineering and random memory errors in computer engineering.

It is my understanding that the EIL charter was to further the understanding of random mutation in biologic machinery. That’s important research. Random mutation must be understood and statistically predictable so that engineers can deal with it accordingly.

In the future imagined by DT, bioinformatics will create the conditions for world rule by engineers.
That's my personal vision of hell.

Date: 2007/09/09 10:19:15, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 09 2007,09:24)
Hermagoras tweaks Bradford over at Telic Thoughts:
 
Quote
But if the Lifeworks foundation was basically a front group for the DI, then Baylor's president may have felt deceived. DI sets up Biologic Institute; Biologic Institute researcher becomes president and sole employee of Lifeworks foundation; LWF gives grant to Marks. Have I got that chronology right? Where does the Lifeworks foundation get its money from, in the end. Who funded the funder?

Who funded the funder?

*Gives Hermagoras a high-five*

*low bow*

Date: 2007/09/09 10:24:37, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 09 2007,10:14)
 
Quote
DaveScot: Front loading passes peer review in Cell Cycle.

 
Quote
Cell Cycle recognizes that excellent papers may have been erroneously rejected by other journals. We will reconsider papers that have been rejected by Nature, Science, Nature Medicine, Nature Cell Biology, Cell, Cancer Cell, Cell Metabolism, Developmental Cell, NEJM, Lancet, Genes & Development and some other journals in the original format of those journals, thus saving the authors effort and time.

Authors are encouraged to suggest and decline potential reviewers.

Ultra-rapid peer-review (usually within one-two days)

Ah.  I see it exceeds the peer review standards of PSCID (RIP).

Accepting the format of the rejected article?  Wow.  Must be an interesting look, that journal.  My library doesn't get Cell Cycle.

FWIW, the author doesn't list the article (or any publications since 2002) on his department web page.

Date: 2007/09/09 10:58:55, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Could somebody chime in over at Joe G's blog?  I've accepted, under duress, his claim that he's really saying that nobody knows anything about the genes responsible for the origin of the visual system.  But even there he's wrong, as I've pointed out (Pax6 and related genes seem to be well established in that regard).  But he's really obsessed with me, calling me out by name, etc. I'm not sure what to do.

Date: 2007/09/09 13:50:35, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 09 2007,11:17)
Michael Y. Sherman has a good publication track record, according to the Web of Science. He is listed as an author on 47 peer-reviewed articles, including 2 in 2007. Citations (excluding self-citations) are a respectable 1577. His pubs  are mostly in middle-of-the-road but solid biochemistry journals (e.g. FASEB Journal, J. Biol. Chem. Mol. Cell. Biochem.). He had a PNAS article in 2005. Most of the recent stuff seems to be about heat-shock proteins, although one of his earlier papers (1982) addressed chemotaxis and the bacterial flagellar proteins.

My bad.  I should have looked at one of the databases rather than his profile.  (I just stumbled across it while looking for a PDF of the paper.)  

He needs to update his profile at his department.

Date: 2007/09/09 14:11:10, Link
Author: Hermagoras
FYI, here are the tests Sherman proposes:

 
Quote
There are two main testable predictions of the presented hypothesis, which are absolutely critical for validation of the model: (1) full or parts of the developmental programs characteristic to higher taxons must be encoded in genomes of lower taxons, and (2) blocks of genetic information encoding these developmental programs in more primitive taxons must be useless in these taxons.

Date: 2007/09/09 17:55:12, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Thanks Z.  I'm afraid I just got a little freaked out when he started exhibiting stalker behavior (mentioning where I live, for example) on his blog.  I'm fine now.

Date: 2007/09/10 00:00:26, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 09 2007,23:29)
https://www.blogger.com/comment....3429519


 
Quote
As for the BC game thingy- that meant if I really wanted to, if I was really threatening you, I could have dropped by. After-all I was with my boys.




[/B]

Hilarious.

Date: 2007/09/10 19:10:13, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Tom English is also a poet.  And he's not shabby:
   
Quote
Feast of Scraps

Aboard the dreadnought Manifest Destiny
there’s a feast of scraps beneath the table
for any person with the nobility of a dog.
I howl from below and dodge the jackboots

I sense an EIL allegory.

Date: 2007/09/10 19:12:48, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Umm. . . . holy crap!
Quote
Do you think the younger races have more information for skin color than the younger races?
I think it is fairly obvious that the East Africans have all the inherent traits of all the races in their genomes! Whereas it is also obvious that Europeans are much more deficient of the raw material to “make” other color races. To me it is clear that more information for skin color resides in the East Africans! It is commonly known that the black color is really a mixture of all the other colors when referring to materials, whereas white contains all the other colors when referring to light! As to how to extrapolate this basic fact for color information to the genome I do not know right now. As well you can clearly see genetic entropy in the wild with the sub-species of “horses” such as donkey and zebra. It is very easy to see which is closer to the parent species that was originally created by God and to see which has been “naturally selected” for to produce the “very limited variability” we can easily see in the sub-species!
As far as front loading goes, I believe that “beneficial adaptations” will occur from preexisting information such as what we see in the polar bear from the grizzly bear but that the adaptation , though beneficial, will result in the loss of information from the original parent species. Such as the loss of information for hair color.


Wow.

Added: Link

Date: 2007/09/10 20:05:07, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 10 2007,19:58)
Holee shit:

   
Quote
I think it is fairly obvious that the East Africans have all the inherent traits of all the races in their genomes! Whereas it is also obvious that Europeans are much more deficient of the raw material to “make” other color races. To me it is clear that more information for skin color resides in the East Africans! It is commonly known that the black color is really a mixture of all the other colors when referring to materials, whereas white contains all the other colors when referring to light! As to how to extrapolate this basic fact for color information to the genome I do not know right now. As well you can clearly see genetic entropy in the wild with the sub-species of “horses” such as donkey and zebra. It is very easy to see which is closer to the parent species that was originally created by God and to see which has been “naturally selected” for to produce the “very limited variability” we can easily see in the sub-species!


Um, am I right that he's saying that White people were 'originally created by God' and that Black people are a result of natural selection?

It's hard to see through the Tard-fog, but I think he's saying exactly the opposite.  Creationism is the anti-racism!  Evolution leads to Nazism!  Etc. (insert creationist canards freely).  

It's really odd, for sure.  He's forgotten that real people aren't actually white or black.  

Cue up a little Bruce Cockburn:  
Quote
Who needs supremacy of pink people?
There's no such thing as a pure racial strain
Takes all colors to make a rainbow
Takes every part to making a working brain

Date: 2007/09/11 12:00:07, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Joe G's obsession with me continues on his blog.  I've decided to ignore him.  Given his behavior (documented on my blog), I wonder if I might ask people here likewise to ignore his blog entirely?  If he engages me on my blog (http://pro-science.blogspot.com) that's one thing, but I'd like to starve him of attention with respect to his little crusade.  

We now return to our usual programming.

Date: 2007/09/11 13:37:00, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Rob @ Sep. 11 2007,13:11)
   
Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 11 2007,12:00)
Joe G's obsession with me continues on his blog.  I've decided to ignore him.  Given his behavior (documented on my blog), I wonder if I might ask people here likewise to ignore his blog entirely?  If he engages me on my blog (http://pro-science.blogspot.com) that's one thing, but I'd like to starve him of attention with respect to his little crusade.

As far as shunning Joe's blog, you would think that would be easy to do, given the ugliness of his behavior.  I avoided his site for a long time, but then I made the mistake of reading his comments on your blog, and I got ticked off enough to break my silence with him.  I agree that he's utterly undeserving of anyone's attention, and there's no good reason to take his bait.

I think most of us have a hard time letting falsehoods and fallacies that are accompanied by arrogance and verbal abuse go unchallenged.  I know I do.  I think the thing to remember is that Joe's irrationality and hostility are so far beyond the pale that nobody lends him any credibility, except for those few benighted souls who are on his same level, heaven forbid.  Keeping in mind that correcting him is both unnecessary and futile, maybe I can do a better job of maintaining my silence in the future.

I share the temptation.  Hell, I have drawn attention to his blog even here.  But maybe that's why his blog exists: just to pick fights.  Looking at the comments over there, it's clear that nobody gives a shit about his blog except those who want to correct his stupidity and viciousness.  Seeing as he lives in a universe of his own invention, however, correction so far has failed to take.  

I have liked your comments over there.  A lot.  Maybe the thing to do is just ignore the posts about me.  I'm not really concerned about the other threads.  Meanwhile, I'll not post over there at all.

Whatever you decide is fine by me.  

(I've put a link to the basics of his behavior at the top of the pro-science blog, so it doesn't got away.)

Date: 2007/09/11 14:34:58, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Link
Quote

Quote
Genetic Entropy IS THE LOSS OF INFORMATION!!!!!

OH REALLY????!!!1???

Glad I wasn't drinking when I read that.  Good on you, Bob-Oh.

Date: 2007/09/11 15:58:07, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 11 2007,15:27)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 11 2007,15:15)
If you're going to shout across the cosmos, you might say more than "Hey!"

In contrast to what?  Beeming out cheesy old reruns? Can you imagine what that would lead to?

"By Grabthar's hammer, by the sons of Worvan, you shall be avenged."

Date: 2007/09/13 11:20:49, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 13 2007,08:56)
MEGATARD!

I'm going to have to reproduce the whole thing in case someone from the reality based community has a word with him, and he deletes it:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2007....fi.html

 
Quote
Thursday, September 13, 2007
The Explanatory Filter (EF) used on the Sci-Fi Channel!
All too often I here cries that the Explanatory Filter is not used by anyone, anywhere. I have always responded that the people who say that do not know how to determine design in the absence of watching the designer at work.

But anuway, the Sci-Fi Channel has a show called "Ghost Hunters". Their methodology on the show captures/ models the EF.

That is with every phenomenon they observe they first try to explain it without calls to "ghosts". IOW they set out to debunk the claim(s) of "ghost(s)".

If they have high EMF readings they try to find a normal electrical source.

If doors open and close in the absence of a person they try to find some "natural" cause.

If shadows move across a room they try to find a "natural" cause.

Only once all possible "natural" causes are ruled out do they come to a paranormal inference.

That is the EF in action!

Joe "likes" putting "natural" in "scare quotes" but he can't "spell" the "word" hear.

Date: 2007/09/14 18:51:11, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 14 2007,14:59)
 
Quote (factician @ Sep. 14 2007,14:56)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 14 2007,14:36)
Dippy Joe, pure Tard:

Aren't they worried they may some day run out of Tard?

It's a renewal resource. Every time SLoT is violated, the Irreducible complexity fairy cries a tear of pure Tard, which is propelled into reality from "beyond naturalism" by a fracterial blagella.

Joe seems to find that three books constitute a horn of plenty, Tard-wise:

* Darwinism, Design, and Public Education
* Why is a Fly not a Horse?
* The Privileged Planet
(also available on video!!!)

Add "stochastic processes," "culled through genetic accidents," and random insults.  Stir.

Date: 2007/09/16 08:45:57, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 16 2007,02:21)
Over on another thread, Rich and BWE have pointed to this book:
Sex and Character (Pandas Publications a Series About Central Questions)by Deborah D. Cole (Author), Maureen G. Duran (Author), William Dembski (Editor)

I thought it was better to come over here to quote the way the book starts:
Quote
How far would you go to do what you know is right?  Would you sacrifice something important?  Would you risk your life?  Would you face being ridiculed and rejected?


Bob

The content of this book provides instant allegory!  Here, Robert Marks ("Melissa") contemplates the collaboration offer from Dembski ("Steve Branson"):

Quote
"Stay with me tonight" he whispered.

Melissa felt her heart race. Thoughts rushed into her mind: “We're not married ..... I hardly know him.... what if my parents find out?... What if I stay?.... What if I say no?” One thought kept coming kick: “But this is Steve Branson!"  She knew that many of her friends would have jumped at the
chance to spend the night with him.

Date: 2007/09/16 10:19:19, Link
Author: Hermagoras
"Pilates to Lilley's Caiaphas."  

Heh.  That explain's Caiaphas's recent loss of weight.  And man, check out DaveScot these days:

Date: 2007/09/16 20:29:58, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 16 2007,16:09)
I sought to capture the tone of WAD's previous notpologies - the tone of a petulant prick - in my little satire. I guess I succeeded. I worried that Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas were over the top (and, you know, I've got to look that stuff up to get the characters and their new testament roles straight), as well as some of the language, but it appears that WAD and UD self-satirize to the point that satire is indistinguishable from the real thing, and superfluous.  

You guys don't have faulty nixplanatory filters - rather, you are misapplying them. A nixplanatory filter employs complex circuitry (including quicktwitch nixtrafuge and low impact abusifier) to detect sensible, science-based commentary on UD, thereby permitting WAD and DaveTard to quickly detect such comments and ban the commenters. By definition, the filter permits the abject horseshit excreted by WAD, DT, Denyse, and ID friendly commenters of UD to reach the screen untouched. Satire of UD concentrates and distills that horseshit, rendering it even less likely to be detected by a properly functioning nixplanatory filter. Christian Notpologetics also pass unmolested (not sure why, but it clearly does). Hence your filters were silent today.

You captured the tone perfectly.  "Notpology" is perfect: just like the infamous cdesign proponentists.  

As to why UD is silent right now, I think it's clear that they've been bombarded and the filter is clogged:

Date: 2007/09/18 16:25:51, Link
Author: Hermagoras
New Site "Design"ed to Hurt Eyes.

Must . . . turn . . . down . . . monitor. . .

Date: 2007/09/18 16:27:21, Link
Author: Hermagoras
And why the hell is there is a JAD collection?   I thought he was banninated.

Date: 2007/09/18 16:34:27, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Does anybody else think that the banner -- WmAD and Denyse (hawking a book, natch) on opposite sides of the words "Uncommon Descent" -- is a leeetle bit dirty?  

Just me, I guess.

Date: 2007/09/18 20:35:15, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 18 2007,16:55)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 18 2007,16:34)
Does anybody else think that the banner -- WmAD and Denyse (hawking a book, natch) on opposite sides of the words "Uncommon Descent" -- is a leeetle bit dirty?  

Just me, I guess.

Hmmm...

Um, do you, uh, have a girlfriend?  ;)

Wife, actually.  

I'm just thinking Denyse looks, well, mannish (and eager to sell her book).  WmAD, on the other hand, leans fetchingly on the rail in his cardigan, squinting longingly into the distance . . .

All of a sudden, I see a double entendre in the title "Uncommon Descent" -- the hopeful-monster spawn of a Dembksi-O'Leary pairing.  Uncommon indeed.

Date: 2007/09/18 21:15:48, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 18 2007,21:06)
one word  mangina

Sometimes, k.e., your Beckett avatar lives up to its minimalist reputation.

Date: 2007/09/19 18:58:33, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 19 2007,18:14)
 
Quote
William Dembski: Rob, Your question betrays an insensitivity to the sensibilities of our group. One more strike and you’re out. –WmAD

What a




Date: 2007/09/19 20:46:59, Link
Author: Hermagoras
DaveScot's woken up!

 
Quote
I was thinking this was a blessing in disguise too. You can’t buy publicity like this. By their actions Baylor has now made the Bioinformatics Lab the talk of the town, so to speak. The smart move for Lilley would be to quickly admit his decision was a mistake made in haste under pressure from unnamed sources and then reinstate the Bioinformatics Lab. If he does the dumb thing this is just going to explode into a huge embarrassing brouhaha that will survive longer than he does. I’m betting he does the dumb thing but maybe he’ll surprise me.


Clearly the smart thing would be to knuckle under to Ben Stein and his mighty film crew.

Date: 2007/09/22 11:29:01, Link
Author: Hermagoras
I keep getting the following message when I go to UD:

Quote
This blog is currently undergoing maintenance. Please try back later. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Plugin provided by Taragana


Is this just me?  You folks seem to be able to follow the tard as it flows.  

(BTW, I tried clearing my cache: no soap).

Date: 2007/09/22 16:39:36, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Ah, I can read UD again. What relief.  I had such a tard-jones, I was gettin' the DTs.  

Oh, wait.  That didn't sound right.  

Hey Bob-O: your link to noted fashion-physicist David Tyler killed me.

Date: 2007/09/23 08:14:27, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (dochocson @ Sep. 23 2007,00:54)
I had never visited O'Leary's blog before. Entertaining, in a dysfunctional ID sort of way.

Does any one know why she identifies herself as a "Roman Catholic Christian"? Is there another kind of Roman Catholic?

I think the label is her way of telling fundamentalists she's really a Christian, not just a follower of the AntiChPope.

Date: 2007/09/28 20:03:25, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Most of the time when I go to UD I still get the following:

Quote
This blog is currently undergoing maintenance. Please try back later. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Plugin provided by Taragana


What the hell?  Everybody else seems to get Tard by the bucketful.   For a few clicks it worked, but it's still down most of the time.  Anybody with a technical suggestion want to suggest a solution for me?

Date: 2007/09/28 21:34:48, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Touchstone @ Sep. 28 2007,20:59)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 28 2007,20:03)
Most of the time when I go to UD I still get the following:

 
Quote
This blog is currently undergoing maintenance. Please try back later. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Plugin provided by Taragana


What the hell?  Everybody else seems to get Tard by the bucketful.   For a few clicks it worked, but it's still down most of the time.  Anybody with a technical suggestion want to suggest a solution for me?

Hermagoras,

Dunno what your whole history is with UD, but maybe they've blocked a nailed IP address for you? One way to check is to use an anonymous proxy and see what happens when you visit UD that way.

Try going to:

http://www.htmlblock.co.uk/anon.php

And enter "http://uncommondescent.com", and it will navigate to UD, anonymously (different, untrackable IP than you normally reveal with your machine). If you can see the UD site dispayed normally with this method (the proxy will have an advertising/control panel at the top), then this would suggest that you've been a bad enough boy that someone at UD is trying to keep you from even *reading* their stuff, let alone posting there.

Just something to try.

-TS

(I've not seen and "downtime" from UD in the past week, fwiw)

I'll be damned.  Thanks!

Date: 2007/10/02 12:00:53, Link
Author: Hermagoras
That's a big helping of crow he's eating there.  Good for him.  I've congratulated UD-ers for less.

Date: 2007/10/06 21:06:07, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Things are back to normal!  

I can read UD again -- who knows why my computer was inexplicably blocked for several weeks -- and Dembski's alter ego Galapagos Finch has notdropped the other notpology notshoe:
     
Quote
Professor Robert Marks Arrested for Protesting Administrative Removal of his Web Site on Intelligent Design



Baylor calls police, presses charges, seeks sanctions, and moves faculty office to the basement of the Engineering Building. “This has nothing to do with the Professor’s protest,” says Baylor spokesman.

Glad to see that Dembki&Co are taking the high road.

(Edited merely to fix a formatting bug -Steve)



Date: 2007/10/06 21:52:49, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Again, Larry Cranston hits the bulls-eye and inexplicably breaks through the moderation filters:
   
Quote

Let me get this straight. Dr. Dembski takes the high road and posts an apology about the Baylor/EIL affair.

Then this gets posted? I presume this is intended as humor, but this does nothing to raise the level of discourse.

The next thing you know, someone will be making fart jokes.


Holy crap.  What's the over-under on when this gets purged?

Date: 2007/10/06 22:00:55, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 06 2007,21:54)
HAR HAR HAR THIS IS ONE OF YOU?

Hermagoras beats me to the punchline!

Predictions as to the speed of removal, RH?  Mention of "fart jokes" on UD is as welcome as talk of loofahs and/or falafel on "The Unreally Factor."

Date: 2007/10/06 22:45:38, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 06 2007,22:37)
THE WHOLE THREAD HAS GONE!

Must be a selective server glitch, again.

*points and laughs at UD*

You are a bunch of bad, bad tards.


WATERLOOPY.

Thread?  What thread?  I have no memory of that.

Date: 2007/10/06 22:47:35, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 06 2007,22:37)
THE WHOLE THREAD HAS GONE!

Must be a selective server glitch, again.

*points and laughs at UD*

You are a bunch of bad, bad tards.


WATERLOOPY.

You were just about right at 20 minutes.

Date: 2007/10/09 15:25:30, Link
Author: Hermagoras
How will this play out?  Will anybody mention it on UD?  I keep refreshing the relevant links (PT, Austringer, UD, Schneider's blog) hoping for something other than crickets.

Honestly, I don't see how Dembski can avoid saying something.  The errors are so widely publicized and so well described that even I -- an English professor -- can understand them.  Further, what remains of Dembski's credibility is entirely hung on the thin nail of his collaboration with Marks.  Is it possible that he'll just keep his fingers in his ears?  Am I being naive?

Date: 2007/10/10 20:38:34, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Speaking of bandwagons, BarryA jumps right on:
 
Quote
Dawkins Jumps on Board the International Jewish Conspiracy Bandwagon

Because as we all know, fundamentalists love them some Jews.

Added in the interests of full disclosure: I commented on the Respectful Insolence post a couple of days ago and have carried on a tangential conversation over at paralepsis.  I'm in the camp that thinks Dawkins was wrong to refer to the Israel lobby as "the Jewish lobby," as it implicitly maligns people like my friends in Jewish Voices for Peace.  But I agree to some extent about the power of the Israel lobby in American politics (and, from time to time, academia).

Date: 2007/10/11 11:35:57, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 11 2007,10:59)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 11 2007,10:25)
Remember that Jerry was telling us all how he was knowledgeable about biology?  Well, Prof. Myers may like to look away...    
Quote

I have a remote related question to what paraklete just said,
Has any part of the body been identified with development. We all know that development operates quickly during gestation so it is guided some how but it also operates for several more years after that and maybe till death. If some part of the brain or part of the body is removed, does it affect development? I find this an interesting question because “how does it know?” Obviously this could be done with any experimental mammal such as mice to get the answer. Does anyone know if this has been done?

Luckily I'm not a developmental biologist, but reading this I feel pain on their behalf.

Bob

Jerry has got to be a troll.  Or else one of the stupidest, non-developed, barin-dead super tarded homo non-sapiens ever.

For more of Jerry, check out his observations (cough, cough) about Jews.  This in a thread criticizing Dawkins for anti-Semitism:
 
Quote

My wife and I also worked in some businesses in Manhattan and there were Jews at high levels in all of them. Most of my bosses were Jews. All secular.

The New York Times is dominant by many Jewish interests, all secular. This is also true of Hollywood. The ACLU is heavily dominated by Jewish interest
. . .

My experience is that Jews are as a group very smart people, at high levels of all the major areas of our society such as business, media, medicine, academia, entertainment, and to some extent government. They promote a sense of fairness within these organizations as far as I can see and the many Jewish bosses of my wife and I had no hesitation of promoting non Jews or firing incompetent Jews.

And later:

 
Quote
Here is another observation about Jews that I have. [Do tell! -- H]  They are heavily involved in left wing politics and from what I understand of socialism were heavily involved in both German and Russian socialist movements.

Date: 2007/10/13 13:09:54, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 13 2007,12:41)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 13 2007,04:02)
I'm surprised ex-xian is still posting at UD.  Dave must have gone for a lay-down.

A couple of responses to ex-xian:
PaV is a tard    
Quote

ex-xian, you don’t seem to have a clue, so I will kindly give you one. The link between Darwinism, HIV/AIDS and Global Warming: government funding! So what we have is basically “scientific political correctness”.
I really have no axe to grind when it comes to the HIV/AIDS controversy; but consider this: HIV, the retrovirus, has been around since the 1920’s. If it’s been around since 1920, why did the AIDS epidemic start in the 80’s? Doesn’t that make you scratch your head a little? But, of course, you’re a liberal; and no one is more close-minded than a liberal, so, if the NY Times says that there’s no controversy, I’m sure that’s good enough for you. But we’re here to try and help you along.


Borne is a tard    
Quote

ex-xian : I suppose that stands for ex christian - a very dumb, judas-like confession if ever there was one.

How nice.

Bannination!

 
Quote


DaveScot

10/13/2007

11:33 am

ex-xian is now an ex-member and all his comments were ex-communicated.


to which jstanley01 replies,

 
Quote


jstanley01

10/13/2007

12:02 pm

ex-cellent!


Write it down!

Well, he lasted longer than I did.  But unlike ex-xian, my comments weren't subjected to forced disappearance.  

What amazes me is that the purging of ex-xian occurs in a thread in which a whole host of obvious lies about Gore, climate change, and HIV/AIDS are repeated.  Yet ex-xian gets the boot.

Date: 2007/10/13 15:27:09, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2007,16:46)
A couple of years ago I saw an interesting website. This out of shape guy had embarked on a rigorous exercise program and diet, and took a photo of himself each week. The site had the whole series of photos, week by week, as he transformed. I remember nothing else about the site. Anyone else seen this one?

I remember this too.  It was amazing.  

Ha!   I think I found it!  Are you thinking of this?  link

Date: 2007/10/13 16:19:11, Link
Author: Hermagoras
I'll add to Reciprocating Bill's good points above and note that an unsubtle understanding of reductionism seems to be at issue.  (I'd say that, from the evidence, Kristine and Jim Wynne seem to share that (mis)understanding, but take opposite sides on it.)  It all reminds me of a conversation I had once with Pat Churchland about a decade ago.  She was talking about reductionism to an audience primarily comprising undergraduates.  Her examples were things like "heat" and "temperature," and she wanted (IIRC) to say that all non-scientific definitions of such terms were not true and that only the scientific definitions had meaning.  In my memory of the conversation, she said that all understandings of temperature that did not reduce to "a measure of the average kinetic energy in a body"  were worthless.  I said something about such a definition being uninteresting to a person freezing to death, and that to such a person a definition of "heat" as "life" was maybe a bit more pertinent.  

As I recall, she didn't see what context had to do with anything.

Date: 2007/10/13 16:50:55, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 13 2007,16:45)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Oct. 13 2007,17:19)
I'll add to Reciprocating Bill's good points above and note that an unsubtle understanding of reductionism seems to be at issue.  (I'd say that, from the evidence, Kristine and Jim Wynne seem to share that (mis)understanding, but take opposite sides on it.)  It all reminds me of a conversation I had once with Pat Churchland about a decade ago.  She was talking about reductionism to an audience primarily comprising undergraduates.  Her examples were things like "heat" and "temperature," and she wanted (IIRC) to say that all non-scientific definitions of such terms were not true and that only the scientific definitions had meaning.  In my memory of the conversation, she said that all understandings of temperature that did not reduce to "a measure of the average kinetic energy in a body"  were worthless.  I said something about such a definition being uninteresting to a person freezing to death, and that to such a person a definition of "heat" as "life" was maybe a bit more pertinent.  

As I recall, she didn't see what context had to do with anything.

Paul and Patricia Churchland are hardbitten eliminativists, and have argued for 20 years that folk psychological notions such as "beliefs" and "desires" will have no more place in completed neurocognitive science than do "phlogiston" and "caloric fluid" in modern physics.  

If you are tempted by eliminativism, I highly recommend Stephen Stich's wonderful (and ironically entitled) Deconstructing the Mind (1996, Oxford Univeristy Press). Stich once endorsed and advanced eliminative materialism and co-authored a very influential eliminativist essay ("Connectionism, Eliminativism, and the Future of Folk Psychology"), but subsequently came to argue that he was mistaken. This book is a series of essays that summarizes and then traces his move from a Churchlandesque position to something quite different, essays that are both very informative in their own right and document a very brave and public process of a prominent philosopher of science changing his mind.

Yeah, Churchland referred to her position as "eliminative reductionism," defining her (and Paul's) position as a species of reductionism.  It seems to me that Kristine and Jim are talking about that kind of reductionism when they (alternately) praise and blame reductionism as such.  But that's not necessary.

Date: 2007/10/15 05:35:02, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (djmullen @ Oct. 15 2007,00:27)
Strictly speaking, this is not UD related - but I'll bet we can get Salvadore to fall for it:

http://objectiveministries.org/creation/projectpterosaur.html

A bunch of YECs are going to Africa to hunt pterosaurs.  (They would go to Papua, New Guinea, but Reverand Carl Baugh is way ahead of them there - he's already got permits from the PNG government to capture a few pterosaurs.)  

They could also have hunted apatosaurs, which are "known" to live in the jungles of the Congo, but they're too big.

Plesiosaurs live in many lakes, and their carcasses have been found in the oceans, but they're too shy.

Trilobites live on the bottom of the ocean, but they'd need a sub.

Velociraptors "terrorize the goat herders of Puerto Rico and are rumored to guard the remains of the Ark on Mt. Ararat", but they've gotten very vicious since the fall due to "genetic entrophy".

So, pterosaurs are more or less "just right".  They're small enough for a single church to start a breeding colony and they don't live too long, which for some reason makes breeding them easier.

Also, check out http://objectiveministries.org/creation/pterosaurs.html for a picture of Confederate soldiers standing on the body of a pterosaur if you don't believe they exist.

Also, don't fail to click on the anti-triclavianist button on the left side of the first page.  Seems there's a bit of controversy about just how many nails held Jesus to the cross.

And remember, if anything on these pages looks like a parody to you, it's a sure and certain sign that you're going to hell.  Or that you'll go to heaven and Salvadore will spend all eternity explaining ID to you.

Pretty hilarious, for reals.



Eve: "Is that a pterosaur skull crest you're holding or are you just happy to see me?"

Date: 2007/10/16 21:06:33, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (steve_h @ Oct. 16 2007,20:55)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 17 2007,03:19)
BA77 relaxes the sphincter a bit more to explain his notions to fellow tard-travelers borne and magnan.

The resulting dungheap contains at least a couple of gems; I'm sure that more experienced spelunkers will find several more. For me, the highlights included this            
Quote
A rock is composed of three basic ingredients; energy, force and truth.

13. Materialism didn't predict that, but theism did (ed: seems a bit short, try and flesh pad it out a bit)

My favorite of BA77's latest craptacular post is this:
 
Quote
If you want I will prove to you consciousness is indeed separate from the brain.

Which just needs a little tweaking:
 
Quote
If you want I will prove to you my consciousness is indeed separate from my brain.

That I'll buy.

Date: 2007/10/17 07:35:48, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (djmullen @ Oct. 17 2007,05:05)

I don't think the Evil Darwinist Conspiracy can take credit for Limbaugh and O'Rielly's sexual preferences and problems, though.

I admit it: I am responsible for Rush Limbaugh's pathetic, flaccid member.  Also, several years ago, I gave Bill 0'Reilly a loofah, but the card said "Happy Holidays."

(Edited for brevity -- Herm)

Date: 2007/10/17 20:23:46, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 16 2007,21:12)
Quote (drew91 @ Oct. 15 2007,13:50)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 11 2007,16:46)
A couple of years ago I saw an interesting website. This out of shape guy had embarked on a rigorous exercise program and diet, and took a photo of himself each week. The site had the whole series of photos, week by week, as he transformed. I remember nothing else about the site. Anyone else seen this one?

This the one?  

http://www.johnstonefitness.com/php/pictures.php

That is exactly the site I remember. What a series of pics. Amazing. Take a look at the week-by-week shots. His progress by the end of the third, fourth, and fifth months is astounding.

Wow.  That's cooler than the site I linked to, because the other person is unreal.  I'm about in the same shape as that guy at the very beginning. Quite inspiring.

Date: 2007/10/17 20:35:46, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 17 2007,12:50)
OFF TOPIC.

I've just agreed to review an article in a Journal. What exactly does this entail?

Richard,

I used to work as associate managing editor for The Journal of Neuroscience (1990-1992).  Basically this involved managing the logistics of review.  I poached a lot from that experience in my teaching of writing.  Anyway, from that perspective -- not a scientist, but an English prof. who's done his share of reviewing and who has seen more science reviews than most (we had thousands of submissions a year), here's what I think a good review includes:

(1) A summary of the paper.  This establishes your bona fides and lets the writer and/or editor(s) know if you're on the right track.

(2) A set of major critiques.  Put that right after the summary.  Focus on the bigger issues: experimental design, controls, conclusions, etc.  

(3) A set of minor critiques.  Here's where you focus on the writing and smaller issues ("you need to label that figure correctly," etc.)

(4) Finally, an evaluative statement.  You may get specific guidelines here.  But if not, consider that editors usually want to get two kinds of judgment: acceptability and priority .  A paper is acceptable if it does what it sets out to do and isn't loaded with problems.  But a paper has a high priority if it's exactly right for this journal, is groundbreaking, etc.  At J. Neurosci. we rejected  a lot of papers that were acceptable but not very interesting, and we encouraged revision (leading to eventual acceptance) of papers with big problems that might turn out to be exciting.  We nurtured those, boyoboy.

(Minor edit: Hermagoras)

Date: 2007/10/17 20:42:32, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Has anybody mentioned this from BA77?
Quote
If you mix red, yellow, and blue paint !(the three primary colors for a material object) you will get the black color.

Uh, no, you won't.  

Plus, so-called "black" people are not actually black, any more than so-called "white" people are white. White people are, as my five-year-old pointed out to me, pink.

Date: 2007/10/18 12:56:18, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Grandma Bonehead's latest post: 95 words, including five links to her other blogs.  

Flog it, Denyse, flog it.

Date: 2007/10/21 18:55:39, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Just curious: was the interview actually conducted in Spanish?

Date: 2007/10/23 11:36:42, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Oct. 23 2007,11:10)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 23 2007,11:28)
Not many bac. flag.s recently though. Ooops, they're not I.C.

Bac Flag?  I thought they broke up back in the 80's.


Off-topic: I f***ing loved that album.

Date: 2007/10/24 12:29:59, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (HalfMooner @ Oct. 24 2007,03:31)

Sorry to be late to the party, but I just now stopped laughing.  That is the funniest thing I've seen in ages.  Utterly brilliant.  

Question: how much humorous "information" is contained in that image?  It depends on what you've seen before (cough cough) .

I've been reading through the Dembskian corpus, and I keep encountering an equivocation along these lines on whether measuring information does not dependent on communicative context.  I know Ellsberry and Shallit discussed this in their contribution to the Edis book.  Is there something in the information literature that can bring me up to speed on this issue?

Date: 2007/10/25 23:10:53, Link
Author: Hermagoras
The Elements of Tard, by Grandma Bonehead:
 
Quote
I do not have any means of describing how I write well.

My dear, that's because what you're describing does not exist.
Rule of thumb: assume that everything O'Leary has to say about writing is wrong.  If you want to write well, and you can figure out her advice, do the opposite.

Date: 2007/10/26 11:47:02, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 26 2007,10:55)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 26 2007,11:46)
 
Quote (HalfMooner @ Oct. 24 2007,03:31)


An issue no one's adressed yet:

What happens when/if this, uh, individual farts? Does the world end?



I'll get me coat...

No no, chillax -

That's how the universe BEGAN. Interstellar gases and all.

It's actually how civilization began, according to James Joyce.  In Finnegans Wake, Joyce riffs on Vico's idea, in Scienza Nuova, that civilization began when early humans, frightened by a thunderclap, fled into the caves.  Several times in the Wake Joyce frames this thunderclap as a fart from God.  For example, in FW 2.2 (page 262), the fart takes place in a bathtub:

Quote
A goodrid croven in a tynwalled tub.


This has been your irrelevant literary factoid for the day.

Date: 2007/10/26 13:10:58, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 26 2007,12:13)
Wow.  Dembski is lecturing scientists on how to retract papers?  Gotta place an order for irony meters.

My favorite bit:

 
Quote
But by having its author not merely dsavow its superseded conclusions, but formally “retract” the paper, the effect is to wipe it out of history.

Welcome to the world of scientific revisionism.


Welcome?!?  UD is the friggin' hub of the revisionist universe!  

Also, he's simply wrong: a retraction does not "wipe out" the history of the paper -- it adds to the history.  Wiping out the history would be, oh, I don't know -- say, silently removing an "in circulation" paper from a web site when it has been found to be full of holes without ever responding to the criticisms that eviscerated it or even acknowledging that the paper was ever there in the first place?  

I'm just spitballin' here.  Stuff like that probably never happens.

[Edited for link and a typo]

Date: 2007/10/26 13:24:39, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 26 2007,13:21)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Oct. 26 2007,13:10)
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 26 2007,12:13)
Wow.  Dembski is lecturing scientists on [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/retracting-a-52-year-old-scientific-paper-scientists-getting-into-the-business-of-historic


al-revisionism]how to retract papers[/URL]?  Gotta place an order for irony meters.

My favorite bit:

   
Quote
But by having its author not merely dsavow its superseded conclusions, but formally “retract” the paper, the effect is to wipe it out of history.

Welcome to the world of scientific revisionism.


Welcome?!?  UD is the friggin' hub of the revisionist universe!  

Also, he's simply wrong: a retraction does not "wipe out" the history of the paper -- it adds to the history.  Wiping out the history would be, oh, I don't know -- say, silently removing an "in circulation" paper from a web site when it has been found to be full of holes without ever responding to the criticisms that eviscerated it or even acknowledging that the paper was ever there in the first place?  

I'm just spitballin' here.  Stuff like that probably never happens.

[Edited for link and a typo]

Too bad you are banned, and thus a non-person at UD.  

Otherwise, I am sure Dr. Dembski would be very greatful for the correction, and I am sure he would publicly acknowledge your contribution, make the correction and apologise to all for his error.

BWA HA Ha! HA!  Jeez, the guy can't get anything right!

The quiet irony of Matthew Tan may go unnoticed, so let me praise it here:
Quote
This article of William Dembski is from now on public record. So, nothing retracted is “wiped out from history”.

Well played, Mr. Tan.  Well played.

Date: 2007/10/26 14:14:57, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Rob @ Oct. 26 2007,13:58)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Oct. 26 2007,13:10)
Wiping out the history would be, oh, I don't know -- say, silently removing an "in circulation" paper from a web site when it has been found to be full of holes without ever responding to the criticisms that eviscerated it or even acknowledging that the paper was ever there in the first place?  

I'm just spitballin' here.  Stuff like that probably never happens.

We could make your scenario even more extreme by imagining that the author of the disappeared paper surreptitiously changes what he said in an interview four months prior in which he crowed about said paper.

Now you're just talkin' crazy talk.  That would never happen.

Date: 2007/10/26 14:33:32, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Rob @ Oct. 26 2007,13:58)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ Oct. 26 2007,13:10)
Wiping out the history would be, oh, I don't know -- say, silently removing an "in circulation" paper from a web site when it has been found to be full of holes without ever responding to the criticisms that eviscerated it or even acknowledging that the paper was ever there in the first place?  

I'm just spitballin' here.  Stuff like that probably never happens.

We could make your scenario even more extreme by imagining that the author of the disappeared paper surreptitiously changes what he said in an interview four months prior in which he crowed about said paper.

Lots of anti-Tard getting through the UD filters today:

 
Quote
While it might be useful to note that the retraction came as a result of Jacobson’s being irked at being cited by creationists, it does not appear that the paper has been flushed down the Memory Hole in the Darwinist Ministry of Truth as Dr. Dembski seems to be contending.


link

Date: 2007/10/26 19:18:05, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (BWE @ Oct. 26 2007,18:16)
Also, I have not seen Gross point blank. Someone else recommended it. So, it's on the list for me. As is Silverado which I also haven't seen.

I love Grosse Point Blank.  Written very well, with a hilarious subthread about American capitalism and success.  The whole set of conversations about whether an assassin should join a union or not is brilliant.  

Some of my favorite movies, with lines:

Local Hero.  The first movie of a globalized world, I think.  My all-time favorite movie evah.  "I'll be a good Gordon, Gordon."

The Commitments.  "Aren't we a little -- white -- for that?"  Dublin before the "Celtic Tiger" -- the place doesn't exist anymore, not like that.  

The Advertures of Buckaroo Banzai.  Terrible production values, a screwed up movie for sure, but great lines.  "There are monkey-boys in the compound."  "Use more honey!"  "What's that watermelon doing there?"  Plus a great underground reference to Thomas Pynchon, locating the enemy in Yoyodyne Systems, Inc.  (Cf The Crying of Lot 49, and also Pynchon's Vineland, where he returns the compliment.)  

My Life as a Dog.  In Swedish, yeah, but I lived in Sweden for a while as a kid, so I get all misty.  A terrific movie of adolescence.  Plus, the kid gets his wang stuck in a coke bottle.  What's not to love?  

For some reason, I can watch Groundhog Day over and over again.  "Phil?  Phil Conners?"

Date: 2007/10/26 20:12:24, Link
Author: Hermagoras
The  revisionism thread makes for good reading.  
Mickey Bitsko:
 
Quote
Again, I’m ignorant of the procedures involved here, but does “retraction” mean that the original paper no longer exists in its original form?

Reed Orak:
 
Quote
So perhaps he did have valid grounds on which to retract his paper.

Bitsko again:    
Quote
While it might be useful to note that the retraction came as a result of Jacobson’s being irked at being cited by creationists, it does not appear that the paper has been flushed down the Memory Hole in the Darwinist Ministry of Truth as Dr. Dembski seems to be contending.

Bornagain blah blah blah, etc.  Then Bork "detracts" a big Tardball, apparently without irony:  
Quote
I can see it now- everyone who utilizes this paper will now have to put up with “It doesn’t matter, it has been detracted” defense.

He should amend his work with data- eg another publication- not simple say it doesn’t count.

Even if he is wrong, science is about correcting errors- not ignoring them.

Bitsko bites back:  
Quote
The paper has not been “detracted.” The author asked for *two sentences* to be retracted, because the information therein was in error.

The way I see it, you can question Jacobson’s motives for the retraction and have a valid complaint, but expecting an 80-something-year-old retired guy to go back and do more research for a paper written published 52 years ago is a bit much. And how is it that by acknowledging his errors, Jacobson is “ignoring them”?

More bloviateagain77, and then russ:  
Quote
Wouldn’t it have been better if Dr. Jacobsen had simply asked American Scientist to publish a letter in which he rejects the “erroneous” passages in the paper?

Bitsko backatcha:  
Quote
Russ,

Did you read the letter? That’s exactly what he did. It’s Dr. Dembski, based on an inaccurate NYT article apparently, who’s claiming that Jacobson retracted the whole paper.

I like Bitsko.  He seems new.  How long can he last before bannination?  

This thread drips with what Sal would call "unwitting" irony.

Date: 2007/10/26 20:18:07, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Elsewhere, kairosfocus exposes Borne's plagiarism.  
He quotes Borne:
Quote
But if brain = mind [in a world that originated by the chance + necessity only evo mat cascade from hydrogen to humans] then all our thoughts are based on non-rational processes which make thought of no more value than dirt. Thus materialism, and its science methodological naturalism, cuts it’s own throat.

Then asks:
Quote
Borne, can I use that great quote, with attribution of course?

And Borne reponds:
Quote
No problem. The statement is actually an extension of a CS Lewis statement.
“If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes…it cuts its own throat.”
–A Christian Reply to Professor Price

The punctuation error ("it's") is, however, Borne's own.

Date: 2007/10/27 08:13:01, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 27 2007,00:06)
Quote (nuytsia @ Oct. 26 2007,20:24)
It's funny but when I first came to this forum little did I imagine that I'd end up airbrush John Travolta's crotch.
It's strange where life takes you...

Airbrushed a crotch?  Goodness, did you give Dembski a penis, or remove one?

I think it was detracted.

Date: 2007/10/28 16:29:02, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Well, here's something odd.  A new UD article references something apparently at the preprint server www.arxiv.org.  It's supposed to be a paper called "Package models and the information crisis of prebiotic evolution" by Daniel A. M. M. Silvestre and  Jos´e F. Fontanar.  I clicked on the link to bear witness to the quote mining.  But that brought me to something completely other, called "Spontaneous Emergence of Modularity in a Model of Evolving Individuals" by Jun Sun and Michael W. Deem of Rice University.  That article has reference to intelligent design, for realzies. For example, the last paragraph:

 
Quote
Why is modularity so prevalent in the natural world? Our hypothesis is that a changing environment selects for adaptable frameworks, and competition among different evolutionary frameworks leads to selection of structures with the most efficient dynamics, which are the modular ones. We have provided evidence validating this hypothesis. We suggest that the beautiful, intricate, and interrelated structures observed in nature may be the generic result of evolution in a changing environment. The existence of such structure need not necessarily rest on intelligent design or the anthropic principle.  (Emphasis added)


Ah well.  Let's see how long before they fix the link.

Date: 2007/10/28 18:09:17, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 28 2007,16:54)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Oct. 28 2007,16:29)
Ah well.  Let's see how long before they fix the link.

Here's the abstract.
http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/0710.3278
(Click through for the article.)

Fantastic!  The commenters at UD are quoting from the wrongly linked paper: BarryA:
Quote
I am very encourged by the last sentence of the letter. Has it really come to the point where Darwinists can no longer ignore us and feel compelled to take a swipe at us?
A reader called "interested":
Quote
barry, i missed it. where was the swipe? it looks like a blatant admission that they are at an impasse. at any rate, i missed the ID swipe.
BarryA:
Quote
last sentence; just before the footnotes start.

Nobody realizes they're quoting from the wrong article.

link

Date: 2007/10/28 19:16:16, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 28 2007,18:38)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Oct. 28 2007,18:09)
 
Nobody realizes they're quoting from the wrong article.

Irony compounded.

 
Quote
bornagain77: Translation: You see we just came up with another fantastic “just so” from our imaginations...

Recognition!
Quote
Shouldn’t the link be http://arxiv.org/pdf/0710.3278.pdf? These are two different papers.

Fun while it lasted.

Date: 2007/10/28 20:13:42, Link
Author: Hermagoras
This whole brouhaha confirms how much servers like www.arXiv.org are prone to being abused if treated as equivalent to peer-reviewed literature.

Date: 2007/10/29 11:32:41, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Altabin @ Oct. 29 2007,09:38)
Quote (franky172 @ Oct. 29 2007,16:14)
   
Quote
You remember Epi, don’t cha? His whole goal was to “get rid of the gods.” He and his other pre-Socratic “thinkers” like Lucretius and Democritus didn’t like all that duty and responsibility to higher powers and fellow mortals crap.

Epicurius was convinced that the myths of the Greeks involving the gods coming to earth and impregnating humans giving rise to super-humans was sheer folly.  I can see how his rejection of the myths of ancient Greece might be infuriating to Mr. Giles.  Or is Mr. Giles' point that Epicurius was right to reject the myths of his time?

Edit: <i> to quote, forgot I'm not on Fark.

Not to mention that, of all the ancient schools of philosophy, the Epicureans were renowned for living good, morally blameless lives, yet not being prigs about it.  Even their philosophical opponents who rejected their criterion for happiness (pleasure) -- especially the Stoics -- had to admit, ruefully, that the Epicureans couldn't be touched for the way they actually led their lives.

A hint: "pleasure" didn't mean shopping and f#cking.

Also, neither Democritus nor Epicurus is "pre-Socratic."  What the hell, Lucretius, who was primarily a poet, was Roman and lived several hundred years after Socrates.  His De rerum natura is a great philosophical poem in the epic mode.

Date: 2007/10/30 15:00:49, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Altabin @ Oct. 30 2007,13:42)
My interest in UD is now pretty much limited to figuring out how batshit77's nanny filter works (consider it kind of design inference!).  His latest post adds the word "bodied" (and, I'm willing to venture, its cognates: "body" and "bodies").

A prize of one bottle of scotch whiskey for the first person who figures out, on the basis of the prohibited words, just which secure federal institution ba77 calls home.

There's no faster way to k^ill an argument d^e^ad than to in^f^ect its b^od^y with f^u^c^k^i^n^g
p^r^o^l^i^f^e^r^a^t^i^n^g
c^a^r^a^t
s^i^g^n^s.

Date: 2007/10/30 15:35:54, Link
Author: Hermagoras
WmAD says Flew still has "his head in the game."  Such encouraging words make Dembski that dude from High School Musical.

Date: 2007/10/31 05:51:47, Link
Author: Hermagoras
kairosfocus comparative difficulties worldview blah blah my always linked blah blah numbered points blah blah "brief" not really blah blah:
 
Quote
It seems to me we need to pause, point out that there is a recent [originally humorous] Oct 29 thread on motivations for atheism, that addresses the problem of evil [and the associated problems of good and the existence of morality].

No, because:
1. Nothing that purports to be humorous on UD is ever actually funny.  UD funny is always "unwitting."

2. kf's own universal bloviation blanket instantly smothers any tiny flame of teh funny it happens to touch.

Date: 2007/11/01 07:52:22, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 01 2007,01:30)
OK, come on.  Admit it.  Which one of you is Granville Sewell?
 
Quote
23

Granville Sewell

10/31/2007

2:56 pm

Tard Alert!

To those who say I am anti-science for ruling out the possibility that computers will evolve consciousness: what about TV sets and radios, will they become conscious someday? What about a typewriter, it can be used to write amazing things, will there be conscious typewriters? And what is the real difference, computers are just like typewriters, they also do exactly what you tell them to do.

Eh?  Eh?

But would a thousand DaveScots violating the 2LOT on a thousand typewriters ever write Hamlet?  

Frankly, I'm only able to infer that BarryA has consciousness because his posts don't rise to the level of rationality one expects from a bot.  But then, that could have been written into the BarryABot communication algorithm.

Date: 2007/11/01 15:13:52, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 01 2007,15:05)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2007,12:53)
My goodness, BFast has begun thinking!

I'm not going to believe that without evidence.  Any chance of a link?

link
Quote


1. I find Zachriel’s simulation to be much more valid than Dawkins’. That said, if I understand correctly, any mutation that produces a “word” that is found in “the dictionary” is kept. Though the need to make “logical” mutations is valid, the resultant sentance must always be valid, and, at least in some reasonable context, be at least as valid as the pre-mutated sentance. Zachriel has come a long way to making a valid simulation. He just has a long way to go yet.

2. The real world doesn’t behave this way — adopting everything that might work. A prime example is pentadactilism. All quadruped species living today have five or less digits per limb. That dispite the fact that humans, cats, mice and dogs have all demonstrated periodic polydactilism. The polydactile versions show no obvious deleterious characteristics, they pass polydactilism on to their children, and achieve polydactilism with a single point mutation. If Zachriel’s algorithm is correct, then the polydactile model should be regularly tried, and should periodically stand out as the norm for species. Conclusion — nature rejects pentadactilism for reasons that have nothing to do with Zachriel’s simulation.

3. Interested, “has anyone actually come up with helpful programs to roughly simulate what evolutionists claim?” I haven’t seen one. Its actually rather hard to do. How do you determine “survivability” within the simulation? How do you allow the definition of survivability to be dynamic? It would be quite a feat to produce a truly valid simulation of RV+NS.

Date: 2007/11/01 15:32:23, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 01 2007,15:18)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2007,14:53)
My goodness, BFast has begun thinking!

He should be very careful, that thinking can lead to all sorts of trouble.  For starters it will get him banned from UD.

Speaking of which, Mickey Bitsko is not long for that world.  He managed to post a comment that says  
Quote
the concept of CSI involves inescapable circular reasoning.

I'm opening the betting table now.  Weekends are slow at UD, so I'll put the over-under on Bitsko's bannination at 4 days (Monday 5 November).

Date: 2007/11/01 18:28:18, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 01 2007,18:01)
Anyone else thinks that site has all the credibility of Penthouse Letters to the Editor?

"This really happened to me.  I was stuck in an elevator with a 19 year old nymphomaniac college cheerleader, a polo pony, a midget with false teeth, and a six months supply of Crisco Lite... - name withheld upon request."

Actually it was a three month supply and she was on the gymnastics squad.  Good times, good times.

What were we talking about?

Date: 2007/11/01 21:53:50, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (franky172 @ Nov. 01 2007,21:15)
I think I've uncovered a disconnect between the way people who are coding up these genetic algorithms (GAs) and IDers are discussing the issues at hand.  It was actually re-reading Dembski's paper on "active information" that broight this to light (we'll ignore the tautological nature of Dembski's "active information" for the time being).

[snip -- lots more good stuff in that there post.]

franky, that's a really good explanation -- I learned a lot from it.  Thanks.

Date: 2007/11/01 22:06:50, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (ReligionProf @ Nov. 01 2007,21:41)
Has anyone mentioned yet that, for an approximation of DNA, the simulation needs to use only four letters, and words of precisely three letters?

I think it may have been making this point that most directly led to my getting banned from Uncommon Descent. Monkeys with typewriters with only four keys, and a language in which pretty much every three-letter word means something, must have shown just how off-target their analogies with English and playing cards were...

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007....of.html

Off-topic: Let me take this latest monkeys-with-typewriters moment to plug Red Earth and Pouring Rain by Vikram Chandra, a novel narrated by a monkey on a typewriter.  

I can't help thinking of the cover when I hear talk of typing monkeys:



Vikram, who I knew as a classmate at the Writing Seminars at Johns Hopkins twenty years ago, is a better writer than I'll ever be.  His latest book, Sacred Games, a sprawling crime epic, is a masterpiece: it does for Mumbai what Joyce did for Dublin.

Date: 2007/11/01 22:49:34, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 01 2007,22:43)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 01 2007,22:06)
   
Quote (ReligionProf @ Nov. 01 2007,21:41)
Has anyone mentioned yet that, for an approximation of DNA, the simulation needs to use only four letters, and words of precisely three letters?

I think it may have been making this point that most directly led to my getting banned from Uncommon Descent. Monkeys with typewriters with only four keys, and a language in which pretty much every three-letter word means something, must have shown just how off-target their analogies with English and playing cards were...

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007....of.html

Off-topic: Let me take this latest monkeys-with-typewriters moment to plug Red Earth and Pouring Rain by Vikram Chandra, a novel narrated by a monkey on a typewriter.  

I can't help thinking of the cover when I hear talk of typing monkeys:



Vikram, who I knew as a classmate at the Writing Seminars at Johns Hopkins twenty years ago, is a better writer than I'll ever be.  His latest book, Sacred Games, a sprawling crime epic, is a masterpiece: it does for Mumbai what Joyce did for Dublin.

By an amazing coincidence I finished Sacred Games a month ago and indeed it is a masterpiece. One of the bext novels I've *ever* read.

I started Red Earth and Pouring Rain about 2-3 weeks ago. I'm not finding it as enjoyable but it's still extremely clever. I'm about a 3rd of the way thru it. It's EXTREMELY different from SG.

Is Love and Longing in Bombay sposta be any good?

Maderchod! Bhenchod!


Chutiya.  Talk like that will get my foot up your gaand.

Red Earth and Pouring Rain was written when Vikram was in his "magical realism" phase.  it's not as focused as Sacred Games -- Vikram's really more a Tolstoy than a Rushdie, but he didn't know that for a while.

Love and Longing in Bombay is a short story collection.  I think one of the stories became a movie in India.  At least that's what I recall from a conversation. But I may have misremembered; I was kind of wrecked at the time. (The conversation took place at a Marxist Literary Group cash bar.)

[Edited to add non-English profanity]

Date: 2007/11/02 10:25:59, Link
Author: Hermagoras
apollo230  :    
Quote
There is little reason to sweat over these evolutionary algorithms because none of them (to my knowledge) fully simulate a genetic system in its full glory - COMPLETE with virtual DNA, RNA, ribosomes and the whole works. Darwinists who think they have anything of worth are flat wrong because they have not simulated the actual problem. Rather, they have taken a simpler problem, “solved it” and declared “victory”. (Bill Dembski quoted some mathematician in No Free Lunch who said “if you cannot solve a problem, find a simpler problem, and solve that”…)

When I read this I thought, what?  That sounds like a misunderstanding of G Polya's How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method.  (Amazon link).  A fantastic book.  Was Dembski referring to Polya?  From NFL p. 269:
   
Quote
The mathematician George Polya used to quip that if you cannot solve a problem, find an easier problem and solve it.

Dembksi uses this to criticize Ken Miller.  His specific critique of Miller is, I believe, wrong, but he's also using Polya incorrectly.  Polya's point is that solutions to simpler problems are heuristically useful; they provide analogies that help address the problem to be solved.    That's what a model is: a simplification of some aspects of the problem. From  How to Solve It page 38:    
Quote
We may consider ourselves lucky when, trying to solve a problem, we succeed in discovering a simpler analogous problem.  In section 15, our original problem was concerned with the diagonal of a rectangular parallelepiped; the consideration of a simpler analogous problem, concerned with the diagonal of a rectangle, led us to the solution of the original problem.

The fact that computer models of genetic evolution are in some respects simpler than biological evolution itself has no bearing on whether they are useful or whether their point is valid.  Dembski seems to view all models as an admission of failure; in Polya's work, a model is a necessary step toward problem-solving success.  What an abusive citation.

Date: 2007/11/02 15:44:38, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (franky172 @ Nov. 02 2007,14:59)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 02 2007,14:32)
Probably the best example of "not getting the concept":

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-145772

It's seriously difficult to believe that Gil is really not getting this.

Quote
the goal is known at the outset


This, from Stuart Harris, is apparently something with which GilDodgen agrees.  If it's true, then GilDodgen and Stuart Harris should be able to predict the results of any particular run of Zachriel's program.  

It is, of course, obviously untrue, which is why I don't expect GilDodgen or Stuart Harris to make a bet on such a prediction.

Date: 2007/11/02 15:55:42, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 02 2007,15:44)
 
Quote (franky172 @ Nov. 02 2007,14:59)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 02 2007,14:32)
Probably the best example of "not getting the concept":

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-145772

It's seriously difficult to believe that Gil is really not getting this.

   
Quote
the goal is known at the outset


This, from Stuart Harris, is apparently something with which GilDodgen agrees.  If it's true, then GilDodgen and Stuart Harris should be able to predict the results of any particular run of Zachriel's program.  

It is, of course, obviously untrue, which is why I don't expect GilDodgen or Stuart Harris to make a bet on such a prediction.

Piggybacking on my own comment: I think what GilDodgen wants is a Zachriel program that will develop new, meaningful words.  I think one could develop such a program using principles of accretion following what Twain called The Awful German Language.  But then the UDers would just shift the goalposts again and say the new words are made up of existing information (26 letters!) and it's all front-loaded anyway.

Date: 2007/11/02 21:35:16, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 02 2007,20:17)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 02 2007,02:03)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 01 2007,15:32)
 
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 01 2007,15:18)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2007,14:53)
My goodness, BFast has begun thinking!

He should be very careful, that thinking can lead to all sorts of trouble.  For starters it will get him banned from UD.

Speaking of which, Mickey Bitsko is not long for that world.  He managed to post a comment that says      
Quote
the concept of CSI involves inescapable circular reasoning.

I'm opening the betting table now.  Weekends are slow at UD, so I'll put the over-under on Bitsko's bannination at 4 days (Monday 5 November).

As long as he stays on BarryA's threads, I'm taking over.  Barry seems to be more decent than most of the UD posters.  The trick is to avoid the evil eye of DaveScot.  Thus far he may have been saved by writing long comments.

Bob

Bannination!!!

Quote


DaveScot

11/02/2007

8:00 pm

MickeyBitsko is no longer with us.


I was Mickey. It was fun while it lasted.

You were beautiful, Mickey.

Date: 2007/11/03 06:49:09, Link
Author: Hermagoras
The link to Mickey's bannination no longer works.  At first I thought they deleted the thread entirely (welcome, again, to the world of ID revisionism).  But it turns out they changed the title of the post.  Old title: "Probability is Only Half of Specified Complexity."

New title:

Low Probability is Only Half of Specified Complexity

Is a change such as this worth voiding all previous links to the post?  Does it get BarryA off the hook?  Discuss.

Added: such revisionism seems slightly different from banning as such.  Should we have a thread specifically devoted to such efforts, or are they best chronicled under "The Blogczar years"?  Or do we already have one?  Remember, our work here is not just to mock UD.  Our work here will enable historians to mock UD in perpetuity.

[Edited twice: first to add the last paragraph, second to change a typo].

Date: 2007/11/03 09:06:30, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Bob 0'Hara is a naughty, naughty boy:
Quote
Search for “luciferase”.

Can BA77 input this into a search program without nannyfilter interference?  Will the resonance of the name lead him to embrace IDD (Intelligent Devil Design)?

Date: 2007/11/03 15:32:59, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Carl Sachs rocks.  I like this guy.  He writes very well, as I may have said before, and I share many of his views (non-foundationalist/pragmatist/relativist etc.)  

I await the inevitable kairosfocus set of posts which will:

1. Refer multiple times to "my always linked," KF argot for his website;

2. Assume a total knowledge of not only KF's own reasoning but all others;

3. Generalize about "materialists" in general;

4. Lament the "sad" state of denial to which the materialists are led ("sadly, I note") by their refusal to argue on KF's terms;

5. Offer at least one post mischaracterizing the debate up to that point for "onlookers."  

H

Date: 2007/11/03 16:23:08, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 03 2007,15:32)
Carl Sachs rocks.  I like this guy.  He writes very well, as I may have said before, and I share many of his views (non-foundationalist/pragmatist/relativist etc.)  

I await the inevitable kairosfocus set of posts which will:

1. Refer multiple times to "my always linked," KF argot for his website;

2. Assume a total knowledge of not only KF's own reasoning but all others;

3. Generalize about "materialists" in general;

4. Lament the "sad" state of denial to which the materialists are led ("sadly, I note") by their refusal to argue on KF's terms;

5. Offer at least one post mischaracterizing the debate up to that point for "onlookers."  

H

And it begins.  Posts like Carl's are catnip  for kairosfocus.  Two references to his website accompanying his characteristic over-generalization and pompous writing style.  This one post does not yet fulfill my other criteria, but then I said this would involve a "set" of posts.

Date: 2007/11/03 18:36:34, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Elsewhere, Sach's unhelpful distinction between "weak" and "strong" "Darwinism" (better not to use that term) is promptly and predictably misconstrued downthread.  I think I know what he's trying to say, but his message is mangled in the telling and mauled by the UD audience.

Date: 2007/11/04 08:53:39, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Block that metaphor!
Quote
In short, the evidence points to a fatal malaise for our Civilisation, and the vultures are already circling and waiting to pounce.

Date: 2007/11/04 16:18:30, Link
Author: Hermagoras
BA77 doesn't want to limit science, accidentally names his own discourse:  
Quote
To put artificial limits on what science is allowed to discover prior to investigation, just because you, or others, think science can’t explain whatever is to be discovered, is to basically retard the primary purpose of science in its primary endeavor prior to investigation!

Date: 2007/11/04 16:19:24, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (mitschlag @ Nov. 04 2007,16:16)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 04 2007,08:53)
Block that metaphor!    
Quote
In short, the evidence points to a fatal malaise for our Civilisation, and the vultures are already circling and waiting to pounce.

Good old kairosfocus the insane.

Note to self: avoid pouncing vultures.

Date: 2007/11/06 10:18:39, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 06 2007,10:11)
Dippy Joe G chimes in:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-146278



 
Quote
9

Joseph

11/06/2007

10:10 am
My 2 cents:

Intelligent Design: The Design Hypothesis

and

Explaing the “I” in ID


Put your coffee down, click the links. Amazingly stupid.

That first link is the stupidest version of the anthropic principle I have ever encountered.  
Quote


Observation: (What's there?)

The Universe

Question(s)

How did the universe come to be (the way it is)? (Is the universe the result of intentional design or purpose-less stochastic processes?)

Prediction:

1) If the universe was the product of a common design then I would expect it to be governed by one (common) set of parameters.

2) If the universe were designed for scientific discovery then I would expect a strong correlation between habitability and measurability.

Test:

1) Try to determine if the same laws that apply every place on Earth also apply throughout the universe.

2) Try to determine the correlation between habitability and measurability.


Well, there you go.

Date: 2007/11/06 10:19:54, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 06 2007,09:29)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 06 2007,09:16)
But pitiful as it is, Dave Tard *is* now as qualified to write books on ID as anyone else who is currently doing so.

Well, he is a hell of a better writer than Denyse - of course, so is my 7th grade son...

In one of her latest screeds, she opens a paragraph with "First"... 1,000 words later she finishes up, and still hasn't gotten to "Second!  ".

Why oh why doesn't the Mighty Designer afflict Grandma Tard with a wicked case of the writer's block?

Date: 2007/11/06 10:29:19, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 06 2007,10:23)
Question:  Why does it taste so good with peanut butter and not so good with tiny balls of shit?

Now this is an ID research program I can support!  Assuming, of course, that they do the experiments.

Date: 2007/11/06 11:23:04, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 06 2007,10:51)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 06 2007,10:43)
Hypothesis:

   
Quote
All complex biological systems are generated by intelligent agents.


How is that not

   
Quote
life is designed


?

Also, what about simple biological systems? Presumably they are not by default designed (otherwise why include "complex" in the first place?).

So, logically, what stops "simple" biological systems becoming "complex" systems over time?

Or is that because of Behe's EE then?  :p

UD commenter "getawitness" is trying to convince DT to be honest about the religious character of ID.  

I see a wedge growing between Dembski and DT.  Or maybe GAW is just giving DT a wedgie.

Date: 2007/11/06 11:35:57, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Altabin @ Nov. 06 2007,11:25)
But there was this thing called the "scientific revolution," one consequence of which was that the notions of "nature" and the "natural" used by Aristotle and his followers were rendered obsolete - in particular, their assertion that natural and artificial action were of utterly different kinds.

Our merry band at UD seems to have missed that bit.

Missed it?  They want to turn back the clock!

 
Quote
What to do, then? Return to Aristotle? Certainly he should be read; his “Politics,” for example, is the best book on the subject ever written. But those who are contemplating a revival should consider the fundamental problem of teleology. Kant was not capable of solving the teleology riddle, but this riddle must be solved in some way order to reintroduce Aristotle and the synthetic method back into the public square.

Anyone feeling up to the challenge?


link

So, who in the room thinks he's smarter than Kant?  

(DaveScot, kairosfocus, Dembski, JoeG raise hands.)

Date: 2007/11/06 18:39:17, Link
Author: Hermagoras
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,14:02)
LOL...right.  You always like to fall back on the good 'ol "we have more peer-reviewed papers than you do" routine, knowing full well that it would be a cold day in hell before ID would be allowed in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.

FtK, we haven't really talked, but Hi.  I'm Hermagoras.  Nice to meet you.

Here's the thing: when you have a crank viewpoint and you can't get your crank papers published, you have to start your own crank journal.  But the trick is to keep publishing said crank journal.  The ID movement's latest crank journal, PISCID (which I keep pronouncing pissèd, like banishèd in Shakespeare) stopped publishing.  Years ago.  So not only are ID people not publishing in mainstream peer-reviewed journals, they're publishing less crank "peer-reviewed" stuff than young-earth creationists, who can at least maintain their own crank journals.

There are crank journals for young-earth creationism and for Holocaust denial. There are probably crank journals for cold fusion and HIV denial too.  Why can't ID get a crank journal of its very own?

Date: 2007/11/07 13:09:40, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 07 2007,12:49)
Quote
The ID community has its hands full right now.


This UD quote is beautiful in so many ways, I don't know where to begin.

Lovely.  So very Joseph.

A few UD commenters seem to have sparked a pitched battle among the regulars on who's the better Christian.  Innnnnnteresting.

Date: 2007/11/07 13:45:33, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 07 2007,13:32)
Way-hey-hey!


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-146487

 
Quote
76

Nochange

11/07/2007

2:20 pm
Does ID expect Plasmodiae to decay to the point when they are no longer capable of being pathogenic?

I’ve always thought of it as God coming back and recharging organisms from time to time to keep entropy from making them all mutate into oblivion and die. I don’t know if it happens every generation (think: at conception) or every hundred generations (think: Noah’s Ark), but it seems pretty clear that God’s energy is required to keep the whole bowl of wax moving forward.


How was it for you, sweetheart?

Is that your noodly appendage or are you just happy to recharge me?

Date: 2007/11/07 19:31:10, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Leonard Cohen: Tower of Tard
Minutemen: Bill Dembski Writes Propaganda Books!
Paul Simon: Tardland
Lucinda Williams: He Never Got Enough Tard

Warren Zevon: Splendid Isolation
Hüsker Dü:  Books about UFOs (that's actually the title of my all-time favorite HD song, and it needs no modification at all for the panspermia fans)

Date: 2007/11/07 19:45:23, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2007,19:33)
OK, mostly I have no use for the "tard" fixation that seems to be popular around these parts, but the song/album translation is just too tempting.

For Blue Oyster Cult, there are several possibles:

Songs:
"Flaming Tards"
"Career of Tard"
"Cagey Tards" (even the original, "Cagey Cretins", might work)
"(Don't Fear) The Tard"
"Tardzilla"
"Burnin' for Tard"
"Perfect Tard"
"In the Presence of Another Tard"

Albums:
"Tard and Mutation"
"Agents of Tard"
"Tard of Unknown Origin"

Wesley, I've always been a bit ill-at-ease about the T word.  I've tried on the whole to use it only when describing discourse, not when describing people.  Although I may have slipped from time to time.

Date: 2007/11/07 19:51:28, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 07 2007,18:23)
According to my sources the press teleconference was postponed due to illness (John West).

Hopefully, he didn't contract malaria.

oh my god that is funny.  

So, seriously -- no press conference?

Date: 2007/11/08 11:11:00, Link
Author: Hermagoras
From The Design of Life homepage:



It's real.

Date: 2007/11/08 11:13:20, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 08 2007,09:44)
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 07 2007,23:58)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 07 2007,23:41)
I can't wait to see the NOVA special.  I hope they cast Danny DeVito as the little shithead Behe.  It makes me laugh just visualizing DeVito/Behe as his eyes bug out when looking at that huge stack of unread books and papers on the immune system.  :p  :p  :p

Maybe Rowan Atkinson can play Dembski.  :D

Ha. I can just see DeVito Behe's forehead starting to sweat as Rothschild piles up paper after paper, book after book.

Picture DeVito in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, playing blackjack with McMurphy and friends.  "Hit me...Hit me...Hit me."

Added in edit:  Here he is, at a meeting of the DI braintrust--


I think Behe has had one too many limoncellos.

Date: 2007/11/08 12:03:56, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Nov. 08 2007,11:50)
MacTgets in Gramma Spice's grill about a supposed "scientific consensus" that apes could acquire grammar.

And then, downthread a bit, G. Spice is going to test your irony meter *this is only a test*
 
Quote
getawitness, it would be scary indeed to think that everyone was fooled. But one Chomsky doesn’t alter a pattern that Mario Beaaregard and I note in The Spiritual Brain - a very familiar pattern, replicated widely over many issues. The notion that apes can learn grammar was treated as the default “scientific” position in accounts of the subject - even though one did not need a great deal of familiarity with the area to see why it probably wasn’t true.

Now, of course, the fact that that was the case - as is demonstrated by the way popular culture sources replicate it to this day - is somehow supposed to fall down a memory hole.

That way, we can avoid disconfirming a materialist prediction.

I for one will work to see that it doesn’t fall down a memory hole, but is entered among the disconfirmed materialist predictions.

That will force materialists to redefine their theory so as to exclude what they once enthusastically included as evidence. Eventually, a paper trail develops …

This is a rich vein. I can't get into it all right now. But irony aside, this business of "materialist predictions." (A phrase once confined to the madhouse screeds of BatShit007 now mainstreamed by G. Spice)

Were the researchers who made inflated claims vis a vis ape's facility with language materialists, but the linguists, primatologists, and animal behaviorists who remained skeptical were not? Did anybody really predict anything, as opposed to simply being credulous and over-enthusiastic about training these animals? Last, is Clive Wynne, the animal behaviorist and expert on animal cognition whose article is the subject of the thread, a non-materialist? (I don't know, but I certainly know that he is not any sort of creationist.)

In short, where does Gramma Spice get off claiming that this is in the least bit relevant to her cause?

The blinding idiocy of Denyse is hard to take.  As MacT has noted forcefully (and also as observed by getawitness) Denyse is simply wrong.

Two additional points:

1. None of this has anything to do with "materialism."  

2. The popular media routinely overplays scientific claims.  That's what it does even when it works well (see Jeanne Fahnestock, "Accomodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts." Written Communication 3 (1986): 275-96, and pretty much the entire field of the rhetoric of science).  Hell, overstating claims is Denyse's metier (see The Spirited Bonehead, with Mario Selfregard).

Date: 2007/11/08 14:07:16, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (factician @ Nov. 08 2007,13:22)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 08 2007,13:08)
I'm starting to think that Nochange is indeed a deep cover troll, of the kind that UD seems to have so many of lately.

[arms akimbo, glares at people in room.]

Isn't everyone over there a troll?  It seems so improbable that O'Leary actually believes the crap that she spews so eloquently...

If the troll-population were high enough, could the trolls stage a coup at some point?  A flash mob?  

I'm just asking.

Date: 2007/11/08 14:15:02, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 08 2007,13:33)
I'm Denyse. Don't buy my book, its crap.
I try to write like a disjointed beat poet.

Daddio.

O’Leary I've given you all and now I'm nothing.
O’Leary two dollars and twenty-seven cents November 8, 2007.
I can't read your damn posts.
O’Leary when will you end the endless tard?
Go make some Eve with Adam, grandmom
You don't write good don't bother me.
I won't write my poem till you’re out of my mind.
O’Leary when won’t you be moronic?
When will you put on your clothes?
When will you look at your writing with an editor?
When will you be worthy of your dozen Dembskites?
O’Leary why are your libraries full of tears?*
O’Leary when will you send your eggs to India?
I'm sick of your insane self-promotions.

*rhetorical question

Date: 2007/11/08 14:16:29, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 08 2007,14:07)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 08 2007,15:04)
Sorry to admit it, but I'm me.  And yes, I'm actually trolling here.

Anyway, everybody's favourite writer decided to weigh in on yesterday's shooting in Jokela.  She got complaints about this.  But she's defiant, and in the midsts of her justification came up with this:
   
Quote
First, it’s rubbish that anyone who enjoys this blog was upset.

Why do I think I'm not interpreting that in the way it was intended?

 
Quote ( GrandmaTard @ Thursday, November 08, 2007)
This blog has published many more pungent stories and I urge anyone who doubts that to investigate the archives.


What else is there to say, really?

What's that smell?  Ahhh, Denyse's pungent stories.

Date: 2007/11/09 11:42:52, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Nobody is responding to the dirty mind of getawitness.

Date: 2007/11/09 12:08:12, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 09 2007,11:52)
Is there a difference between "extremely unique" and "unique" then?

Yes.  "extremely unique" gets the red pen.

Date: 2007/11/09 15:49:54, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 09 2007,15:31)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 09 2007,13:14)
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 09 2007,15:08)
RED ALERT, RED ALERT

WARM UP THE SUPER - BANNINATION BUTTON

WE HAVE ATHEIST POST AT UD - I REPEAT, THIS IS NOT A DRILL!

WE HAVE AN ACTUAL REAL ATHEIST POSTING AT UD!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/philoso....-146834

And you gotta love this next comment (my emphasis)  
Quote
I personally find atheism to be intellectually bankrupt and solely based on faith.

Is there a linkage in this guy's head between "intellectually bankrupt" and "solely based on faith"? Seems to be...

Next comment is better still, and oh so sciency:

Quote
This is not a blog like After The Bar Closes where they make fun of Dr. Dembski, or ERV, where they make fun of Dr. Behe.

You sir, I am sure, will be both prayed over and condemed to hell.

Where's the UD Complaints Department?  We make fun of Behe here too!

Priceless.  And Loftus puts on the sackcloth:  
Quote
If that’s true and if what I wrote is out of line, then I apologize and humbly ask the moderator to remove that comment along with this one. I thought what I said was on target and helpful, even if I did advertise a little.

Date: 2007/11/09 20:28:50, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Let us pause for a moment to observe what a coldhearted sonofabitch BarryA is.  I'd blame his  profession, but that would be insulting to lawyers.

Date: 2007/11/10 07:12:02, Link
Author: Hermagoras
getawitness corrects DaveScot, ducks:

 
Quote
Pantrog, “and ‘generation’ is, as we have learnt, ambiguous.”

Not really. From The Oxford Dictionary of Science:

A group of organisms of approximately the same age within a population. Organisms that are crossed to produce offspring in a genetics study are referred to as the parent generation and their offspring are the first filial generation.

DaveScot’s point is beyond my understanding, but his language isn’t: he was clearly using “generation” in a non-standard sense.

Date: 2007/11/10 18:19:38, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Peter notes that aborted babies are being replaced by wetbacks.  

 
Quote
Don’t forget the 50 million and counting babies killed in America after it became a secular state. At 1.5 million babies killed a year, it won’t be long before this will be the worst mass murder in history.
. . . . .
Does anyone ever wonder way there are 20+ million illegal (permanent?) immigrants in America at this point in its history? Blessed are the meek for they will inherit the world.


That is DI-approved Grade A Tard, folks.

Date: 2007/11/11 10:23:41, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Schoolmarm getawitness spanks BA77, almost sends him up for plagiarism:

 
Quote
bornagain77,

Please calm down. I’m not attacking Dr. Sanford. In fact, I thought I was just offering a minor and friendly correction to you, since your original comment gave the impression that you’d read Gerrish and Lenski yourself. Now I realize that you were citing that paper secondhand, from Dr. Sanford’s book.

First, however, let me correct something you wrote about me. You wrote:

“This reflects your belief that some mutations are not deleterious but could be neutral and as such have some hypothetical future beneficial effect.”

I said no such thing. I’ve said nothing about my beliefs regarding mutation but only about the claims of Gerrish and Lenski. They’re the ones who assume not all mutations are negative. Frankly, you’re assuming a lot about me.

Let me explain why I think Dr. Sanford uses the source wrongly. It has nothing to do with intuition or what Dr. Sanford knows to be true; it has to do with treating sources fairly. That’s the first rule of citation.

Imagine that Gerrish and Lenski cite Sanford’s book, and they say “Sanford has argued that most or all mutations are neutral or deleterious.” Sanford would be hopping mad at such a misuse of his book, and rightly so! Such a statement claims that Sanford believes in neutral mutations, when he clearly does not! The proper way to disagree with Sanford would be to write, “Sanford has argued that most or all mutations are deleterious, but he should consider neutral mutations more carefully.”

So my point is simply that Sanford gives the false impression that Gerrish and Lenski were intending to estimate the rate of bad to good mutations. What Sanford should have said was something like this:

“I have seen estimates of the incidence of beneficial mutations which range from one in one thousand up to one in one million. The best estimates seem to be one in one million (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998) Since neutral mutations almost never occur, then the ratio of deleterious to beneficial mutations seems to be one million to one.”

That would be a fair use of the source.

Finally, let me offer again a suggestion, in all friendship: You should not give the impression that you’ve read a primary source when you’ve gotten that material through a secondary source.

Date: 2007/11/11 16:19:46, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Louis,

Happy birthday!  I was planning to get pissed anyway, but now I'll do it in your honor.  

H

Date: 2007/11/11 20:13:58, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 11 2007,20:00)
From BornAgain77, as noted by RTH    
Quote
For me to even discuss such high level matters on the web is extremely humorous to the highest degree, for 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.


It's nice that he turned his life around, which can't have been easy, but that bit of biography certainly explains a few things.

Who knows whether he's telling the truth.  Internet identities are so easily created. ;)

Date: 2007/11/11 20:37:47, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 11 2007,20:31)
I've recently been reading a conversation about and involving self-described Christian "former sex addicts" and the point was made (which I can anecdotally confirm, and the participants seem to affirm) that these folks more often than not define that as having watched a porn movie more than once.

More than once in a day?  

[Hermagoras raises hand]

Date: 2007/11/12 08:07:51, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 12 2007,01:30)
Quote
Not to belittle anyone's hardship, but:

Not only must the factor of truthfulness be considered, but also perspective.


I think I have to be fair here - I don't see any reason to doubt BA77's story, so I think you are being, well, somewhat unkind.

As others have pointed out, the story is consistent with what we know of BA, and I don't see why we shouldn't take him at his word, and congratulate him on overcoming his problems.

Of course, that is no reason to stop criticising him for anything he writes now (e.g. the rest of that message).

My fault for raising the issue. But I was just speaking of the general flexibility of Internet identities.  It was an abstract point with no connection to any actual person.  :) :) :)

About all posters on UD, it's worth asking Who's he when he's at home?

Date: 2007/11/12 08:41:33, Link
Author: Hermagoras
DT:
Quote
Chloroquine resistance requires 2 simultaneous point mutations for any benefit at all and one or more additional point mutations on top of that for full resistance.

I thought this "simultaneous" stuff was refuted.

Date: 2007/11/12 09:05:22, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 12 2007,08:54)
DS:  Baghdad Bob of Intelligent Design

No kidding:
Quote
The mistake was someone else using “generations” instead of “replications”.

Wha?

link

Date: 2007/11/12 09:30:35, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 12 2007,08:54)
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2007,09:31)
   
Quote
getawitness: BTW, there are several misspellings: “Pathological” in the post title and “Consensus” in the body.

Sounds like a schoolmarm. Probably gets all in a tizzy about mixing Greek and Latin roots, too.


So much for my theory.

Quote
getawitness: Of course, some actions prompted by my beliefs would be opposed by the government. For example, I am too old to be in the army but would have refused to serve when I was younger. When I signed my Selective Service pre-registration, I got all my C.O. paperwork in place, just in case.

"Schoolmarm" can mean lots of things, girlfriend.  Don't ask don't tell.

Date: 2007/11/12 09:41:48, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Glad you caught these, Zachriel. DaveScot seems to be erasing them even right now.

[Waves] Hi Dave!

Big Edit: I may be wrong.  Something's odd with the search in my Firefox.  For example, I thought it wasn't in the FAQ any more, but it's still there.

Date: 2007/11/12 14:02:22, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 12 2007,13:39)
The intolerant tribune7.

Quote
tribune7: Homosexuality is behavior that is wrong. Why would it be controversial to say such?

The tolerant tribune7.

Quote
tribune7: Should a public school be neutral with regard to racism? Intolerance?

The non-judgmental tribune7:
Quote
You are a very judgemental [sic] person.


Link

Date: 2007/11/12 20:01:45, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 12 2007,19:32)
Batshit gives up on the sciency sounding stuff.


Quote
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!

WHAT IF YOU ARE WRONG GENTLEMEN? What IF you are wrong?

Comment #134592 on November 12, 2007 6:49 PM | Quote

Wow.  Link?

Date: 2007/11/12 21:51:26, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 12 2007,21:12)
Quote
My Webpage: In 1783, at the close of the war with Great Britain, a peace treaty was ratified that began with these words: “In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God King of Great Britain. . .

Always look out for the ellipses.  

The Paris Peace Treaty : It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings ...

This must mean that America recognizes King George as the defender of the faith and that the Holy Roman Empire was both Holy and Roman.

Of note, the Treaty is signed by Benjamin Franklin, a deist. Kinda like he had his fingers crossed. I suppose this voids the Treaty— American and Britain are still at war!

Just like Europe and Asia.  Anyway, getawitness seems to be a fan.

Date: 2007/11/13 15:34:39, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 13 2007,14:55)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 13 2007,14:53)
when they came for the assyrians, i said nothing for i was not an assyrian.

*Applauds*

Again, getawitness appropriates (this time with attribution) the language of this thread.  

Weird.

Date: 2007/11/13 15:45:57, Link
Author: Hermagoras
I like Anna! A non-moralizing, porn-defending pro-science comment!  From a woman!  

[Wham!]

uh, . . .

Excuse me.  Thanks.  No, n --- I'm OK, really.  (Fans self)

Date: 2007/11/13 16:09:00, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 13 2007,16:04)

Is that a bra on her head?

Date: 2007/11/13 19:47:32, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Let the liveblogging continue!

What's with the inevitable scenes from Inherit the Wind?  Do we really need to see the first Darren from Bewitched?

Date: 2007/11/14 11:01:52, Link
Author: Hermagoras
getawitness suggests a revision:

 
Quote
DaveScot,

I don’t know enough to assess the debate between you and Hu. But I have to say, the term “generations” is misused all over the place here, and not just in this thread. Consider the moderation FAQ:

Behe’s latest work of analyzing what billions of trillions of generations of p.falciparum accomplished in the way of generating novel complexity without benefit of intelligent agency supports the prediction that only intelligent agency is capable of producing complex specified information.

When I search for “billions of trillions of generations” as a phrase, I get six hits. I think that, for each of those times, you really mean “replications.” Thanks. You probably don’t want to change the comments, ’cause that would erase the history, but you might want to change the “arguments not to use” page.


Link

Erase the history?  On UD?  Never.

Date: 2007/11/14 13:59:56, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Moderation policy now:

Quote
Behe’s latest work of analyzing what billions of trillions of replications of p.falciparum accomplished in the way of generating novel complexity without benefit of intelligent agency supports the prediction that only intelligent agency is capable of producing complex specified information.


"replications" was "generations" a few hours ago.  No note of thanks to getawitness, tho.

Link

Date: 2007/11/14 14:17:01, Link
Author: Hermagoras
getawitness shoots, scores:  
Quote
Bugsy, are you sure you understand the math well enough to say that?

I’ll be the first to say that much of the math is beyond me. I’ve been trying to educate myself by reading the writings on Dr. Dembski’s site and the evolutionary informatics lab. The papers there are very interesting.

Speaking of which, does anybody know what happened to the paper with Dr. Marks called “Unacknowledged Information Costs in Evolutionary Computing: A Case Study on the Evolution of Nucleotide Binding Sites”? It used to be listed as “under review” at the evo-info lab but it’s not there any more. Does that mean it’s coming out in a journal? Where can I get a copy?


Emphasis added.

Link

Date: 2007/11/14 16:08:43, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Annyday @ Nov. 14 2007,16:05)
Every time a creationist invokes Gould, God kills a transitional creature.

Don't you remember?  GOD KILLS US ALL.  So what's your problem?

Date: 2007/11/14 16:34:31, Link
Author: Hermagoras
I'm writing a review of Fuller's new book about ID.  I'll give more details soon.  

It's sad: I am a relativist postmodernist science studies type and I think Fuller gives us a really bad name.

Date: 2007/11/14 18:35:13, Link
Author: Hermagoras
getawitness wants an answer!
Quote


Bugsy,

“I believe it’s been vanished, like a Bolshevik’s embarrassing relative.

Seeing that kind of thing is pretty disillusioning.”

That’s a pretty nasty assumption. Frankly I’d like to read it, if it’s still around. (For what it’s worth, I found that Dr. Dembski lists the paper on the Design Inference website as “currently under review,” but the link is a 404 Not Found.)

Any non-snarky answers as to what happened to that paper? Anybody know? Maybe it’s coming out in a journal, which would mark the a real coup for the evo-info lab.


Link

Date: 2007/11/14 18:50:17, Link
Author: Hermagoras
getawitness will not be denied.  
Quote
Wow, this thread is getting interesting. GilDodgen, sorry for being difficult at the beginning: paraphrase is so subject to misappropriation, and the “I watched a show” move sometimes goes wrong.

The late D. James Kennedy used to tell a story over and over again about Julian Huxley — a show Kennedy claimed to have watched, where Huxley said “I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origin was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” But Huxley apparently never said that. I was always kind of embarrassed for Kennedy when he told that story, and I’ve always been wary of stories about television-watching. But I’m comfortable that your version of that show is reasonably accurate.

By the way, I asked an off-topic question above [84 and 97] about an ID paper by Dr. Dembski and Dr. Marks that I can’t find anymore. Does anybody have any information on it? Maybe it’s coming out in a journal.

Emphasis added.
link

getawitness =

Date: 2007/11/14 19:01:47, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 14 2007,18:52)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 14 2007,14:34)
I'm writing a review of Fuller's new book about ID.  I'll give more details soon.  

It's sad: I am a relativist postmodernist science studies type and I think Fuller gives us a really bad name.

Amen.

I thought that Fuller would be a great anti-IDC witness just by encouraging him to talk about what HE thought about IDC.

Point worth noting: in Fuller's new book, Science vs Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution, citations to references of his own work take up a full page of the bibliography minus one cite.  

In the index,

Pages citing Dembski: 10
Pages citing Behe: 7
Pages citing Auguste Comte: 18
Pages citing Marx: 25

You see the problem here.  But the index is crap anyway, riddled with errors. It doesn't begin to cover the extent of his gratuitous name-dropping philosophical pointillism.

He spends more time discussing the rise of the British Nationalist Party than he does discussing the details of ID, about which he appears to know almost nothing.

Edited for clarity

Date: 2007/11/14 19:08:22, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote
aposcholarshiplogetics


Best transitional word EVAH.
F'ing great.

Date: 2007/11/14 21:51:37, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 14 2007,19:42)
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.

Holy crap!  Is anybody there not a deep-cover mole?   As Yeats once put it,
Quote
When nobody must show their ID card,
How can you tell the mock-Tard from the Tard?

Date: 2007/11/15 07:21:10, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 15 2007,01:48)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 14 2007,22:34)
I'm writing a review of Fuller's new book about ID.  I'll give more details soon.  

It's sad: I am a relativist postmodernist science studies type and I think Fuller gives us a really bad name.

Well as you know there are relativist postmodernist science studies types and there are relativist postmodernist science studies types. ;-)

I agree Fuller et al give you a really bad name because there's a lot of sensible work done (and to be done) in science studies, and Stevie ain't doin' it! And Postmodernism and Relativism are not "bad" per se but their extremes are indefensibly anti-......well they aren't anti-intellectual, they aren't precisely anti-Enlightenment (although they are to a large degree IMO), they're not precisely anti-knowledge either. Hmmm. I'll stick to....anti-reason.

What did you think of the Sokal Hoax?*

Louis

* I'm guessing this functions as a sort of litmus test. I could be wrong!

Louis,

I thought the Sokal hoax was a great event.  I actually went out and bought a copy of the Social Text issue as a collector's item.  I'm not sure it made the right impression on, say, Gross and Leavitt -- or for that matter Sokal!  (Stanley Aronowitz sure is a fool, though.)   Most hoaxes have more complicated lessons down the road than their creators intended.  (Cf. Ern Malley.)

Date: 2007/11/15 07:32:34, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Check UD.  In the comments, getawitness has politely raised the issue and now he wants an answer!

Date: 2007/11/15 07:33:44, Link
Author: Hermagoras
getawitness is shocked -- shocked!
Quote
Bugsy [160], I took your advice and Googled the paper (for those watching, it’s “Unacknowledged Information Costs in Evolutionary Computing: A Case Study on the Evolution of Nucleotide Binding Sites.”) Wow! What a story if true. As the story goes, Dr. Dembski put this refutation of Tom Schneider’s “ev” program on the evo-info website and crowed about how Schneider had not responded to it. Then when the paper was soundly refuted and shown to contain devastating errors, it was removed without comment from the site.

Now, if this story is true, it seems scandalous. Dr. Dembski has routinely decried the Darwinist rewriting of history that he observes. (He did so just weeks ago in the case of Homer Jacobson.) Is there any place where he either retracts the paper publicly, contests the refutation by Schneider and others, or offers another explanation for its disappearance? I would like to believe that the story is not as it seems.

Link

Date: 2007/11/15 14:41:59, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Collin makes the funniest troll comment of the day:

Quote
I think what the ID movement needs is more private donations. To have a strong research program that can flesh out a system comparable to darwinism, it takes money and time and effort. I’ll donate once I have a job.


At least I think he's a troll.

Link

Date: 2007/11/15 20:01:11, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Yo yo yo peeps!  Nixplanatory filter in da House!

Remember that horrid little thread by Galapagos Finch?  The one with the cheese grater toilet paper?  The one where getawitness continued his crusade to get an explanation on the EV paper?  And maybe was getting somewhere?

The whole thread is gone: 404 For Yourself

Date: 2007/11/15 20:09:04, Link
Author: Hermagoras
The entire comments on the deleted thread, from my cache:

Quote
1

getawitness

11/15/2007

3:35 pm

Just about as hilarious as usual.

Off-topic: Hey, speaking of genetic algorithms, what about that disappearing paper on “Unacknowledged Information Costs in Evolutionary Computing”? I asked about that first here and haven’t gotten an answer yet.

2

BarryA

11/15/2007

3:43 pm

In the South there’s a saying (especially among old timers) to describe something that is not soft: “rougher than a cob.”

I will not go into the etymology of the phrase, but after seeing this the saying may have to be replaced with “rougher than Cheryl Crowe’s Single Sheet.”

3

bFast

11/15/2007

4:06 pm

Oh **it! I hope this doesn’t come to an airport washroom near me.

4

tyke

11/15/2007

6:41 pm

Well, the photo is marginally less unpleasant than the one with the cheese grater on the end of a kid’s slide (why anyone thought that was funny is beyond me).

Methinks trying to beat competing website in a race to the bottom (pun intended) is not what this site should be striving for.

But then, who really cares what anyone thinks about ID?

5

Robbie

11/15/2007

6:42 pm

getawitness,

http://web.ecs.baylor.edu/faculty/marks/T/ev2.pdf

Is this what you’re looking for?

6

bork

11/15/2007

8:08 pm

getawitness:

I think recall hearing there was an error in the script and it was retracted.

I think you can do a search on the paper’s title and find sites that talk about it.

7

getawitness

11/15/2007

8:37 pm

Robbie,

Thanks! That looks like the one! Did you get it by a link? It’s not listed on the evo-info site and on the Design Inference site the link is broken.

Also, do you know what version this is? It lists no date or even authors! I’m asking because Tom Schneider, whose work this critiques, posted on August 12 of this year that “[Dr.] Dembski’s estimate of 439 queries is off by about 14 orders of magnitude.” The paper was no longer available on evo-info website shortly after that. The 439 queries claim is still in the paper.

Dr. Marks and Dr. Dembski have been informed of these critiques, but they seem not to have responded other than to make the paper awfully hard to find. (I’m glad they haven’t removed it entirely!)

This is all very fascinating, in part because Dr. Dembski said about this paper:

Perhaps the most striking instance of silence is that of Thomas Schneider, whose article on the evolution of biological information in Nucleic Acids Research (2000) claims to refute my colleague Michael Behe. When Robert Marks and I recently showed that his evolutionary program was equivalent to a neural network and that it works worse than pure chance, he too fell silent though in the past he would reply in a day’s time on his own website to any challenge from me. I have found that Darwinists make a habit of staying quiet about problems with their theory and ignore the best criticisms of it.

This is in an interview with Mario Lopez. (The version of this interview on the Baylor server contains this passage, but the version on the IDEA center site has removed this passage somtime after October 20. The mind reels.) I’m tempted to read the last sentence of that quote with a certain irony.

8

getawitness

11/15/2007

8:43 pm

bork, you’re probably right. But the thing is, although the paper has been critiqued and made less available, I haven’t been able to find an acknowledgment of any retraction from the authors. That would seem to be common courtesy, especially given that one of the authors has publicly hyped the paper itself in an interview (see above). In other words, everything about the paper is public except the retraction.

Well, there's your line in the sand right there.

Date: 2007/11/15 20:12:45, Link
Author: Hermagoras
UD has now eliminated an entire thread where getawitness insisted on bringing things to light: luckily, someone saved the comments.

Date: 2007/11/16 05:33:13, Link
Author: Hermagoras
I'm away too.  And what Bob said.

Date: 2007/11/16 10:10:06, Link
Author: Hermagoras
How about intelligent design and charles darwin?

Nope, the good guys still win.

Date: 2007/11/16 12:12:04, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Well howdydo!  Pressure at Uncommon Descent has apparently produced the following statement:

Quote
ERRATA

Thanks to those who pointed to a bug in our software.  This paper has been withdrawn.


Link

Date: 2007/11/16 12:13:58, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Well I'll be damned.  An admission of error, straight up. Had to get it with a crowbar, but still. . . .

Date: 2007/11/16 12:27:01, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 16 2007,12:20)
They're still banging on about "active information".

I would suggest that the "active information", ie the selection process resides in the environment itself and so poses no real problem for evolution.

Well sure.  WMaD's strategy (see CSI) is to multiply the types of information, muddy the differences between them, and then claim that [pick one type] makes evolution impossible.  

Is there any ongoing documentation that simply chronicles his history of weasling on this word?

Date: 2007/11/16 17:13:46, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 16 2007,15:50)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 16 2007,14:01)
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.

I assume this is a purely theoretical question with no real-world relevance? Just idly wondering?

Answer: anybody who uses Statcounter for their site can tell where you're coming from.

Date: 2007/11/16 18:30:33, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 16 2007,14:26)
"philosophical pointillism"

That is a wonderful image.

Thanks.  I may use it in the review.

Date: 2007/11/16 18:31:35, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 16 2007,18:26)
Lookie!  ID research coming our way!!!!

In response to Toolbox Tim, who asked:

 
Quote


I just thought of something and I have a question. Does Southern not allow Dr Dembski to do ID research or do they require all of his energies go exclusively to teaching theology?

You would think Southern would embrace an ID research component and Dr Dembski is already there. Imagine the noteriety (and prestige) they would gain if Dr Dembski did some ground breaking research/work at their campus.

The only reason I can think of that Southern would not allow Dr Dembski to do ID research there would be money. If that’s the reason I for one would donate $$ to Southern to sponsor ID research lead by Dr Dembski. I think other people would do the same.

Tim


Little Billy D informs us:

William Dembski is a tard  
Quote

Toolbox_Tim: I’m at Southwestern (www.swbts.edu). And yes, there are discussions about funding ID in the way you suggest. By the way, a fuller version of the article with more bells and whistles is at http://www.baylor.edu/content/.....55567.pdf.

Please make checks payable to "Bill Dembski sinecure support fund."

Date: 2007/11/17 14:17:23, Link
Author: Hermagoras
sockpuppetry must be tiring.  some folks haven't posted for a couple of days, but they may just be exhausted.

Date: 2007/11/17 21:48:42, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 17 2007,20:55)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 17 2007,21:27)
Just in case we forget
 
Quote
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.

Enjoy it while it lasts. We need to get some software and archive the entire site. ISCID and subsection PCID are going to be taken offline someday. It is a monument to failure, proof that ID leads nowhere.

Has anybody noticed that the last issue of Piss-ID was "released" just a month before Judge Jones issued his famous smackdown?  Shall we speculate on possible cause/effect relations?  Two possibilities that come immediately to mind:

1. After the Dover decision, the ID types felt no further need to maintain the facade.  
2. The decision sent Dembski into a cognitive tailspin from which he has not yet recovered.

Other reasons?

Date: 2007/11/17 21:49:53, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Solon apparently shares BA77's nanny filter:  
Quote
ahh i have read about the trilobites before. i am not so familiar with the genetic entropy mod^el but i would read. do you have a good source?

"Mod^el."  He he.  That kills me.  Good one, Solon, whoever you are.
Link

Date: 2007/11/18 16:05:03, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Annyday @ Nov. 18 2007,09:27)
BA77 is just a hair's breadth away from proposing to Solon.

Maybe, but he's gonna get peeved at getawitness.  BA77 writes a horrible poem:
Quote
Books o’ Books

Books o’ books upon the shelf;
revealing deep wisdom once hidden by stealth;
bestow us a new secret;
bestow us a new wealth;
make known as is daylight to eyes in good health!

Books o’ books, full of virtues so fine;
make de^ath the tyrant destroyed for all time;
destroyed of its power;
destroyed of its hell;
YES!, Tell us this secret;
Do tell and Tell well!

But alas, books o’ books;
no life of yourself;
why beg of you from life’s priceless wealth;
be it real plain and too easy to see;
of that which is de^ad;
only God can set free!

Acts 26:8
“Why should it be thought incredible by you that God raises the de^ad ?”


getawitness offers a minor suggestion:

Quote
BA77, I think you mean

“Books, O books” etc, not “o’books.” The “o” with an apostrophe is either used in Irish names, as in “Frank O’Connor,” or as a short version of “of,” as in “I’ll have me a bottle o’ tequila and a bucket o’ limes, my good man.”
Link

Date: 2007/11/20 10:31:06, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (sysdt @ Nov. 19 2007,09:47)
Hermagoras, you seem to read books like an anthropologist confronting an alien tribe. Rather than studying the index (were you looking for your own name?), why don't you do something innovative, like read the text in the order it is published. You don't exactly establish yourself as a credible witness if the most interesting thing you can say is how often Fuller cites himself.

By the way, what evidence do you have that Fuller actually is a postmodern relativist? Does he ever say this himself?

Actually, I did read the book.  It's a bizarre book for sure: the index is just a quick way of noting its odd priorities.  

Come to think of it, the idea that I "read books like an anthropologist confronting an alien tribe" is not something I'd take issue with.  

As for the specific charge, I was speaking kind of glibly; I don't actually think Fuller is a postmodern relativist.  He seems to be sui generis.  I do think people who read science studies carelessly sometimes make the mistake of conflating Fuller's idiosyncratic perspective with science studies in general.  I'm pretty sure that in that respect, at least, Fuller and I would agree (he doesn't want to be confused with anybody else).

Date: 2007/11/20 14:43:45, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 20 2007,14:20)
Cool!  ERV (aka Abbie Smith, aka The Behe Basher, aka The Dembski Destroyer, aka Grad Student Extraordinaire) Catches the Discovery Institute Plagiarizing - Follow The link.

http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007....sm.html

ps:  ERV's Got New Do Too - check out the previous post

Sweet.  

I love that original video.  Piggybacking DI crap on that beautiful animation is contemptible.

Date: 2007/11/20 14:48:17, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Mister DNA @ Nov. 20 2007,07:47)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 19 2007,09:42)
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:
   
Quote
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

   
Quote

(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.)


I get such a Pinky and the Brain vibe from IDiots. Their plans to defeat Evilution/Darwinism/Materialism never involve something like... oh, I dunno... research; it's always:

1) This press release will be the death of Darwinism!

2) We'll let 9th Grade biology students decide!

3) The mere existence of this "lab" will be a crushing defeat for materialism; we won't even need to do any research! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!one!eleventy!

4) As this flash animation demonstrates, judges aren't qualified to rule on whether or not ID is science.

Joe G's Bribe a Teacher Gambit is crazy. So crazy, it just might work!

I'm reminded of that moment in Airplane!:  
Quote
Naive ID supporter: Let's have ID gain credibility by doing science.

Dembski/Behe/etc.: No!  That's just what they'll be expecting us to do!

Date: 2007/11/20 17:29:26, Link
Author: Hermagoras
At my blog paralepsis (link below) I transcribed Dembski's introduction to the video, with a few additional points:

1. Clearly, he wants people to think either he or Behe had made the thing, just like he wants people to think Behe discovered the flagellum.  

2. This from the guy who says Judge Jones plagiarized the Dover decision.

Date: 2007/11/20 17:38:57, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Mister DNA @ Nov. 20 2007,16:07)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 20 2007,14:48)
I'm reminded of that moment in Airplane!:      
Quote
Naive ID supporter: Let's have ID gain credibility by doing science.

Dembski/Behe/etc.: No!  That's just what they'll be expecting us to do!

The Date: December 20, 2005
The Place: A conference room at the Discovery Institute



Casey "D-Day" Luskin: War's over, man. Judge Jones dropped the big one.
Dave "Bluto" Scot: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the ACLU forced those marines to stop praying? Hell no!
Bill "Otter" Dembski: Marines?
Michael "Boon" Behe: Forget it, he's rolling.
Dave "Bluto" Scot: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough...
[thinks hard]
Dave "Bluto" Scot: the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!
[runs out, alone; then returns]
Dave "Bluto" Scot: What the fuck happened to the DI I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Dave, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Judge Jones, he's a dead man! Barbara Forrest, dead! Nick Matzke...
Bill "Otter" Dembski: Dead! DT's right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with peer-reviewed research that could take years and cost millions of dollars. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.
Dave "Bluto" Scot: We're just the guys to do it.
Bill "Otter" Dembski: Let's do it.
Dave "Bluto" Scot: LET'S DO IT!

Wow.  That fits amazingly well.

Date: 2007/11/20 17:44:35, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Can anybody tell which of the people arguing about whether Solon is a sockpuppet are themselves sockpuppets?  

UD these says is an interesting mix of the Sokal hoax and the Turing test.  Call it the Turkal host.

Date: 2007/11/20 22:35:22, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Gil's upset that his love letter to Philip Johnson gets no respect:
   
Quote
I am extremely disappointed. My hope was that my post would inspire those in the ID community to express their appreciation to Phillip Johnson for his wisdom, insight, and courage, but this thread has completely degenerated.

I am not a moderator at UD, just a contributor. If I were a moderator, I would delete Solon’s first comment and all that has ensued as a result of it.

getawitness notes the irony:
   
Quote
Gil,

I understand you’re disappointed at what’s happened with the letter. But it may have been a tactical error to post what was, in effect, a gushing fan note to a widely read blog. The outcome is bound to be unpredictable. Who could have imagined that your letter, which says that “Darwinism is in its evidential, mathematical, intellectual, philosophical, and ethical death throes,” would be followed by a post including a quote from Dr. Dembski that ID critics “have been announcing intelligent design’s demise every year since 1990??

Date: 2007/11/22 22:39:50, Link
Author: Hermagoras
getawitness gives a kairosfocus recipe:
Quote

Sorry to come back to the relativism issue, but I thought I’d give it one last go for Borne and kairosfocus.
Borne [226]:
1. I only used the analogy of measure because you brought it up. Recall that you wrote:
Quote
The very possibility of moral debate is evidence of an external rule to which all must refer. Each side claiming to be closer than the other to that external rule they must necessarily assume exists. Otherwise no moral debate is even possible.

I mention that rules of measure are not absolute, and your response is to say that the comparison is “apples & oranges.” But to clarify a point, neither physical nor moral) measures are subjective: they’re relative. I’ve said over and over again that subjectivism and relativism are different positions, but that seems to be lost on people.
You also write
Quote
All human invented units of measure - time, temperature, distance, weight etc. - are subjective and arbitrary.
There is no absolute mile. No absolute meter. They are arbitrarily fixed units for practical use only and could be changed at whim.
Not so with morals. You can’t make murder ‘right’ overnight on a personal whim. But that’s exactly what you could do if there were no moral Base Law.

Now that’s comparing apples and oranges! Human units of measure are, in fact, not subjective but relative. As a practical matter, a great deal of consequence would result if people were to change them on a whim: bridges and houses would fall down, for one. I’m saying that relative measures are good enough to get lots of practical work done in the world, and that this holds for moral reasoning as well as practical reasoning. Further, I believe that moral reasoning never happens any other way: that is, moral reasoning is always conducted in relative terms, and it seems to work pretty well.
Finally you write,
Quote
“Is it true?”, is the ultimate question here. But if there are no ultimate, absolute truths then there are no ‘true’ truths at all.

Not really: there are, I would say, “true enough” truths, that is, truths that seem pretty stable for most people. So when you write that “Relativism must itself be relative - thus it abolishes itself as having any real meaning,” I think you’re on to something in the first statement but not in the second. In fact, the relativism of relativism means that some things are less relative (more stable, more universal) than others. Societies maintain themselves (among other ways) by deciding and maintaining a sense a sense of what those more and less relative things are.
You write, “Are u saying all ancient Greeks practiced [child rape]?” No, but I’m saying that ancient Greek society condoned child rape in the form of pederasty. My point was a simple response to your claim [172] that “There has never been a civilization, outside of demonic worship cultures, that has ever condoned child rape or murder for ex[ample].” I simply pointed out that yes, in fact, there has been such a civilization: ancient Greece. Condoning something (in law and practice) does not mean that everybody practices it.
kairosfocus [184]:
Quote
what is really happening here is, unfortunately a turnabout accusation rhetorical fallacy/tactic, in the guise of a position on truth.

Of course you’d say that. I’m tempted to create a parody kairosfocus post along the lines of a Chinese menu. Choose an item from each of the following four lists:
Chestnuts: comparative worldview difficulty, a priori assumptions, evo mat, warrants, objectivity, the obviousness of your arguments to all who are honest, etc.
Accusations: of selective hyperskepticism, self-refutation, question-begging, rhetorical tactics, etc.
Citations: of Royce, Platinga, Lewis, Aristotle, and of course and always “my always linked” tome, etc.
Laments: “Sadly,” where evolutionary materialism has taken us, the sad state of affairs today, the author’s own need to repeat points he’s made before, the moral bankruptcy of his opponents, the need to explain the debate to innocent onlookers, etc.
Plate and serve.
So in your response to me, you write:
Quote
Putting it more bluntly: WHEN IT IS NOT CONVENIENT TO ANSWER, a relativist will in certain cases refuse to answer to a question on the objective state of affairs in the cosmos, projecting to the objectivist interlocutor, the accusation that s/he is imposing a particular “objectivist” account of truth or warrant or rationality.
But, to make even that accusation, the relativist is inherently assuming precisely the same account of truth or warrant or rationality. In short we see here selective hyper-skepticism, which as an intellectual double-standard, is always self-referentially incoherent.

Abundant presence of chestnuts? check. Accusations of rhetorical evasion? check. Citations to one of the expected sources? Check (not here, but later in the comment. Laments about the honesty (and in this case the fate) of your opponents? check.
In fact, I don’t think you’ve even begun to understand my point, because you haven’t actually tried. You saw “relativist” and sprung into action: there’s nothing I can say because you already know there’s nothing I can contribute to the tight little house of your understanding. Let me make one thing clear, however: I am not “assuming precisely the same account [as you are] of truth or warrant or rationality.” I am assuming a different account — a relativist account — which you seem to think must be the same account if words such as truth or warrant or rationality are to be used at all.
I’m not sure how you will respond to this: say that I’ve evaded the point? Continue lamenting the sad state of relativist reasoning? Post a note to “onlookers” advising them of how to read the whole debate in your terms? Return to the well-trodden paths charted above? I’m breathless with anticipation.

Date: 2007/11/24 12:20:33, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Uncommonly Denyse gets spanked:    
Quote
Denyse,

Wow: according to this last bit, “materialists” have been brainwashed (”trained to think a certain way”), are uncreative, unquestioning, not independent, are like dogs (”barking in unison”), rely simply on feelings (”it all feels so GOOD”), are analogous to drunkards (”the headache doesn’t happen until sobriety sets in”), and are prone to scapegoating — and even then choose the wrong targets.

To follow this (addiing [sic] “I suspect” and “I suppose” in lieu of evidence), that would make non-materialists independent thinkers, creative, questioning, indivdiualists [sic], reliant on thought, sober, and not prone to scapegoating.

Goodness gracious, Denyse! Try using a broader brush next time: you’re not generalizing enough.

Date: 2007/11/24 19:53:09, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Don't you mess with my Harry Potter, man.  And especially don't f--k with Gay Dumbledore.  Gay Dumbledore will  kick your ass.

Date: 2007/11/25 14:20:04, Link
Author: Hermagoras
getawitness battles with kairosfocus and plays Eminiem's "rabbit" in 8 Mile:

 
Quote
kairosfocus,

I’ve never said you’re a “fundamentalist ignoramus” — or even “words to that effect.” The famous quote of Dawkins I find repugnant. I certainly don’t think you’re stupid (as you’ve said, you’re a physicist — having a Ph.D. in physics is a sign that you’re pretty smart). Nor do I think you’re ignorant, insane, or wicked. I’d have to say the same of many in my family, and of myself a few years ago.

What was the point of my parody? It was to humorously note the obvious: that you are repetitive and (cough cough) prolix. I’m not saying anything about your intelligence; I’m saying something about your writing. I was observing what you would call a “commonly encountered” set of patterns in your own rhetoric. Everybody has rhetorical and argumentative habits. Yours are, I think, pretty identifiable: extraordinarily long posts containing the elements I noted. I was hoping this might encourage you to say something new.

We’re obviously not going to reach agreement about the central point: your contention that I’m caught in objectivist epistemology despite my best efforts to the contrary. I have made at least one (non-objective!) error: in using the word “cannot” without qualification. There was also something tautological about that sentence, which argued, in effect, that incommensurable accounts really are incommensurable. :-) I’ll happily grant that our language does favor objectivist accounts. How much easier it is to say what I said than to say “I tend to view the impasse as an example of how incommensurable accounts are unlikely be reconciled at what appear to be fundamental levels.” I need to maintain the “more or less” posture constantly (more or less), or else it will seem as though I’m making claims about absolute truth.

I take it that for you all the following terms imply objective truth (including moral truth): warrant, argument, error, correction, wrong, right demonstrate, show, discover, meaning, good, bad, etc. etc. Well, if that’s so, then I’m clearly wrong. But a lot of us find objectivist accounts of truth both inadequate and incoherent (again, I realize that for you this too, like everything I say, further wraps me in the cocoon of objectivty).

StephenB [259], I wasn’t and am not appealing to an objective standard of justice. I appealed to a community standard I hoped we could agree upon.

As for moral standards working “pretty well,” I think I reason the way we all reason, more or less: by looking at history, context, making the best decisions I can, etc. How are different standards accounted for? Well, it depends. There are lots of people with different values that I’m not doing anything about. Sometimes I might strive for agreement; sometimes I might choose to quarrel (or fight — in fact, contra Lewis, humans sometimes fight when arguments fail).

I admit that the idea of a univeral morality is appealing to me, and there are cases — such as the abolition of slavery, the civil right movement, and the ongoing fight for economic justice and against capitalist exploitation — where utopian impulses are powerful and guiding. I’m not opposed to using language such as “right” or “wrong” in those cases or in other cases I find morally reprehensible (such as for example the current occupation of Iraq). (Note to kairosfocus: this is not a concession, since I’ve never been opposed to using such language). The question is whether such moral action (or such moral language) entails universal moral laws in the sense implied by kairosfocus and others. And I don’t think they do.

For example, I don’t think that the civil rights movement won by appealing to moral law. In fact, the supporters of segregation also appealed to what they perceived as universal moral law. I think it won — and I’m glad it did — by helping those outside the immediate conflict to recognize the shared humanity of those being oppressed. This was the brilliance of non-violence, a contextual tactic which Martin Luther King Jr. took from the non-Christian Gandhi. I think what happened was that lots of white folks who were indifferent to the condition of Americcan Blacks started to identify and empathize with their condition. The nonviolence of civil rights protestors, and the violent reaction of the oppressors, flashed in television screens across America and expanded how Americans in power thought of human rights. Of course all these movements are complex, but it’s awfully reductive to think that the arguments won on logical grounds: those on the side of oppression think their moral reasoning is impeccable, even self-evident.

What made Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin work? What made Lincoln call Stowe “the little woman who started this big war”? I don’t think it was her appeal to universal moral law: John Brown tried that and failed. It was her empathetic and powerful representation of the humanity of oppressed slaves.
This will be my last post on this thread, as I find it difficult and somewhat exhausting to keep up with you, kairosfocus, much less you and StephenB together. But let me save you some time by anticipating your inevitable followup:
 
Quote
Onlookers, GAW has, sadly but predictably, decided to leave the conversation without responding except dismissively. This is confirmation of the relativist’s selective hyperskepticism and shows that my arguments are unassailable and have been correct all along.

Feel free to expand on that with points A-H and two followups.


Linkity-Link

I'm quoting these in the event GAW is purged on the return of DaveScot from rehab or wherever.

Date: 2007/11/25 19:40:13, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 25 2007,19:30)
BA77 comes forward with this:
 
Quote
Getawitness:
Do you know about quantum non-locality? If so for a long time it was limited to transcendent information for sub-atomic particles being communicated faster that the speed of light no matter where in the universe.

This is complete nonsense.  Physicists know well that long-range quantum entanglement does not allow one to send information faster than at the speed of light.  There is a decent discussion of that on Wikipedia, with references:
Quantum entanglement
No communication theorem

GAW has responded to BA77 along these lines.  

Note to Wesley: I agree that GAW's use of the term "repugnant" was in error -- certainly overstated.  However, he might have meant simply that it's jumping the gun to assume that such people must be ignorant or whatever in advance of having met them.  

Not that I know, ummm, what's in anybody else's head.

Date: 2007/11/26 10:52:46, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 26 2007,06:07)
Kristine
 
Quote
BA77 is beginning to sound like Shirley MacLaine.


Oh, so she's been there before? ....again.

Hello all.... I'm BACK!!!!


Ecce ego

Welcome back.  Where's your Beckett avatar?  

I can't go on.  I must go on.  I'll go on.

Date: 2007/11/28 22:02:34, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Can anybody explain to me what the hell kairosfocus is saying?   It's thick, thick tard.

Quote
I am saying that observed phenomena studied through scientific means include not only those tracing to chance and to mechanical necessity but also to agency.

Consider Newton’s investigations with a prism, or Hooke’s with a spring for simple cases. Were these foundational investigations in Physics any less scientific because these entities are agent-originated, i.e designed?

Plainly, not at all.

[And for that matter, indeed, an experiment is contrived, i.e designed. We routinely — and often demonstrably reliably — infer that the phenomena we observe there and the laws we infer as explanations or patterns carry over into situations we have not designed nor have we observed the origin of directly, in the cosmos. I am saying just the opposite of what you seem to fear.]

Next, I am pointing out — as I do in section A of my always linked — that when we consider a communication and/or information technology situation, we are routinely scientifically studying agent-originated entities. In particular, we comfortably and reliably make the inference to message not lucky noise when we study signals in the presence of noise or potential noise. (DNA is an information-bearing molecule, with a sophisticated message of information carrying capacity that starts at about 500, 000 to 1 million bits in observed situations. This is far, far beyond the reach of random walks in the appropriate configuration space, on the gamut of our observed universe. And related multiverse proposals are in this context essentially ad hoc, after the fact patches that are metaphysics not empirically tested science.]

In statistical investigations we similarly make inferences to design when we set out to reject chance null hypotheses.

To artificially restrict the set of possible causal factors ahead of time [in a context where it so happens that the credibility of a certain worldview that likes to call itself “scientific” is at stake] is therefore to beg the question, and it robs science of its true force as an empirically constrained search for learning and understanding the truth about the universe, however imperfect the status of the search may be at any given time.

Date: 2007/11/28 22:45:33, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (steve_h @ Nov. 28 2007,22:28)
RWT featured a discussion on this only recently (70's I think).

Thanks!  That explains it.  

-- Machine wrapped with butter?
-- Machine wrapped with butter.

Date: 2007/11/30 20:37:53, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 30 2007,20:22)
There was a really sad post on UD recently where Dembski said a colleague who formerly supported ID no longer did so, and Dembski was asking his rabble what to do, and he was so desperate for support that he found solace in TroutMac's blatherings.

I may have missed that post.  Do you remember when WmAD put it up?

Date: 2007/12/01 19:01:09, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Reading Joyce's Ulysses again, for the umpteenth time.  But for the first time I'm reading it out loud.  I've read to my wife nightly for 20 years of marriage, and we've read a ton of novels: Jane Austen, George Eliot, Vikram Chandra -- as well as long poems (Dante [trans. Mandelbaum], Homer [trans. Fagels], Beowulf [trans. Heaney]).  

I have finally convinced her that Ulysses is actually a hilarious book.    (Here's a game of Chinese Whispers: Hugh Kenner once told me how Joyce used to complain to Ezra Pound about how nobody saw the humor in the book.  So that's why Pound has "Jim the comedian" in the Pisan Cantos.  So: Joyce tells Pound who tells Kenner who tells me.)

It's going pretty well, meaning my wife is starting to warm to it.  (She loves the earlier Joyce but has always been intimidated by Ulysses.)  I did skim over a couple of pages of "Proteus" (the third chapter) -- that's Stephen at his most depressingly self-indulgent, and just before we get introduced to the fantastic Leopold Bloom.   We're just entering "Lotus-Eaters" tonight.  

Also reading Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience by Frank Cioffi, and The Outernationale, poems by Peter Gizzi.

Date: 2007/12/02 17:55:42, Link
Author: Hermagoras
getawitness has been arguing that CSI needs to be measurable.  And he proposes an ID research program:
Quote
Patrick, I’ve read NFL carefully and TDI a little less so. I have seen him put forward methods he says determine the presence of CSI but not for determining the amount of CSI. This would be important for figuring out when a design event happened. For example, if you accept (as I do) common descent, then it would be interesting to calculate the amount of CSI in two related species. If one species had more CSI than another, then either the ancestor species had more than either (the front-loading idea, if I understand that correctly) or there was a design event in the interim.

The grail of such an investigation would be to show quantitatively that a species had definitively more CSI than its ancestor species. If ID is correct in its central contention that new CSI requires intelligence, then we would know when a design event occurred. One could even write a history of biological design events. But that would all depend on some way to measure the amount of CSI (as well as confirmation of the “CSI is created only by intelligence” prsemise).[sic]


likely sockpuppet poachy is inspired:
Quote
getawitness, I have always struggled with how to operationalize the fundamentals of ID (perhaps because I am a layman and not a biologist). You have made what, is to me, a fantastic suggestion for a research program! It is probably old hat to Patrick and them, but it really made a lightbulb go off for me.

poachy, if you're out there, PM me.

Date: 2007/12/02 19:48:56, Link
Author: Hermagoras
inexplicably, getawitness is receiving praise from BA77.

Date: 2007/12/02 23:29:22, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Denyse threatens to ban getawitness:  
Quote


getawitness, I have now caught you doing the usual Darwinist crap of claiming that people were not harmed by Darwinthugs when they in fact were. Rick Sternberg suffered serious career harm in consequence of Darwinists’ rage over the Meyer paper in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington - even though it had passed peer review.

One more such emission from you and I will ban you from this forum.

We don’t abet persecutions here. Okay?

Your usual drivel is just your usual drivel, but when you resort to claiming that your favourite thugs have done no harm - that’s different. Or else I just noticed you now and I am enforcing. M’kay?


Linky

I thought Denyse was Velma, but I guess I was wrong.  

Date: 2007/12/03 01:03:13, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Jason Spaceman @ Dec. 03 2007,00:43)
Quote
Ames, Ia. - Iowa State University professor Guillermo Gonzalez's support of the theory of intelligent design damaged his prospects for tenure long before his peers voted on the job promotion, according to e-mails from at least one professor in his department to those who decided Gonzalez's tenure request.

The e-mails were provided to The Des Moines Register by ISU officials in response to a request for public records pertaining to the tenure case.

The disclosure of the e-mails is contrary to what ISU officials emphasized after Gonzalez, an assistant professor in physics and astronomy, learned that his university colleagues had voted to deny his bid for tenure.

"I think Gonzalez should know that some of the faculty in his department are not going to count his ID work as a plus for tenure," physics and astronomy professor Bruce Harmon wrote in an e-mail dated November 2005 - a year before the department voted on the tenure case.

"Quite the opposite," Harmon added.

In May, Eli Rosenberg, chairman of the ISU Department of Physics and Astronomy, told the Register that Gonzalez's tenure denial was "not political" and that journalists were wrong to suggest that Gonzalez's tenure review was based on anything other than his scientific qualifications.

Later that month, however, Rosenberg told World Magazine, a Christian publication, that Gonzalez's book, called "The Privileged Planet," played a role in the tenure decision-making process. But the book was not an overriding factor, Rosenberg added.


Read it here.

I don't see anything wrong with that statement.  His "ID work" was not peer-reviewed.  No untenured science professor who spends a lot of time on popular science stuff will have it count in their favor.  "Quite the opposite," no matter what the subject

Date: 2007/12/03 10:45:19, Link
Author: Hermagoras
getawitness defends himself:  
Quote
Denyse, I was making a somewhat small correction. I didn’t say “people were not harmed,” and I don’t have any “favourite thugs.” I said only one of the four people you mentioned have been driven from their posts. It’s a small point, and one that I would imagine you, as a journalist who values careful use of language, would appreciate.

O the irony!

Date: 2007/12/04 01:51:35, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Can somebody point me to the best material about Sternberg? In particular, I want to know the details of the publication process for the Mayer paper.  He's written his own account, but I'm not sure if it's accurate.

Edit: and yes, this is about an ongoing discussion on UD.

Date: 2007/12/04 11:44:45, Link
Author: Hermagoras
kairosfocus sez GG's fate predicts our own:
   
Quote
That is, Gonzalez is the canary in the mine, and he is fluttering and panting.

This is the funniest thing I've ever read on UD. It's inspiring.
   
Quote
--"Breathe, little Guillermo, breathe!"

--"wh-- who are you? Are you my angel Clarence?  You don't look like a coal miner."

[Bad to the Bone plays in background]

--"I'm Ben Stein, and I've come to rescue you"

--"Why are you dressed like a British schoolboy?"

I'm wondering if there's anything that won't look like a sign of impending doom.  
   
Quote
Is this where we want our Civilisation to go?

Nope.  Guess not.

Date: 2007/12/04 15:12:02, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quick, before it goes!  digdug24:
Quote
Indeed. All the so-called ’scientists’ who discredit the evidence for Bigfoot should not be allowed to teach a cryptozoology class. Someone like the new DI fellow Michael Medved would be infinitely better at such instruction because he believes it. Anyone else will just show their preconceived biases.
Followed by Bugsy:
Quote
The literal existence of angels and of psi haven’t been given fair shakes in mainstream academia, either. We need to put more enthusiastic people in the chairs currently occupied by materialist scientists, to make sure that our experiments turn out the right way.

Bannination in 3, 2, 1, . . . .

Date: 2007/12/04 17:18:14, Link
Author: Hermagoras
heddle, some of those axing real questions may indeed be pseudonyms for some of us here.  FWIW, I agree with you.  

Meanwhile, and totally unrelated,, getawitness has been steelin' mah stuffs.

Date: 2007/12/04 19:59:20, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 04 2007,13:51)
It's been pointed out that once GG became a creationist, he basically stopped doing research. My suspicion is that once he became a born again, he realized he didn't want to do the kind of work any longer that would get him tenure, and so he just kind of let his freak flag fly after that. In other words, he probably knew full well he'd be in big trouble once his 7 years were up, but couldn't/wouldn't do anything about it. So he probably basically planned all this, and decided to play this whole martyr game when the time came. He MUST realize that no real university would touch him with a 10-foot cattle prod now.

Anyway, I suspect in a year or two Liberty, EbolaBiola, or Pensacola Christian College will find a position for him. He'll be on the Wingnut Welfare gravy train for a loooong time.

I don't know the GG biography.  He converted as an adult?  After he was a scientist?

Date: 2007/12/04 21:25:03, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Also, Dr. Behe has a stellar reputation as a bioalchemist.

Date: 2007/12/06 15:33:05, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (ERV @ Dec. 06 2007,14:29)
Quote (dheddle @ Dec. 06 2007,14:21)
I have to say, the Kwok review is pretty crappy, reading more like an editorial. And I would have to agree with Dembski that you don't get a good feeling that Kwok actually read the book, given the paucity of specificity in his review. Having been on the receiving side of an Amazon reviewer who obviously didn't read my book (but who, to his credit, later withdrew it, and we became internet friends of a sort) I can sympathize.

Im sorry, Im new here-- Is Dave the male FtK?

Hey, Dave, guess who wrote this 'review' of a book he didnt read 4 years ago?
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2IVJ8H71KHJGS/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

Don't knock heddle, ERV.  He's cool.

Date: 2007/12/06 16:26:34, Link
Author: Hermagoras
getawitness loves Sally_T, composes a poem:  
Quote
A Poem for Sally_T

When information is complex
And specified, we have a sign
Of agency, and we can start
To argue regarding design.

When CSI’s more than a name
For shows on Thursday nights at nine,
We have a term that we can use
To argue regarding design.

Methinks when weasles speak in code
It’s like an information line
Naming the ID-friendly ode:
The argument regarding design.




Link

Date: 2007/12/06 17:08:06, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 06 2007,16:55)
we should start a haiku thread...show the tards what REAL poets can do!

I thought GAW's poem was pretty good.  :D

Anyway, here's

Quote
Joe G Haiku

stochastic process?
culled genetic accidents?
Might be God. Might not.

Date: 2007/12/06 19:13:15, Link
Author: Hermagoras
CSI implosion!  StephenB sympathizes:
Quote


If I had known that getawitness was going to be subjected to so much scrutiny, I would have dispensed with my only half-relevant criticisms earlier on the thread. There was no need for me to pile on.

Here is the problem: All throughout these debates it seemed that getawitness has been crying “wolf,” “wolf.” Most of the objections seemed (and still seem)frivolous to me. It happened so consistently, that we stopped taking him seriously.

However, @115, the wolf finally arrived, and everyone was caught off guard. Diverse notions about the meaning of basic terms [I counted three on the thread] This was no idle objection, and someone needs to deal with it. I would put my two-cents in, but I simply don’t have time today.

StephenB is referring to the disagreement over "specified" and "complex."  Someone over there might be a deep-cover troll -- if so, I'm impressed.  GAW said that he couldn't figure out the terms and Joseph and Jerry confirmed that they can't agree either.  That it all happened because they couldn't decide whether "snowflake" was specified or complex makes it all the more beautiful.

Date: 2007/12/06 23:31:57, Link
Author: Hermagoras
kairosfocus is neither kairos (timely) nor focused.  Discuss.

Seriously, KF = bloviate.

Date: 2007/12/07 11:33:23, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (someotherguy @ Dec. 07 2007,11:15)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 07 2007,10:53)
Quote (ERV @ Dec. 07 2007,09:03)
If thats the 'best' youve got, Im going to continue not liking you.  Youre nitpicking on a completely irrelevant point and proclaiming its a damning argument.

Dave Heddle, overreact to a small flaw of ours? Trying to magnify it to be equivalent to the misbehaviors of the IDers? I can hardly imagine that. Whoever heard of the like?

LOL.

(disclaimer: i haven't followed this particular argument at all. Dave may be in the right this time, I don't know. But ERV's not the first person to accuse Dave of this)

Okay, I've got to step in here and say that, no, I don't think Dave is overreacting to anything (actually he seemed quite calm to me).  Many people, including Dave (and I'll add myself to the chorus as well), are strongly disagreeing with ERV's defense of reviewing books that one hasn't read.

If anything--and I say this with all due respect--I think it's ERV who is overreacting to what I perceive to be well-intentioned criticism of her position.

My $0.02.

I'll add my small voice to this chorus.  Love you, ERV, but heddle's right here.

Date: 2007/12/07 23:17:10, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 07 2007,22:39)
The way I heard it, Abraham was trying to tell his PI that he wouldn't allow him to use data that he had worked on in any paper that advanced evolutionary explanations. Since the proposal and direction throughout had been to utilize evolutionary biology, this doesn't fall into the category of "competence" that Dembski talks about, but rather "intransigence" as Abraham, who might or might not understand evolution, refused to "play along" at all.

WHOI, though, has gotten the word not to discuss any related issues further. Their only statement is that everything they've done has been within the law and respectful of Abraham's rights.

getawitness seems to have had a similar thought:
Quote
I was wondering if the people at Woods Hole thought Abraham might collaborate on a paper and then hold it hostage, refusing to put his name on it unless they changed some wording.
Link

Date: 2007/12/08 11:42:42, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 08 2007,11:26)
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 08 2007,10:58)
<snip>

Of the six hits, one is JoeG on Teleological Blog, two are Joseph on Uncommon Descent, two from John Paul on the EVC Forum, and one seems incidental.

Interesting. I appear to be a leading critic of the Creation Theory of Biological Evolution.

The observer changes the observed!  BTW, getawitness seems to be a Zachriel fan.

Date: 2007/12/08 13:55:43, Link
Author: Hermagoras
BarryA is annoyed by getawitness:
Quote
You’re just mad because you can no longer indulge your postmodernist compulsion to wallow in factual incoherence and never resolve anything. If you are repulsed by clarity, you are free not to participate.

getawitness responds:
 
Quote
I love you too BarryA. XOXOXO

Link

Date: 2007/12/08 21:43:30, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 08 2007,20:58)
A new nanny filter sighting!!!

NA^ZI

Nanny filter explained!  

BA77 asks getawitness:

Quote
Admit you are a NA^ZI pig?


To which GAW:  
Quote
Only when you explain your NA^NY filter.


Finally, an explanation:  
Quote
GAW,
I don’t own the computer I use, so someone else has it set up to prevent por^no from being displayed in front of sensitive eyes.


Link

I think we're done here, people.

Date: 2007/12/09 09:43:27, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Sally_T brings the pain:
Quote
Joseph if I have confused you for someone else my deepest apologies. That would be worse than claiming to be a Muslim or something just for the sake of debate.


Too funny.


Link

Date: 2007/12/09 10:47:02, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 09 2007,09:56)
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.

"tard bukkake fest."  Oh. My. God.

Date: 2007/12/09 10:49:23, Link
Author: Hermagoras
I think Joseph [AKA Joe G] may be a Scientologist.  He's "not a Christian," he seems to believe in front-loading and maybe panspermia, and he's a fan of the noted tax evader, anti-psychologist, paranoid huckster, and Dianetics recommender Kevin Trudeau.

Date: 2007/12/09 11:01:01, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Dec. 09 2007,10:57)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 09 2007,10:54)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 09 2007,10:49)
I think Joseph [AKA Joe G] may be a Scientologist.  He's "not a Christian," he seems to believe in front-loading and maybe panspermia, and he's a fan of the noted tax evader, anti-psychologist, paranoid huckster, and Dianetics recommender Kevin Trudeau.

That would make sense. He seems plenty wacko enough to be a Scientologist. But I can understand why he would be reluctant to admit that on UD.

I think you give Joe too much credit. He's just a dope, and sits squarely in the center of the demographic group that people like Trudeau aim for.

Isn't that the Hubbard demographic too?

But he can't have Katie when she leaves Tom.  I've already called shotgun on that one.  He can have Kirstie Alley.

Date: 2007/12/09 21:06:00, Link
Author: Hermagoras
getawitness is by no means a tard
Quote

Joseph,
Quote
Thank you for admitting the theory of evolution is not based on scientific methodology.

No, I said that your ridiculous caricature of the theory of evolution is not based on scientific methodology.
Quote
From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I am reading Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought.This is part of a reviewed series expressing the current scientific consensus.

Actually, it’s a supplemental text for high school students. From the publisher’s web site:
Quote
Engaging, accessible, and challenging, this volume is an inviting survey of the field of evolution for high school students.

Also:
Quote
Interest Level: Grades 10 - 12
Reading Level: Grades 10 - 12

http://www.rosenpublishing.com.....K000004283

Date: 2007/12/10 11:39:20, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 10 2007,10:07)
Quote (Jake @ Dec. 10 2007,08:38)
Heads up!

Getawitness is a goner

Hermagoras will provide the eulogy.

EDIT: edited just so I look like I'm in on the joke.

Yes, I was getawitness.  Good times, good times.  I've lost my final message, where I pimp-slapped Gil Dodgen.  Does anybody have that?

Date: 2007/12/10 18:36:52, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Well, my google desktop cache didn't save my last comment as Getawitness.  Alas.  Here it is, reconstructed from memory: the comment, more or less, that got me booted.  It was in response to Gil Dodgen's third career as an immunologist
   
Quote

The more I read this post the sillier it seems.  How to fight bacteria?  Design an antibiotic that bacteria can't evolve resistance to.  [Slaps head.]  D'oh!  Why didn't anybody think of that before?  I'm sure the crack ID research team will get right to work on this using reverse-engineering ID methods.  

While we're waiting, Gil, who has no medical expertise, offers medical advice to those cwazy doctors:
   
Quote
In the meantime, medical doctors should prescribe multiple antibiotics for all infections, since this will decrease the likelihood that infectious agents can develop resistance through stochastic processes.

My prediction: should this advice be followed, bacteria will develop resistance that will falsify Gil's claims and kill many people in the process.

You know what else bacteria can't resist, Gil?  The Romantic Piano.  Chopin, Lizst, Rachmaninoff.  They're seduced like a debutante at a drive-in.  


That's my reconstruction from memory.  It think it's pretty accurate.  That last paragraph is pretty much verbatim, as I'm very proud of it.  I'm not sure which got me banned: that or the pimp-slap of Gil's medical BS earlier in the comment.

Getawitness was fun.

By the way, if one of you is Frost, PM me.  You're keeping the tard alive, my friend.  (I'm assuming sockpuppetry.)

Date: 2007/12/10 18:54:16, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (djmullen @ Dec. 10 2007,00:53)
GilDodgen:    
Quote
In the meantime, medical doctors should prescribe multiple antibiotics for all infections, since this will decrease the likelihood that infectious agents can develop resistance through stochastic processes.
Strangely, materialist non-ID medical science is doing something like that now, only with AIDS medications.  They're hitting people with a cocktail of two or three different AIDS medications at once because a virus is much much more likely to snuffit than to become immune to all three of them at once.  

Curiously, the materialist scientists who thought of this tactic apparently had no need of ID theory.  Typical liberal tactic - putting curing the patient before defending the theory.

Yes, but of course GilDodgen was saying that doctors should prescribe multiple antibiotics for all [bacterial] infections.  All of them.  Every one.  I think that's pretty much a recipe for evolving superbugs.

Date: 2007/12/10 20:27:55, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Altabin @ Dec. 10 2007,19:59)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 11 2007,01:36)
You know what else bacteria can't resist, Gil?  The Romantic Piano.  Chopin, Lizst, Rachmaninoff.  They're seduced like a debutante at a drive-in.

Awesome.

That was probably the line that did me in.  

Can you imagine GilDodgen complaining to DaveScot?  Or Joseph bitching about how his "reviewed book" about evolution was really a supplementary high school text?

Date: 2007/12/11 08:42:14, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 11 2007,01:57)

In 1966 I did a summer school experiment with two cultures of bacteria.  I challenged them each with various popular medications; Lysol, Listerine (named after Joseph Lister), and plain old alcohol.  Listerine is about 21% alcohol, so you can see the contrast.  

The alcohol killed both bacteria.  The popular remedies greatly reduced the populations of bacteria, but without continued application the bacteria rebounded in even greater numbers than before they were challenged.  The popular nostrums never killed all the bacteria- there were always some to continue their existence and even to flourish.  I tried to extend the result with different bacteria, but medical conserns (using the family refrigerator and oven for pathogenic cultures) ended the experiments.  Forty years and a PhD later, I realize that I missed a clear shot at early publication.  Worse, people are still buying the crap I had exposed “way back when."


Not just early publication: you could have scooped the Purell revolution.  (My younger son calls it "magic soap.")

Date: 2007/12/11 08:46:45, Link
Author: Hermagoras
So before I got banned (as "getawitness") on UD, I told BA77 that I had ordered Cornell (ag school Cornell, not Ithaca Cornell) plant geneticist Sanford's Genetic Entropy from interlibrary loan.  It finally came -- from the Mississippi State University library.  (Nothing closer to Boston?)  I've taken a brief look -- what a pile of crap.

Interestingly, it's blurbed by Mike Behe, Philip Johnson, John Baumgardner, and Henry Morris.  Two ID guys and two YECs.  

Has anybody responded to this at any length?  It seems to have a small but fanatic following.

Date: 2007/12/11 20:06:17, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 11 2007,15:44)
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!!!!

The funny thing about kairosfocus is that his posts are neither kairotic (timely) nor focused.  He just puts whatever happens through the KF cuisinart and comes out with the same damn stuff, over and over and over.  His posts come pre-parodied.

Date: 2007/12/13 18:52:07, Link
Author: Hermagoras
tribune7 is a tard
Quote

forthekdis — reading the links it looks like Barry was right to a degree. Murray certainly got some ideas from death metal music.


Dennett and Dawkins are fans of death metal?

Date: 2007/12/14 06:39:16, Link
Author: Hermagoras
WmAD posts an image of Chris Comer's Actual Email, but he neglects to mention that her words consisted entirely of the damning phrase "FYI." Also, he notes that

Quote
The Center for Inquiry is an organiBoo!  Booga-booga!  Just like Ken Ham!  [Paraphrase]

Date: 2007/12/14 12:38:42, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 14 2007,12:10)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 14 2007,06:39)
WmAD posts an image of Chris Comer's Actual Email, but he neglects to mention that her words consisted entirely of the damning phrase "FYI." Also, he notes that

 
Quote
The Center for Inquiry is an organiBoo!  Booga-booga!  Just like Ken Ham!  [Paraphrase]

he actually blacked her comments out.  The opposite of IDC quote mining - they just censor what was said by blacking out the text.

Yet a new low for WAD!

No, they didn't black her out.  I heard her interviewed on NPR.  She said the full content of her own message as "FYI."

Date: 2007/12/14 22:25:59, Link
Author: Hermagoras
I still have posting privileges at Young Cosmos.  I never alienated Sal enough to get booted.  Anyway, I commented on his "I'm smarter than Darwin because I know more math" post, and he has responded with some sense that he's gone overboard.  See here.

Date: 2007/12/14 22:28:01, Link
Author: Hermagoras
God help me, I'm reading Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome.  I'll have to post on the thing at some point.  

Word to the wise: never take book recommendations from BA77.

Date: 2007/12/14 22:32:40, Link
Author: Hermagoras
What does it say about BarryA's screed that the best comment came from FortheKids?  

Oh, wait.  She got the memo from StephenB and has backed off.

FtK's first comment there raised my estimation of FtK greatly.  The rest of the comments on that post are pretty much insane.

Date: 2007/12/14 22:54:44, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Dembski's interview posted over at UD.  

Now with backpedaling and qualifications!  

   
Quote
1. What is intelligent design?

The study of patterns in nature that are best explained by intelligence. But the focus is really on biology. Are there patterns in biological systems that would point us to intelligence? What we find is that we see design in everything from human consciousness, through the fossil record, through similarities between organisms, through various molecular structures inside the cell to the very origin of life — the origin of the first cell.

2. Tell me about your new book.

It’s a comprehensive overview of intelligent design, trying to make it clear what intelligent design is. There’s lots that’s been written about intelligent design, especially in the media and some of the scientific community, that’s often misrepresented. This really puts to rest a lot of those biased and misrepresented claims about intelligent design. . . .

4. Does your research conclude that God is the Intelligent Designer?

I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.

The focus of my writings is not to try to understand the Christian doctrine of creation; it’s to try to develop intelligent design as a scientific program.

There’s a big question within the intelligent design community: “How did the design get in there?” We’re very early in this game in terms of understanding the history of how the design got implemented. I think a lot of this is because evolutionary theory has so misled us that we have to rethink things from the ground up. That’s where we are. There are lots and lots of questions that are now open to re-examination in light of this new paradigm. . . .”

[snip]

Dembski’s answer to Question 4 is likely to be widely quoted - or misquoted out of context as: Dembski declares “The Designer of intelligent design, is, ultimately, the Christian God.”

This raises the challenge of the First Amendment’s preservation of the unalienable rights to religious belief and speech:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, . . ” (See annotations)
This includes rights to academic freedom.

* Do academic’s [sic] have the freedom to develop scientific theories in public institutions free from discrimination?

* Or can some people use government resources to forbid speech and religious practice by others based on the implications of the theories they develop in public institutions?

* Can some use government resources to forbid any theory that posits an intelligent agent, and, by government sanction, only allow theories that presume materialistic naturalism or philosophical naturalism?


Added in edit:  

Note how this puts ID in terms of the First Amendment, but that the speech clause is subsumed under the religion clause (that is, it's about "rights to religious . . . speech").  And of course, standard science is presented as an (anti)religious hegemony.

Date: 2007/12/15 08:15:48, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Larry Fafarman is a tard
Quote

The press only reported that she added the initials “FYI” to the forwarded email, and I thought that her email address was the only indication that the forwarded email came from her. The above copy of the email shows that she added more than just “FYI” — she also added her name, position, and TEA address
FYI
Chris Castillo Comer
Director of Science
Texas Education Agency
1701 N. Congress Ave.
Austin TX 78701-1494
Needless to say, adding her name, position, and TEA address greatly enhanced the appearance of endorsement.
Ding Elsberry’s copy of the forwarded email does not show this additional information that she added — see
http://austringer.net/wp/index.....a-forrest/


Apparently the newfangled technology called the "signature file" has yet to reach the exotic shores of Missouri.

Date: 2007/12/15 08:40:21, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Mike O'Risal @ Dec. 15 2007,08:19)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 15 2007,08:15)
Quote
Apparently the newfangled technology called the "signature file" has yet to reach the exotic shores of Missouri.

Missouri has shores?

I suppose that might be the case under Intelligent Design Geography...

Missouri is a far distant country.  Why, as I recall, there's a city in Missouri called Kansas City that's about as fer as you kin go.

Date: 2007/12/20 01:57:57, Link
Author: Hermagoras
BarryA is a tard
Quote

My grandfather dropped out of school after the 2nd grade. But he was a mechanical genious [sic]. Some of the things he made were truly amazing. He was also self taught in many fields. When he died his personal library ran into the thousands of volumes (all of which he had read, some many times).

He worked at an aircraft factory, and sometimes the engineers would ask him for advice. I have always found it amusing that college educated professionals would ask a 2nd grade dropout for help.
Of course I am not recommending that anyone drop out. I’m only suggesting that a lack of formal academic credentials does not mean that a person cannot make a significant contribution to a field.


This reminds me of my uncle, who went through high school but was self-taught in computers and various kinds of mechanics.  He joined the service, travelled around, is very smart.  Given the right conditions he'd be a "mechanical genius."  But it happens that he didn't have those conditions, and so he spent the bulk of his adult life trying to develop a perpetual motion machine.  

A scientific education won't make you brilliant.  But the absence of education can make even a brilliant person into a quack.

Date: 2007/12/20 13:46:01, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 19 2007,13:27)
 
Quote
Hermagoras shows up at Joe G's door to get that elusive ID evidence and is shot; the state contends that it was Joe G who shot Hermagoras.

Speaking of which, has anyone heard from Hermagoras recently?  The last I saw he was starting to read Sanford's Genetic Entropy book.  I'm concerned that Hermagoras' DNA might have succumbed to the SLoT.

Bob

Bob, I'm in Singapore for a couple of weeks.  I try to stay away from the tard, but they pulling me back in!  



It's hard to measure the stupidity of Sanford's book (the sleeper hit of the ID community).  Here's BA77 holding it:



Note to BarryA, who is apparently reading over here a little: Hi!  I'm sorry I was banned as getawitness.  My posts were quite serious, and I was banned apparently only because I mocked GilDogden for playing doctor.  Can you blame me?  

Meanwhile, any way you can appeal to the higher powers over there?

Date: 2007/12/20 14:18:02, Link
Author: Hermagoras
BarryA was decent to me (usually) in my role as getawitness.  Of course, as befits his profession, he was also an arrogant windbag plenty of times.  He's fairly smart among the UD pack.  But his embrace of groupthink, and its extension into offensive cultural waters in the posts mentioned above, is really disturbing.

Date: 2007/12/20 16:03:46, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Annyday @ Dec. 20 2007,15:38)
This is dated today, has anyone else seen it yet?

Intelligent Design at Baylor University: The Rise and Fall of Baylor University’s Michael Polanyi Center

Man. I have to read this all the way through. :D

That's old stuff.  Where is it dated today?

Date: 2007/12/20 17:23:01, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Annyday @ Dec. 20 2007,16:45)
If publicity and sales are the only upsides you see to being paid attention, even overwhelmingly scornful and negative attention, you just might not be doing real science.

A great idea!  But I think it should be "you just might be a  cdesign proponentsist."  F**k "w00t" -- cdesign proponentsist is the real word of the year.  (I know it came out with the Dover trial, but the PBS documentary brought it to a wider audience.)

Quote
If you say you're doing science while teaching theology . . . you just might be a cdesign proponentsist.

If you're in an academic department that has disavowed your work on its home page . . . you just might be a cdesign proponentsist.


Etc.

Date: 2007/12/30 08:30:00, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Brief question from my Singapore vacation:

How much f*&%ing time does kairosfocus have on his hands?

Date: 2007/12/30 18:04:34, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 30 2007,08:54)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 30 2007,08:30)
Brief question from my Singapore vacation:

How much f*&%ing time does kairosfocus have on his hands?

Apparently more than bornagain77, who has seemed to disappear of late.

Hope he's not back on the bottle.  

Oh well.   I raise a Singapore Sling in his honor and/or memory.

Date: 2008/01/01 07:39:25, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 31 2007,10:55)
Anyway, this is interesting (and you might have missed, because it must have been lurking in the moderation queue waiting to be released):
 
Quote
12

markzwart

12/30/2007

4:59 pm

After being a long time lurker, both here and at the thumb, I finally have to make a comment. Why? Two reasons:

1. I’m currently finishing up a Ph.D. in experimental evolution of baculoviruses (anyone ever heard of them here?). My thesis mainly concerns the development and validation of models of viral infection and population genetics - my first publications will be out the coming half year. Nevertheless, I’m interested in the philosophical ramifications of evolutionary biology. And I have a Christian background.

2. I’m Dutch - as is R. Meester - and have read some of his popular articles in Dutch and heard a few debates on ID in which he has participated. But enough about me.

What surprizes me greatly is no one has recognized that Ronald Meester is one of the people who started getting ID in the spotlights here in the Netherlands. Granted, he has always taken a somewhat agnostic position with respect to ‘ID proper’, and even more so to any religious/philosophical implications of ID. But, he has really stuck his neck out in order to get people - in scientific and lay circles - thinking about ID. And he has taken a lot of flak for his stance, from both camps. To qualify his position in his latest paper as ‘grudging acknowledgement disguised as disagreement or even claimed refutation’ is skewed. If anything, Meester is a friend of the ID movement, even if he is not (or perhaps no longer) a part of it. I am by no means an ID supporter myself, but cut the man some slack. ;-) [Emphasis added]

That quote suggests to me that maybe, just maybe, Meester is the European former ID supporter Dembski mentioned a while back.

Date: 2008/01/08 00:05:33, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 07 2008,23:21)
 
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 07 2008,21:12)
Oh, this is delicious:
     
Quote
12
xcdesignproponentsists
01/07/2008
8:45 pm

BarryA:

Oops, you’re right.

But the reason I asked is because it’s perhaps not the only alternative.

Yes, it is possible that evolutionary theory is just fundamentally wrong, and that intelligent design proponents are revolutionary geniuses who in the future will be revered while the likes of Darwin, Gould and Sean B. Carroll are scoffed at.

But let’s remember that ID is not the only alternative to evolution. There is after all Creationism in its various forms.

This is what I call Zugzwang.

That really is brilliant for the position it puts Barry in. Xcdesignproponentsists, I'm raising a glass to you tonight.

God, I love Intelligent Design. It's so gratifying, to see our opponents exposed as morons.

olegt: nice word.

That is sweet.  And then Junkyard adds his own nice touch in reaction to a double post:    
Quote
Guess the double posting sort of muted the impact. Too bad nothing’s ever deleted here.


Hilarious.

Link

By the way, I'm back from my Singapore vacation.

Off-topic question: have any of you visited the Evolution Garden in Singapore?  See this article.  I just did, and it's fantastic.  Every civilized city should have one.

Date: 2008/01/10 21:32:07, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 11 2007,20:11)
Quote (stevestory @ May 11 2007,19:53)
The number of posts thing isn't strict. but, you know, most of the committed regulars who were interested would be invited.

I don't have 500 posts (not even close), but I do have a science degree, and I am interested.

And lots of folks think I should be committed :)

I have 453 posts (well, 454 with this one).  If I post another 46, can I get a science degree?  

I'm wondering what the purpose of such a blog would be, rhetorically speaking.  To keep tabs on, and counter, the anti-evolution movement with a more public rhetorical posture than we have here?

Date: 2008/01/10 21:41:32, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 10 2008,12:41)
(I'm beginning to think that ID creationism is some kind of waking-dream state.)

Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote about this state in "The Haunted Mind." He describes an average day, more or less, of uncontrolled association at Uncommon Descent.
   
Quote
In the depths of every heart, there is a tomb and a dungeon, though the lights, the music, and revelry above may cause us to forget their existence, and the buried ones, or prisoners whom they hide. But sometimes, and oftenest at midnight, those dark receptacles are flung wide open. In an hour like this, when the mind has a passive sensibility, but no active strength; when the imagination is a mirror, imparting vividness to all ideas, without the power of selecting or controlling them; then pray that your griefs may slumber, and the brotherhood of remorse not break their chain. It is too late! A funeral train comes gliding by your bed, in which Passion and Feeling assume bodily shape, and things of the mind become dim spectres to the eye. There is your earliest Sorrow, a pale young mourner, wearing a sister's likeness to first love, sadly beautiful, with a hallowed sweetness in her melancholy features, and grace in the flow of her sable robe. Next appears a shade of ruined loveliness, with dust among her golden hair, and her bright garments all faded and defaced, stealing from your glance with drooping head, as fearful of reproach; she was your fondest Hope, but a delusive one; so call her Disappointment now. A sterner form succeeds, with a brow of wrinkles, a look and gesture of iron authority; there is no name for him unless it be Fatality, an emblem of the evil influence that rules your fortunes; a demon to whom you subjected yourself by some error at the outset of life, and were bound his slave forever, by once obeying llim. See! those fiendish lineaments graven on the darkness, the writhed lip of scorn, the mockery of that living eye, the pointed finger, touching the sore place in your heart! Do you remember any act of enormous folly, at which you would blush, even in the remotest cavern of the earth? Then recognize your Shame.

Date: 2008/01/16 20:20:59, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (HelpingHand @ Jan. 16 2008,17:47)
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 16 2008,10:05)
(Who remembers Immanuel Velikovsky today?)

Ted Holden?

I would pay good money, and a bottle of scotch, to see a DaveScot/Ted debate.

Ah Ted Holden.  The t.o. Usenet memories come flooding back . . . .  Good times.  

But wait -- has anybody seen DT and TH in the same room together?  I'm just asking . . .

Date: 2008/01/18 13:52:57, Link
Author: Hermagoras
How long can DRat07 last?
Quote

Dr. Nelson - Why are you linking to noted Darwinist Abbie Smith? She is the female graduate student that had the temerity to point out problems with Dr. Behe’s book. She has also instigated trouble for Dr. Dembski by bring up Dr. Dembski’s illegal use of material from Harvard in a presentation Dr. Dembski made to the Univrsity of Oklahoma.
Ms. Smith has been banned from posting on this board, so I do not think that you should give her and her Darwinist cronies the satisfaction of increasing their traffic, or of potentially having someone from this board visit her sight and lose their faith, or lose their faith in ID.

Date: 2008/01/20 13:05:24, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 20 2008,10:04)
"Thought Provoker" writes:

Quote

Besides, this is supposed to be "The Critic's Resources" which means you should know shit.


Then,

 
Quote

One of the key points that came up was a discussion of what appears to be Dembski's three or four broad categories for explaining phenomena.

1. Specified, via naturally occurring laws
2. Unspecified, via Chance
3. Specified, via Design
4. Unknown


There is no such option as "unknown" in Dembski's GCEA.

Off-topic, perhaps but --

Dembski's list (which yes, does not include "unknown") also does not include evolution, as evolution involves both chance (variation) and necessity (natural selection) repeated many times in a population and over many generations.  Early in NFL he says he's going to deal with that, but I don't think he ever does, or I can't find where he claims to deal with it amid the dreck.  If, in evolution, a biological system arises from the combination of chance and necessity, why does the EF rule out that possibility from the get-go?

Date: 2008/01/31 18:49:46, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (SpeedDemon @ Jan. 31 2008,18:40)
What's to stop the good Dr. Dr. from claiming they're all designed?


SD

Someone just did that in the comments.

Date: 2008/02/02 13:13:34, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Jasper @ Feb. 02 2008,13:04)
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 02 2008,12:15)
The Dr. Geoff Simmons vs PZ Myers Debate is back but only with six comments.

No, that is a different thread.

The original thread still links to an Error 404 - Not Found.

larrynormanfan : not a tard  
Quote

If I recall correctly, a whole thread on this debate was posted previously, and Dr. Simmons was judged to have lost woefully. Ears were put in fingers, eyes were shut, and “The Star Spangled Banner” was sung in the hope that the whole thing could be ignored. Eventually (by design or happy accident?) the entire thread was deleted.


Cue bannination in 3, 2, . . .

Date: 2008/02/03 18:29:39, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 03 2008,17:25)
Bob O'H. I wants a words with yous:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-168750



Quote

34

DaveScot

02/03/2008

6:08 pm
Bob O’hara has been a valued member of this blog for a long time. He’s a biologist who is quite well informed on the issues and willing to listen to views he doesn’t share. More importantly, as far as scientist critics of ID go, he’s the epitomy of civility. I expect he be treated in a like manner. If I see anyone unduly harrassing him someone will get the boot and it won’t be Bob.

His respect for others here is hypocritical since he goes on other forums to disparage what is being discussed on this blog.

He’d be expelled by his peer group on those other forums if he didn’t is my guess. Very few of them are allowed to be members here because they’re almost all either ignorant or asshats or both


The evil atheist science conspiracy meet tonight to discus your Sternberging.

Looks like DaveScot has a man-crush on Bob O'.

Date: 2008/02/03 19:20:02, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 03 2008,18:49)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Feb. 03 2008,18:29)
Looks like DaveScot has a man-crush on Bob O'.

Bob who?  I know no Bob O'.


*Crosses arms and turns back*

Don't be mad at Bob.  Now he has to deal with the stubble-burn on his ass.

Date: 2008/02/04 17:10:41, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Feb. 04 2008,15:48)
Must really be cranking out the results!  Go to

http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications.html

Oops, my bad.  it is

http://www.biologicinstitute.org/

How long has it been like that?  Hilarious.

Date: 2008/02/05 16:29:35, Link
Author: Hermagoras
What do we mean by "anti-science"?  Creationists are anti-science in two senses.  First, they are opposed to standard-issue science.  Second, they want science replaced with their own caricature -- their own anti-science -- which is a crudely distorted funhouse-mirror image of science.  

This is the difference between pseudoscience and antiscience. A pseudoscience such as astrology doesn't want to displace astronomy.  But an antiscience like creationism wants to displace biology.

Antiscience wants the cultural authority of science without the science itself.

Date: 2008/02/06 10:49:52, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Feb. 06 2008,04:15)
 
Quote

larrynormanfan
Davison is no crank in his area of expertise. Not even close.

In defense of larrynormanfan, it was he who called Davison a crank.  The line defending him is DaveScot's response.

Date: 2008/02/06 18:46:00, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Anybody need a sig line?  Ask and bFast shall provide:
Quote
I would like to see a few knowledgable [sic] scientists allowed to post on this site.


Yup.

Date: 2008/02/07 18:20:53, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 07 2008,17:56)
blipey you are a saint, the saint of suffering fools.

Quote
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?

Where is that quote from?  Oh my god.

Date: 2008/02/09 08:38:01, Link
Author: Hermagoras
larrynormanfan slaps DT
Quote

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

Date: 2008/02/09 15:23:44, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 09 2008,15:05)
Idnet.com.au replies to a post that isn't there?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-170729

 
Quote
3

idnet.com.au

02/09/2008

3:35 pm
Thanks Bob O’H

Bob had earlier pointed to the copyright violation of the post.  The new version of the post is (a) shorter, and (b) without Bob's gentle advice.

Date: 2008/02/09 19:30:30, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 09 2008,19:18)
Oh, for the love of God.

Okay, my son and I sat down with his assignment.

He hasn't turned in the final yet.  They had to make a Haiku, a Cinquain, and a Diamante.

Traditional Cinquain

Line 1 - 2 syllables
Line 2 - 4 syllables
Line 3 - 6 syllables
Line 4 - 8 syllables
Line 5 - 2 syllables

Evidently, his teacher didn't actually count the syllables when she read it, because it looks like the last 2 lines are off.  So, he'll fix it before turning in the final.

Doesn't look to me that Blipes is correct either by the rules above.

FtK, as an English professor and published poet, permit me to say that assignments like that are among the reasons kids hate poetry.  They grow up with a totally false idea of what poetry is about.  

Don't these teachers ever read Kenneth Koch?  If you want to teach poetry to your son, look at Koch's Wishes, Lies, and Dreams.  Or read Richard Hugo's The Triggering Town.  Better yet, get one of those books for your son's teachers and tell them to quit turning poems into syllable-puzzles.

Date: 2008/02/09 20:12:31, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 09 2008,19:53)
Actually, he seemed to kind of enjoy the assignment.  I don't think there is anything particulary wrong with learning about Haikus, Cinquains, and Diamantes.

Next time he writes a poem, I'll run it by you.  Thanks.

FtK, I agree there's nothing wrong with learning about haikus etc.  (blipey is right, by the way, about different rules for the cinquain.)  I'm a huge fan of learning about forms. The question is what's important, and what will energize children to see the real magic in poetry.  I've seen children lose interest in poetry as they grow up, time and time again, and part of the fault lies with teachers who have no idea what makes poetry happen.  The puzzle approach is reductive and doesn't get at the essential energy of the form.  

Consider Robert Hass's translation of a Basho haiku:
       
Quote
Don't worry spiders,
I keep house
casually.

Isn't that fantastic?  And yet it ignores the syllable count.  

Or Ezra Pound's "In a Station of the Metro," his famous two-line poem influenced by the haiku form:

       
Quote
The apparition of these faces in the crowd:
Petals on a wet, black bough.


What makes these poems work is not the syllable count, which is just a way of forcing concision.  The energy of the poems comes from what happens between lines, as well as from the sensory presence enabled by the imagery.

If your son wants to read a great book about haiku, try the story Basho and the Fox, by Tim Myers and Oki S. Han.  Or Hass's collection The Essential Haiku, translations of Basho, Buson, and Issa.   (C.K. Williams also has a good translation of Issa, but it's not widely available.)

Date: 2008/02/09 20:13:31, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (blipey @ Feb. 09 2008,20:02)
@ Hermagoras:

I totally agree with you.  I'm touring a show right now for a group called Poetry Alive! and the response we get is phenomenal.  Kids (and adults to a great degree) think that poetry is formulaic and dull (or like Ftk's son: gay, whatever that means).

Our show makes poetry active and engages the students visually and aurally.  The comments we get after the show make me less pessimistic about the state of education in our country.

I believe that's the case with many subjects in schools.  Not enough is done to make learning an experience.  I don't think you need to have an assembly for every subject, but there are ways to mak any topic engaging in the classroom.

blipey, let me know when you come to the Boston area.

Date: 2008/02/09 21:18:19, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (blipey @ Feb. 09 2008,21:00)
Quote
blipey, let me know when you come to the Boston area.


D'Oh!!1!eleven11!

We just left the Boston area, we did shows in Westborough, Wayland, and Essex.

I won't be back in Boston, but we have another group going up in the middle of March: Peabody, Quincy, Melrose, and Weymouth.  Let me know if you would like to see a show.  I'm not sure what shows they're going to be doing (or workshops for that matter), but we do 4 shows: K-2nd grade, 3-5, middle school, and one for high schools and colleges.

D'Oh!  PM me when you get the schedule for that trip.  I have a son in kindergarten and another in 5th grade, and I'm a college teacher.

Date: 2008/02/09 21:19:58, Link
Author: Hermagoras
[Edit: Duplicate post deleted]

Date: 2008/02/09 21:39:12, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Pretty good, RichTard.  Now you should go on tour.

Date: 2008/02/10 00:49:44, Link
Author: Hermagoras
I am so in.  Excellent (said Hermagoras, rubbing his hands)

Date: 2008/02/10 07:29:42, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 10 2008,01:22)
Hermagoras - are you aware that this means you'll have to write posts on your blog?

Are you aware that you still have a blog?

Mister DNA - how about setting up a thread here to discuss your latest plans?

Arab Hobo

Ouch.  

Actually, this is is just the carrot I need.

Date: 2008/02/10 21:40:06, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 10 2008,18:24)
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 10 2008,18:01)
Go ahead, Rich...

BITE ME!

Where?

Line forms to the left, buddy.

Date: 2008/02/10 21:51:03, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 10 2008,21:40)
Quote
Pure eloquence almost Shakespearian


Why, thank you.  I always give my best effort here at AtBC.  In fact, "BITE ME" would worked rather nicely in the last line of the Cinquain I'm currently working on.

That's pretty funny, FtK.  Really.  

Here's some relevant inspiration by the Israeli poet Yehuda Amichai:

Quote
A Dog After Love

After you left me
I let a dog smell at
My chest and my belly. It will fill its nose
And set out to find you.

I hope it will tear the
Testicles of your lover and bite off his penis
Or at least
Will bring me your stockings between his teeth.

Date: 2008/02/10 22:07:14, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Glad you like the poem, FtK.  Amichai was a great writer, and that's about the best "bite me" poem I know.

Date: 2008/02/11 18:30:03, Link
Author: Hermagoras
For good tard, nothing beats the fight between DaveScot, Larry Fafarman, and tribune 7 on the meaning of Ben Stein's "Bueller?" in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.  See here and following.

Date: 2008/02/11 19:33:04, Link
Author: Hermagoras
larrynormanfan de-tards the Bueller:
Quote

tribune7,
Quote
this may be one of those things that becomes part of the culture despite what was actually said

I believe it’s called a “meme.”
Quote
If you type Anyone? Bueller? Anyone? into Google you’ll see how common the apparently inaccurate derivatives are.

For “inaccurate derivatives” read “mutations.” For “common” read “having newly evolved functions.”

Date: 2008/02/11 21:11:04, Link
Author: Hermagoras
I think Sal's got the quote wrong.  He's probably thinking of Bertrand Russell:
Quote
I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive.

Date: 2008/02/11 23:45:49, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Thanks for ruining Beck for me.  I'll be happy never looking at Tom Cruise again.  But Beck?  Did you have to bring him up?  Really?  Was that totally necessary?

Date: 2008/02/12 17:58:34, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 12 2008,13:59)
BopDiddy,

There is some digital evidence that ties Galapagos Finch to Dembski and Marks.  I'll comment on that later.

My ears are burning!  Do go on.

Date: 2008/02/12 22:24:08, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Grandma Tard has a post on teh harder mathematicalics.  

Brace yourselves.

Date: 2008/02/13 14:47:46, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 13 2008,14:40)
PTET - Perhaps you could update your blog post with Davescot's above comments on Denyse?

I put links in a comment, but I think they should be front and center in an updated post.  Everybody who surfs from UD should see them immediately.

Date: 2008/02/13 18:48:33, Link
Author: Hermagoras
This has been the best UD afternoon in months.  Seriously.  So many people chipped in.  PTET of course, DaveScot with his response, commenters here and at PTET, sockpuppets unknown at UD itself.  It's a thing of beauty.  

{{{Group Hug}}}

Date: 2008/02/13 21:03:35, Link
Author: Hermagoras
DaveScot can't possibly delete the thread that humiliated him, so he's bumping up the Bulverism thread, complete with comments, no doubt in the hope that people will just forget.

Date: 2008/02/14 08:08:59, Link
Author: Hermagoras
I have no idea why he addressed that to me.  Weird.  I've put up a response in the comments.

Date: 2008/02/14 12:20:54, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 14 2008,12:00)
Quote
sick sal was all,
Love, even in illicit contexts


Um, what is he talking about?  When is love illicit?

When it's between Sal and anybody else.

[Rim shot]

Thanks, I'll be here all week!  Good night, and be sure to tip your waitstaff!

Date: 2008/02/14 16:57:08, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 14 2008,13:56)
Given his recent interwebs misadventures, Dave has employed the "There's Always Respect Due!" PR company to help him not look such a Douche. They have recomended talking up his charity work . . .

[snip]

He preferred that recommendation to Plan B (rehab), which he's keeping in his back pocket for rainy day.  

(Jeez, that was a f*&#ed up sentence I just wrote.)

Date: 2008/02/14 17:25:28, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Okay, now WmAD is just toying with us:
 
Quote
vesf: your link seems not to work

Next, Semprini toys back:  
Quote
Dr Dembski’s ID predictions? Yes, we’re all keen to hear those. After all, one key thing that a scientific theory - like ID so totally is - does is to make testable predictions.

Date: 2008/02/14 17:44:09, Link
Author: Hermagoras
OMG you guys the  Prediction List is In!  Call the paparazzi!  Dembksi's getting out of the car!  He's going to give a beaver shot!  Zooming in!  It's . . .

Oh, never mind.

Date: 2008/02/14 19:19:42, Link
Author: Hermagoras
WmAD seems awfully active today.  Has he sent DaveTard to the woodshed?

Date: 2008/02/14 21:11:53, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Feb. 14 2008,20:42)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 14 2008,17:10)
Two davetard meltdowns in less than 24 hours

Two deleted/locked threads at UD in less than 24 hours (due to davetard's tardic behaviour)

1 UD tard fight that included davetard and DLH

Have we struck davetard gold this week or what? I wonder if he's trying some new medication or something.

I appear to have missed the tard fight between Davetard and DLH, what exactly transpired?

DaveTard is a vegetarian animal-lover, or something.  And so kind of defended PETA.  I think.  Mapou called him an asshole.  DLH said some other stuff.  It was all too stupid to read.  And now it's lost forever (sniff sniff).  

DaveTard was odd throughout but strangely, I felt for him.  It was one of the few moments when he didn't fit the stereotype I've built for him.

Date: 2008/02/14 22:28:34, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Against my better judgment, I posted a very polite comment on Joe's blog.  We'll see when it appears.

Date: 2008/02/15 01:05:23, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 15 2008,00:35)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Feb. 14 2008,16:57)
He preferred that recommendation to Plan B (rehab), which he's keeping in his back pocket for rainy day.  

(Jeez, that was a f*&#ed up sentence I just wrote.)

Now you know what Denyse's life feels like.

Not really: to do that, I would have to one one terrible sentence after another without ever noticing.  I'd have to write completely stoned.  

Hey -- turns out I do know what Denyse's life feels like!

Date: 2008/02/15 11:27:47, Link
Author: Hermagoras
I gave Joe an opportunity to clarify:
Quote
Okay, let me tell you the story of two friends.

My first friend sleepwalks. But it's a strange form of sleepwalking. Every night, she gets up, goes downstairs to the kitchen table, grabs a sheet of paper and starts writing. Nothing but strings of 1s and 0s. She fills up a single page with these numbers, then leaves it there and goes upstairs and back to sleep. She never remembers doing any of this in the morning.

My second friend is in an institution. (I know, I know.) He had a traumatic brain injury and all his higher functions seem to be gone. He has ceased talking or communicating with anybody at all. Nobody knows how much of a person is left. He eats and shits and sleeps, but that's about all.

Except that he spends all day, every day, filling sheet after sheet of paper with 1s and 0s. Isn't that amazing? Sometimes he'll go on just writing 0s -- hundreds in a row -- sometimes he'll alternate 10101010, and sometimes the sequence will seem random. But still, he's utterly catatonic and shows no signs of intelligence whatsoever.

My question is: is the writing on all of those sheets designed? Is only some? And if so, how do you know which is designed and which not?

Joe passes:
Quote
Not interested.

What I am interested in is YOU actually finding and posting the scientific data which supports your position that living organisms arose from non-living matter via non-telic processes.

Heck I would even settle for the scientific data which can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans and then tie that to genetic accidents (ie couple the genetic differences to the physiological and anatomical differences).

We know there are differences in the protein-coding reions, yet those prtein products all function the same- that is they perform the same task. So those genetic differences can't explain the physiological and anatomical differences unless you call upon some magical mystery process, that nature cobbled together, that allows for similar protein function yet very different body plans.

But anyways- for sleep walkers I would put stuff all around their bed, perhaps even some tacks- yeah, that's the ticket- and when they did their sleepwalking thing they would stumble over the obstacles and impale themselves with tacks.

Sweet guy, that Joe.

Date: 2008/02/15 18:32:54, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (blipey @ Feb. 15 2008,16:48)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 15 2008,08:42)
Shithead Joe is now deleting parts of my posts as I send them to him (I'm Thornton) and refusing to display others at all.

In particular I asked him about Blipey's sequence 100011101001011100010111010101 , the one Joe says was designed since it was written on a piece of paper.

I asked him suppose he was hiking and the trail went past a cliff composed of light (L) and dark (D) granites.  At the bottom of the cliff is found a series of rocks with the pattern

LDDDLLLDLDDLDLLLDDDLDLLLDLDLDL

I pointed out that those rocks could have ended up there as the result of "nature acting freely" as Joehole likes to put it.

I asked him how to tell if the rocks ended up there naturally or were intelligently placed as a message (i.e. "watch out for falling rocks" in a code he didn't understand)

Joe refused to show the post - I wonder why?

I put it to him like that in one of my first responses.  He published it, but never addressed it:
Quote
Perhaps I just found something lying around in nature (a set of leaves, green and red let's say). I then wrote the corresponding values on a piece of paper: 1 = green, 0 = red.

This was the kind of thing I was hoping to talk about with my hypothetical: a human being who produces 1s and 0s with no apparent intelligent action: automatically.  Joe won't answer, I think, because he knows that the only way to answer is to know something about the source (that is, that the source is conscious/intelligent at the time of writing).   I think this also creates numerous false positives of people who see the writing and assume intelligence which is not there.  

Also, Joe's a fuckwad.  Can he write a single day without reverting to fantasies of  violence?  Imagine his basement.  Or Sal's

Date: 2008/02/15 19:48:43, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 15 2008,19:35)
Mister DNA,

For what it's worth, there already is a Casey Luskin Graduate Award.  Can you guess the first recipient?

Heh heh.

Likewise, the inaugural recipient of the Phil Johnson award was . . . Phil Johnson.  A later recipient was Anthony Flew.  I don't know who else has gotten it.

Date: 2008/02/15 20:12:13, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Oh, he'll publish my comment.  He just won't answer the question.

Date: 2008/02/15 20:42:56, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 14 2008,18:06)
Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 14 2008,13:32)
   
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 11 2008,13:19)
       
Quote
a dimwit called FtK wrote:

What I am curious about is the accusation of plagerism…is it accurate?

Yes virginia, in spite of the lies told by Sal the Slime the kooky kreationist koreans plagerized the article.  Had you learned to read you could have looked at the many documents that have been posted that show side by side comparisons of the creationist article and those they stole from.  

FtK can you explain to us why creationists lie?

This is great! Sal responds to FtK's question "are the charges of plagiarism accurate?" with the defense:

     
Quote
If the footnotes were indicating the sources, it would be hard to argue plagiarism since the footnote indicates where the ideas came from, the author, and the exact page number.

Of course, 15 sec. of research would have revealed that the hypothetical citations were actually not there.

I find the way he puts this is revealing. Does he not realize that in scientific papers the references are not given as footnotes, but in a separate section at the end of the paper? Has he ever actually looked at a scientific paper?

I've schooled Sal on the plagiarism issue here.

Date: 2008/02/16 18:06:01, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (bystander @ Feb. 16 2008,17:44)
I think Sal is becoming one sick puppy. Has anybody been to his University? Would it be apt to point one of the campus welfare people to his blog.
It would be terrible to sit back and laugh at him one day and then find out that he decides that he is the hand of God.

My guess is that it is not just failing grades. I'd say that he is debating one of his professors and he is finding that in real life it is not as easy to pretend to win a discussion as it is on a blog.

I wonder if Ftk ever bangs her head on the table when she looks at who is on her side or she is so totally under the spell of Morton's demon that she can't really see the difference.

He's also taken to drinking.  Alone?   Probably.
Quote
Apologies to the reader. The original title referred to “accelerated radioactive decay”. That was an error, the subject relates to “accelerated sedimentary deposition” and fast layering that has been mis-interpreted as long geological ages. The analysis I provided suggest this severe misinterpretation by paleogeolgists.[sic]

Sorry for the misprint. Perhaps it was too late at night and too much chardonay [sic]….

Emphasis added.  Ellipsis in original.

Date: 2008/02/17 16:49:25, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 17 2008,12:42)
Thanks.  It's always nice to know who I'm being gratuitously insulted by.

Bob

For a guy who spends most of his time insulting people, Joe G has a strikingly narrow range.

Date: 2008/02/18 11:11:20, Link
Author: Hermagoras
38?  Is everybody here younger than me?  

Well, happy birthday anyway, Bob. Some day, you'll be old enough to join the banned.

Date: 2008/02/19 07:02:48, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2008,17:49)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 18 2008,17:28)
I went over to UD again and all I got was this little snippet from WAD himself...

 
Quote
12

William Dembski

02/18/2008

6:12 pm
Thanks ChuckHumphry, but the point is not for the ID movement to become a mutual admiration society, but rather to recognize people from outside who are putting their neck on the chopping block to advance ID.


Yawn....

Ie not the good Dr. Dr. Dr. "can I get a witness?" Dembski himself...

Hey!  "getawitness" was my old sock puppet.  Don't lump him in with Dr. Dr.

Date: 2008/02/22 18:52:58, Link
Author: Hermagoras
As a rhetoric scholar, I'm a big fan of the Sophists.  The sophist Protagoras is credited as the father of relativism.  On the down side, the ID creationist crowd operates on Protagoras's principle that there are two (potentially legitimate) sides to every question: hence, "teach the controversy" even when there's not one.  

On Epicurianism: Not sure how it got relegated to gastronomy, but the great work in Epicurian philosophy is De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things) by Lucretius.  It's a philosophical poem in a kind of mock-epic format (it even uses the classic epic meter -- dactylic hexameter).  Lucretius's Epicurianism is an entirely materialistic philosophy, even evolutionary, where chance swerves of constantly falling atoms make the universe possible.

There are some prose translations of De Rerum Natura that are really boring.  But the translation by Anthony Esolen, in verse, is quite good.

Date: 2008/02/24 19:48:08, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Can I just say how much I'm enjoying this discussion?

Date: 2008/02/25 08:46:19, Link
Author: Hermagoras
jerry explains why moms think he's creepy. Only he doesn't.    
Quote
When I was in New Zealand with the US Navy, I was assigned duty in Wellington for a meeting of high level politicians. I was outside the parliament building behind a 3 foot high barricade to fence off spectators. I was in civilian clothes and a little girl with her mother said I was a secret service man. She was very cute and after a few minutes she got a little fresh but still cute. I told her if she didn’t be have [sic] I would spank her on her “fanny.” In the US this an affectionate term for one’s bottom and used to be a common women’s name. But in New Zealand and a lot of ex British countries it means quite the opposite anatomically. The little girl, the mother and a lot of others got hostile. So watch out.

Um, jerry . . . I don't know quite how to explain this but . . . Using the term fanny is only part of the problem.  Consider: what if you had told a little girl you didn't know that you were going to spank her on her "bottom"?  

That's not OK either.  See?  Either way, someone's going to pull out the mace.

Date: 2008/02/28 17:29:57, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Paul Flocken @ Feb. 28 2008,13:03)
dacook thinks he knows how to intelligently design animals

Ha!  Check the name of the sockpuppet with the first comment.  

He'll see your arctic pussy and raise you a folkface.

Date: 2008/03/10 07:20:31, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Homeschooling comes in many forms.  When we lived in North Carolina, we homeschooled our kids because the local school options were lousy, we had no money, and our older son, who is sensitive and intellectual, was highly likely to get the shit kicked out of him by his peers.  Then we moved to Brookline, MA, where the public schools are fantastic, and we're very happy sending our kids there.  

Nearby, in Cambridge, there is a fairly active "un-schooling" homeschool movement -- aging hippies with Ph.D.'s educating their kids off the grid.  

My view is that the California decision, while well-intentioned, is pretty problematic.  It's mainly about unions and the professionalization of teaching.

Date: 2008/03/20 20:54:53, Link
Author: Hermagoras
The patience of Jack Krebs is remarkable.

Date: 2008/03/20 21:47:01, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Jkrebs @ Mar. 20 2008,21:32)
Thanks, Hermagoras.  At least I think "thanks" - some may see what I'm doing as sort of perverse, like "why bother."  :)

But I'm on spring break, working in my office and watching basketball, and I've got drawn into that thread for both exercise and recreation, and because it's got some topics important to me.  I also consider it my duty to defend the Kansas science standards.

I find it useful and interesting to try to draw out the ideas of folks and see where it takes me.  If I'm patient and polite then the conversation doesn't degenerate (or if it does it's not my fault), and so I learn what ideas people have and I learn, by doing, what I have to say on the subject.

And maybe I influence someone, or give someone else some good ideas.

So hopefully I've had some useful things to say over there.

And I am particularly interested in how to counter the typical creationist idea that calculating simple combinations means something.  I teach simple stats to high school students, and even there we talk about probability trees and conditional probability.  The fact that these guys don't understand that figuring the probability of a chain of events is vastly harder and much more realistic than simple combinations is beyond me.

You're quite welcome Jack.  I appreciate anyone who tries to talk sense, even if the recipients don't want to hear it.  That you've been able to tolerate the odious kairosfocus says a lot about you.

BTW, expect a PM from me about something else.

Date: 2008/03/21 20:23:16, Link
Author: Hermagoras
larrynormanfan presses the PZ Expulsion issue:
Quote
DaveScot, I don’t think PZM wears brass knuckles or any other weaponry. Anyway he probably won’t be there; DC is a far cry from Minnesota, where PZ lives and where he was expelled from an Expelled screening.

Date: 2008/03/22 20:35:42, Link
Author: Hermagoras
larrynormanfan dimly recalls a precedent:  
Quote

JPC, I never said “fraud” but “lie.” I don’t really think of this in terms of litigation (others might, of course.)

But it raises an interesting possibility. Suppose somebody sues the producers of Expelled for fraud or something like it. Then, of course, the discovery process follows. When you shake a tree, all sorts of things may fall out.

Maybe we’ll find an intermediate form of the movie title:
 
Quote
Expecrossroadslled

I’ve seen something like that before somewhere, I’m sure. [LNF scratches head.]
Can’t remember, though.

Date: 2008/03/26 09:36:02, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Kairosfocus continues to get pimp-slapped by Jack Krebs, larrynormanfan, and Congregate.  See comment 490 (yes, 490) and following.

Date: 2008/03/27 23:13:49, Link
Author: Hermagoras
larrynormanfan ain't no tard
Quote

kairosfocus said:
Quote
Christian = Nazi. Sure!
NOT!!!!!!!!!

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

Date: 2008/03/29 18:49:40, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (jeffox @ Mar. 29 2008,13:45)
Granny Porcupine has an excuse ready:
 
Quote

As you will know, I have offered a reason at the Hack as to why I think my writing samples turn out this way: I was taught to write by men.

an I learnt rael real. good.  too.  :)

larrynormanfan won't take credit for Grandma's prose
Quote

Quote
I have offered a reason at the Hack as to why I think my writing samples turn out this way: I was taught to write by men.

As a man, I refuse any share of the blame.

Date: 2008/03/30 19:49:18, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 30 2008,14:58)
Sal and FTK always appear together lately. Are you sure that FTK is not just Sal answering his own questions? I know FTK has her own blog but does this prove that Sal and FTK are not identical?

Maybe not identical but . . . agghh!!  

I just had a really bad vision of Sal and FtK making the beast with two backs.  Please make it go away.

Date: 2008/04/01 21:30:37, Link
Author: Hermagoras
O’Leary has a thin skin:  
Quote

Frank Beckwith writes,
“Who would have ever thought that it would take a Fork to show us that Denyse is done?”
Beckwith thinks this is a joke, I suppose, to judge from the smiley.
Readers here may not realize that I spent considerable volunteer time blogging on Beckwith’s behalf, when he was struggling for tenure himself at Baylor.
At THAT time, he thanked me.
But as soon as he HAD tenure, his attitude changed. Suddenly, he did not want to know his old friends any more.
No, Frank, I am not done.
And, if you continue in this path, you will doubtless hear from me again.
But I would advise you to stop, and consider justice.

Emphasis, o delicious emphasis, added.

Date: 2008/04/07 07:53:28, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 28 2008,02:30)
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 26 2008,03:18)
A creationist claims:

"Dr. John Baumgardner is the worlds number 1 expert on plate tectonics."

I don't know, he seems to be a bright scientist, creationist, but #1 on that subject, I would like to know?

Baumgardner was mainly a code monkey.  His work was not on plate tectonics.  As I recall, he worked on seismic data related to nuclear tests.

He wrote a well-known but now largely outdated geophysical modeling program called TERRA.  It was the first useful computer model for (IIRC) mantle convection and other large-scale dynamics.  Recently he's been tweaking the program to support his idea of the Noachian flood.  With advances in computer modeling generally and discovered weaknesses in the TERRA program, Baumgardner's program is no longer state-of-the-art even for computer models.

Date: 2008/04/08 18:56:12, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 08 2008,18:37)
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 08 2008,18:34)
Hey! The speaker in the ceiling is back in working order.
 
Quote


13
larrynormanfan
04/08/2008
3:34 pm

Hyperbole, thy name is O’Leary.

larrynormanfan - I don’t like your tone. Thy name here is history. -ds

If there were no Internet, Davetard would push military figurines around his carpet.

Does this constitute a bannination, or not?

Date: 2008/04/09 10:18:59, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ April 09 2008,09:11)
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 08 2008,18:34)
Hey! The speaker in the ceiling is back in working order.
 
Quote


13
larrynormanfan
04/08/2008
3:34 pm

Hyperbole, thy name is O’Leary.

larrynormanfan - I don’t like your tone. Thy name here is history. -ds

Hey larrynormanfan set up an account and join us here!

Chris

How do you know LNF isn't already here under another name?  

(NB: changed avatar from Ern Malley, Australian hoax poet).

Date: 2008/04/11 16:02:44, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Larry Fafarman is a tard
Quote

I have heard a lot of rumors that Ben Stein is Jewish, and this settles it — he says that he’s Jewish.


Well now.

Date: 2008/04/11 16:30:14, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (PTET @ April 11 2008,16:24)
Quote (dheddle @ April 11 2008,16:17)
He forgot to add "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

Bad Larry, bad!

It somehow escaped me that Larry Fafarman is I'm from Missouri. It take back the "idiot" line. The guy is simply insane. Here's a picture from one of his recent posts...



Do you know who else was creeped out by Jews? Anyone?

Dig a little deeper on his blog.  Larry Fafarman is a Holocaust denier with an obsession with identifying Jews.  Check out this post:
Quote
Even Jews have difficulty deciding who is really Jewish

I have argued that a "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews. A news article now says that even Jews have difficulty deciding who is Jewish:


Etc.

Date: 2008/04/13 22:54:30, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Jack Krebs calls it right:
Quote

to StevenB and kf:
Bullshit.
Ban me if you must for being so crudely blunt, but you don’t know what you’re talking about.
If you knew me and how I behave instead of believing stereotypes and lies, you would know how wrong you are.
Yes, I believe differently than you do, but I have always acted civilly and always with respect for the democratic principles of our country.
KF lies when he says that the quote he has taken to posting every time my name comes up is or was KCFS’s policy, and I defy him to find an example of something that KCFS has done that has been anything more than acting to express our views in a democratic manner - which we have every right to do.
I am a very public spokesperson for the benefits of civil and on-topic discussion as opposed to polarized demonization of people. I have no problem disagreeing with people and explaining why I think they are wrong, and I have no problem with making judgments that I think I can back up with evidence.
But I don’t engage in gratuitous insults or bigoted generalizations about people, and I don’t demonize people just because they disagree with me.
So I hope at least some of you reading this will see beyond the crass and unfounded generalizations that are aimed at me here just because I hold a minority position here, because I am politically active in support of my position, and because I’m interested enough in the civic value of dialogue to come here occasionally and try to discuss things with you guys.

Good on Jack Krebs.   Kairosfocus's obsession with a 3-year old discussion board post by a third party is off the charts.  He posts the fucking thing every chance he gets, and you know he gets a lot of chances.  Asshole.  Normally he's just tiresome and hectoring, but this borders on stalking.

Date: 2008/04/14 09:34:47, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 14 2008,08:43)
Go Leo!

Leo (or somebody) might want to link at UD to a post I put up at paralepsis about this, The unfocused windbags of kairos.  Apologies: the post is long-winded, as kairosfocus seems to be contagious.

Date: 2008/04/15 21:09:34, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 15 2008,21:05)
Leo Stotch ain't fucking around, assholes

 
Quote

14
leo stotch
04/15/2008
7:22 pm
Do we need to know whether or not the mountains of Rushmore were designed or not in order to reach a design inference for the faces carved into them? No. Only the difference in specified complexity between the old and new patterns need be examined.

ID is so awesome. It is a science that does no lab or field work and relies on mathematical concepts that use no mathematical calculations. It reminds me of the Todd Snider song about the band that wouldn’t play a note.

Leo Stotch is no longer with us. -ds


15
leo stotch
04/15/2008
8:54 pm
Leo Stotch is no longer with us. -ds

Boo!

Hi, Dave.



16
leo stotch
04/15/2008
8:55 pm
Dave, if you are going to ban someone, do it right away so they cannot mock you a second time.

Write that down! I love it so!


OF COURSE I HAD TO ADD THE SWEET BOLDED PARTS.  THATS BECAUSE I AM BOLDER THAN MOST AND MOLDIER THAN BOAST.  I JUST SPECIATED AT THE BAR WHEN I TURNED DOWN AN INUIT WOMAN.  HER LOINS WERE THROBBING FOR MY MESOMORPH JEANS BUT SINCE SHE DID NOTHING TO PLEASE MY NUANCED APPRECIATION FOR MY OWN SPECIES I GUESS I WILL BE AUTO-DIDACKING TONIGHT.  HAHA I KILL ME AS OFTEN AS I CAN SNEAK OFF.


bwahahahaha


DAVE TRAD YOUR STOPIDER THAN ALL GIT OUT

That's fantastic.

Date: 2008/04/16 10:14:01, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 16 2008,08:07)
Dave (sadly) on SciAm:
 
Quote
KF
I’ve been a subscriber to SciAm for decades. It started going downhill when Rennie became the editor-in-chief.


Which brings to mind one of Dave's Greatest Hits(in part):
 
Quote
I missed a few months of it last year in protest over John Rennie’s crusade against ID. For the first time in decades I let my subscription lapse and promised to never subscribe to it again. So I told my wife it would make a nice Valentine gift and now she subscribes to it for me so I can have my cake and eat it too. After all, I didn’t promise to stop reading it, I only promised to stop subscribing to it.

So there.

I really don't want to hear about Dave Scot "eating his wife's cake," or whatever they're calling it these days.

Date: 2008/04/17 21:39:54, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Grandma wants to know if Expelled used John Lennon's "Imagine" without permission.  I'm guessing yes.

"Also," she says, "some stuff from The Killers."  [Must purge eyes -- image of DO'L trying to connect with youth burns and burns.]  

And then:  
Quote
Also, just up at Access Research Network: A look at Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder’s The Science of God


Just in case Larry Fafarman had heard some, you know, rumors.

Date: 2008/04/18 02:41:34, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 18 2008,02:22)
We've got a possible kairosfocus sighting in the wild.  I count 53 pages.  P.Z. points to another post of  his which is 18 pages long.

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

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

I don't think it's him.  KF relies on elaborate bullet and number lists rather than caps and colors.

In fact, KF is staying on at UD despite promises not to.  He's being taken apart by Daniel King and challenged by evo_materialist, who seems new at UD.

Date: 2008/04/18 12:48:14, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Bob O’H wants to know what evolutionary materialism is.  
Quote

 
Quote
Think, really carefully, about what you are defending: in effect, if you disagree with evolutionary materialism being imposed as the effective re-definition of science — regardless of evidence otherwise — you are ignorant, stupid, insane, incompetent or wicked.

No, I’m not defending that, because I’m not aware of anyone wanting to re-define science as “evolutionary materialism” (whatever that is).

These days evo_materialism is a who, not a what.  

Though in fairness, I imagine that name was chosen just to bring kairosfocus out of hiding and distract him from setting up his evomat hyperselective alwayslinked sadly cyberuniversity.  And it worked!  So, here's your definition:

"evolutionary materialism" = kairosfocus catnip.  

Date: 2008/04/20 14:53:21, Link
Author: Hermagoras
DaveScot grows a pair:
Quote

DLH
If you do any serious searching, you will find that Darwin’s principles of evolution were foundational to both Nazis
Ridiculous. Darwin didn’t discover what could be accomplished through artificial selection. That’s been common knowledge for thousands of years. Darwin first asserted that selection takes place in nature (natural selection) and works the same way as does in artificial breeding of animals. He then extrapolated selection as something that explained not just variation between individuals of the same species but also explained the origin of new species. Attributing more than that to Darwin is either mistaken, uninformed, or dishonest.

Who will ban the banninator?

Date: 2008/04/20 16:23:03, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Edited to add bold.
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 20 2008,16:16)
Maya pulled out a sentence, but I think it worthwhile to repeat DaveScot's entire statement, addressed to WAD:
     
Quote
Bill,

There is no possibility that even if Expelled did nothing but document the road to the holocaust it would be anywhere near comprehensive. In the other place where I mentioned Godwin’s Law one of the other participants wrote a 700 page book attempting to connect Darwin to Holocaust and it remains unconvincing to many. Moreover it doesn’t even bother to mention that the eugenics movement in Germany was preceded by the eugenics movement in the United States. That’s a pretty big omission given the subject and detracts considerably from the integrity of the rest of the tome.

Bringing the holocaust into Expelled was nothing but gratuitous. It has no bearing at all on academic persecution of those who believe the universe has purpose and design. It all but destroys that message. Comparing the wholesale slaughter of many millions of people to perhaps hundreds of people losing their jobs trivializes the former in a lame to attempt to elevate the latter. People find that disgusting and virtually every review not authored by ID sympathizers focuses on it. Some reviews start off good to glowing but in the end wind up with an overall rating of “disgusting” because of the holocaust connection. To add insult to injury Expelled, by omission, conflates Social Darwinism with Biological Darwinism. The general public doesn’t know the difference. All they hear is Darwinism.

He speaks the truth - with the exception of "perhaps hundreds of people loosing their jobs." Dave, you know that's a crock too. Take that last step.

We're with you Truman!

Date: 2008/04/21 20:32:31, Link
Author: Hermagoras
kairosfocus is  out of retirement:  
Quote

Re EM:
GEM at 112 above:
 
Quote
suppose you were in a train and saw [outside the window] rocks you believe were pushed there by chance + necessity only, spelling out: WELCOME TO WALES.
Would you believe the apparent message, why?
That should be enough to show the difference between mind and blind chance + necessity acting on matter + energy across space and time.

EM, 114:
 
Quote
What? Would I believe I was in Wales if I also believed the rocks spelled out WELCOME TO WALES by chance? What a silly question! I would have no reason to hold such a belief, because I know that people — intelligent agents of which I have first-hand knowledge — arrange rocks all the time. I’ve seen them do it. I’ve even done it myself. So as a Gedankenexperiment it’s pretty weak.

GEM, 124:
 
Quote
First, congratulations on making a design inference based on organised, functional complexity . . . . let’s get back to the main point: [The WALES example]
Now, how did you respond?
ANS: By inferring that only design — presumably on overwhelming improbability of chance + necessity making sense much less making true sense out of rocks tumbling down a hill — could credibly account for such a configuration.
In other words, you find it incredible (on overwhelming improbability) that chance + necessity acting without intelligent direction can arrive at functionally specified complex information. (Rightly so, BTW.)

EM, 159:
 
Quote
you have grossly overstated how hard I “struggled.” The WELCOME TO WALES case was poorly stated and a bad analogy.

It is easy to see that EM was unable to address the case on its terms, so he tried to proposed a restriced inference to design.
That ran into two problems, [1] he was using FSCI to infer to design, in a context where he has no good grounds for claiming that humans exhaust teh set of actual or possible intelligent agents, [2] he implies that chance + necessity are unable to achieve a sense-making, relevant and even reliable message.
In short, he has implied that chance + necessity acting on matter + energy cannot credibly account for the properties of mind, at least on the gamut of the observed universe; not least because of the search space problem.
As to the onward appeal to authority, EM has to address the problem of censoring science to evolutionary materialism, based on the just noted challenge.
Otherwise what we are seeing is not an empirically anchored search for t5he truth about the observed world, but an attempt to find the best evolutionary materialist explanation of the cosmos from hydrogen to humans.
That is, science is held hostage to worldview, agenda and ideology, by begging the question from the outset. [And, in that context, kindly note that I cited from a relevant, more or less standard reference.]
Let us step into the sunshine, stepping out of the evo mat cave of shadow shows.
GEM of TKI


Daniel King proposes astral projection:  
Quote


Here’s a thought experiment (Gedankenexperiment) for kf:

Separate your “mind” from your body and explore the universe. Fly as high and as far and as long as you like.
Of course you won’t be able to see anything, because you left your visual apparatus behind. Ditto for hearing, smelling, tasting, sensing heat or cold or touch or pain, etc., etc.

Did you experience anything?

That is really funny.  Good job, Daniel King.  

Meanwile, evo_materialist fights back:  
Quote


kairosfocus, the references you provide seem wrong — 114 is Daniel King, not me.

Anyway, one more time:

One reason the WELCOME TO WALES hypothetical is silly is that I have to “believe [the rocks] were pushed there by chance and necessity only.” It’s therefore absurd, since I don’t believe chance messages. Now, would I believe the message if I thought it were put together by humans? Depends: if I were on a train to Wales, maybe. If I were on a train to Philadelphia, probably not. It’s a loaded, pointless example.

Fu[r]ther, it points to an kind of design that is well within our experience of human design, as the cosmos, life, etc. are not. I would need much more than the form of a thing to infer design in those instances. I would need other evidence that a plausible designer may exist.

Back to the silly example. Maybe it’s not spelling “Welcome to Wales.” Maybe I just see the pattern, like an animal in a constellation, because I have wanted to visit Wales since childhood and dream of Wales nightly. Messages can be awfully subjective. Let’s I saw the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich, or Jesus on the trunk of a silver maple. Have I made a design inference? If so, I’d call that a false positive.

All of this yet again has zero to do with my plea for a little understanding of the philosophy of mind upthread. And again, my plea continues to have no effect.

Date: 2008/04/21 22:34:20, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (didymos @ April 21 2008,22:10)
[quote=Lou FCD,April 21 2008,20:05]
Quote (dogdidit @ April 21 2008,22:51)

Interestingly, here's elfsternberg's
[/URL]

Elf Sternberg?  The alt.sex guy from way back in the Elder Days of the Tubes?

That's the one.  Still a dirty boy (elf).  I wonder if he's related to Richard Sternberg.  Wouldn't that be something?  

Ah, porn back in the days of usenet and gopher.  Elf was ubiquitous.

Date: 2008/04/21 22:48:15, Link
Author: Hermagoras
[quote=Elf Sternberg,April 21 2008,22:43]
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 21 2008,22:34)
Quote (didymos @ April 21 2008,22:10)
 I wonder if he's related to Richard Sternberg.  Wouldn't that be something?

Grief, I certainly hope not.  (Ah, google.  It lets anyone be Kibo.)

ZOMG Elf Sternberg!!!!111!!!  Rock stars like you can't just come out and contact people like that.  

Man o man.  Big fan: you've done a lot for a lot of people, and I mean that.  

ZOMG!  You guys!  Elf Sternberg!

I'm gonna go take a breather now.

Date: 2008/04/23 18:00:22, Link
Author: Hermagoras
evo_materialist seems kind of queer, or at least queer-friendly.
Quote

StephenB, you won’t be surprised that I disagree. It may be that, to the extent I care about philosophy, I come from a different philosophical tradition. I certainly don’t agree with you about dualism, since “subject” and “object” seem much more likely to be constructed historically than not. They’re real now, of course, in the sense that we (usually) either experience our world in such terms or talk about our experience as though it conformed to such terms. But they’re not necessarily pre-existing. The world happens to have gotten carved up that way, for (most of) us, now. It could have been carved up a number of other ways.
But dualism has plenty of problems too. When I referred to other ways of knowing, I was thinking not of philosophy but of love, interpersonal relationships, poetry, art, music. My relation to dualism can be expressed in these lines by Jack Spicer:
Quote
When I praise the sun or any bronze god derived from it
Don’t think I wouldn’t rather praise the very tall blond boy
Who ate all of my potato-chips at the Red Lizard.
It’s just that I won’t see him when I open my eyes
And I will see the sun.
Things like the sun are always there when the eyes are open
Insistent as breath.
One can only worship
These cold eternals for their support of
What is absolutely temporary.

And later:
Quote
The voice sounds blond, sounds tall, sounds blond and tall.
“Goodbye from us in spiritland, from sweet Platonic spiritland,
You can’t see us in spiritland, and we can’t see at all.”

That’s my view of dualism.

Date: 2008/04/25 09:39:16, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (olegt @ April 25 2008,09:02)
Check out The History of the Evolutionary Informatics Lab Web Site (With Supporting Documents) compiled by Bob Marks.  There's a truly spectacular Easter egg hidden on that web page.

Are you by chance referring to this?

Quote
On July 27, 2007, Dr. Marks received email Ben Kelley, Dean of the School of Engineering and Computer Science at Baylor University, stating "Dr. Marks: I have received several concerned messages this week about an interview and web site dealing with evolutionary computing associated ID. Please disconnect this web site immediately..."


Followed by this?  

Quote
August 2, 2007.  Dean Kelley blocked Dr. Marks's web site on Evolutionary Informatics.  Dr. Marks e-mails "Baylor has removed my web site. I was not consulted nor, to date, sent any correspondence about the matter."

Date: 2008/04/25 09:58:03, Link
Author: Hermagoras
NB: Is there a better thread for this?  

Quote (olegt @ April 25 2008,09:02)
Check out The History of the Evolutionary Informatics Lab Web Site (With Supporting Documents) compiled by Bob Marks.  There's a truly spectacular Easter egg hidden on that web page.

Also, it's worth pointing out that this is an amazingly insecure site.  Check out the parent pages and their entirely accessible directories:

http://cayman.globat.com/~trademarksnet.com/LabHistory/EIL_History/

http://cayman.globat.com/~trademarksnet.com/

A nice example here:
 
Quote
June 11, 2007

Dear President Lilley,

I hope your summer is going well. The enclosed book is a gift. Although gifts of books can be presumptuous, I hope you have time to peruse it. It is a well written work, easily read, that challenges some solidly held science dogma.

I and some others at Baylor are doing work in how God is revealed in science, mathematics and engineering [Romans 1:20]. One oft misunderstood component of this area is sometimes called Intelligent Design. The phrase is now used largely in an inappropriate pejorative sense because of its depiction as mindless uninformed creationism. Proper study of the interface of God and Science is anything but. Some of my work in this area is on my homepage at
http://web.ecs.baylor.edu/faculty/marks/eil/.

Baylor Distinguished Professor Walter Bradley, a pioneer on the discussion of  the need for intelligence on the creation of life, and I would welcome the opportunity to talk to you about this field. Please consider it an open and ongoing invitation. This area is a media active topic, and we would be honored to try and answer any questions you have, or to present an overview to you or anyone else at Baylor.
I have also sent a copy of this book to Provost O’Brien.

Thanks for listening,

Robert J. Marks II

[After name changes, the same note is sent to Dr. O'Brien .]


Anyway, there's a lot of fun to be had rummaging around to do there.

Is there a way to make a full copy of all that site material in a single stroke, while it's still there?

Date: 2008/04/25 10:58:50, Link
Author: Hermagoras
WTF?  Those other guys, DeJesus and Chen, work at Halliburton.

Why am I not surprised?

Date: 2008/04/25 11:33:54, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (awhite @ April 25 2008,11:09)
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 25 2008,09:58)
Is there a way to make a full copy of all that site material in a single stroke, while it's still there?


wget springs to mind.  It's originally a unix command line tool, but has been compiled for windows as well.

Thanks.  I went from there to the SpiderZilla Firefox add-on, which seems to be doing the trick.  Mirroring the site on my machine while I speak.  Just in case it's lost any any time soon.

Date: 2008/04/25 11:49:48, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 25 2008,11:02)
Looks like Marks is Galapagos Finch. There's a file in there somewhere that says "if you are not Finch, log out".

The picture of Marks holding a cut out life size Ben Stein's hand is 100% classic.

I bet there's gold in them thair directories. Gold that contradicts previously stated positions!

Might this be what you're looking for?  

   
Quote
070908 Baylor University Shuts Down Professor's Private Site for Challenging Evolution


If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »




RSS: Entries | Comments | Recent Links
© 2006 Uncommon Descent
Design by Zeit Studios
Hosted by SWT

Date: 2008/04/25 12:53:51, Link
Author: Hermagoras
This just keeps on giving, doesn't it.  Ladies and germs, I give you: The Journal of Evolutionary Informatics!

Under "Information for authors":

Quote
Sorry. We are not yet accepting manuscripts.

And also:  
Quote
The material on this Web site does not necessarily represent the views of the employers of JOEI's volunteers - but it should.

Date: 2008/04/25 14:45:53, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 25 2008,14:09)
All science so far*


*If tinfoil-hat crackpot wooery qualifies. If it doesn't, we'll redefine science.

Is anybody else surprised kairosfocus hasn't come out of retirement for this?  I would think he could smell the tard wafting over the Caribbean.

Date: 2008/04/26 09:49:21, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 26 2008,00:31)
Hero, that's a UK address and phone numbers.  I'm pretty sure the Wallace at UD is a Yank.  If you have an edit button I suggest you remove the contact information: I doubt the Wallaces of Surrey will appreciate being called in the middle of the night to be accused of tardary.

I thought he was a Scot.

Date: 2008/04/26 18:05:19, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (olegt @ April 25 2008,20:42)
It was fun while it lasted.  Now it looks like Gloppy has 404ed teh links.  :(

Well, at least we still have the Institute for Evolutionary Informatics!

I've mirrored most of the site, though I've deleted the huge set of family images.  A shitload of disk space (>5 gig!)

I'm keeping the good Tard though.

Hermagoras + BobMarks 4EVAH!  

Hey, here's a thought.  If I've got the mirrored version of the Galapagos Finch page, does that mean I have . . .

wait for it  . . .

Gloppy seconds??! !?  

Date: 2008/05/06 17:37:33, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 06 2008,16:38)
Quote (olegt @ May 06 2008,16:28)
BarryA is a tard.  His example supposedly proving the existence of an absolute moral standard is sex with little children.  In Barry's view, there is no reason to consider it a bad idea other than god told us not to.  Hey Barry, if you flexed your considerable brain muscle, maybe you could figure out that such an activity hurts little children, both physically and psychologically?  That didn't occur to you, did it?  

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

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

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

Date: 2008/05/07 09:59:56, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 07 2008,09:34)
A sign of how much Sal likes me  
Quote
PS
By the way, if you’d like Bob OH, I’d be happy to mail you Genetic Entropy as my personal thanks for your participation here at UD.

I saw what happened to Hermagoras when he read it - he's never been the same since.

It warped me beyond recognition.  Don't take the bait!  

From my lair,
Hermagoras

Date: 2008/05/09 14:35:31, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Question: Is it possible for BarryA talk about morality without relating some seriously freaky fantasy shit which he obviously gets off on being "shocked" by?  

I didn't think so.

Date: 2008/05/09 20:23:50, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Gotta say, as a rhetoric of science person myself, I'm embarrassed for my field by Ms. Venkatesan.

Date: 2008/05/10 21:44:29, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (olegt @ May 10 2008,16:31)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 10 2008,16:01)
Gloppy (Marks) tries to drum up some LOLs for his EPICFAILY unfunny post.

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwinist-shocked-by-the-claims-in-expelled-no-intelligence-allowed-that-darwinism-is-a-ne


cessary-component-of-nazism-suffers-heart-attack-and-dies/]http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....nd-dies[/URL]

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/iowa-state-university-professor-drafts-memo-to-all-big-12-faculty-on-dealing-with-the-id-t


hreat/]Another P-A-R-O-D-Y[/URL], featuring a memo on a fake Iowa State University letterhead, is not generating too many laughs, either.  Better take it down, Bob: your underwear is showing!
 
Quote

        <dc:creator>
           <rdf:Seq>
              <rdf:li>Marksb</rdf:li>
           </rdf:Seq>
        </dc:creator>

They're on to us!  The memo link now:
Quote
Not Found

The requested URL /~thebrites.org/News/DealingWithID.pdf was not found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache/1.3.29 Server at cedros.globat.com Port 80

Date: 2008/05/10 23:55:21, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (didymos @ May 10 2008,23:46)
Quote (olegt @ May 10 2008,21:18)
The thread The Difference Between “Seeing” and “Understanding” containing the Dembski-Galapagos dialog has been obliterated.  Someone at UD shows a dose of common sense.

I've got it open in a tab if anyone wants me to save it.

Yes please.  Also, does anybody have that PDF?  

I've blogged about this at paralepsis.  Feel free to link it up.  Methinks it's about time for Marks's secret identity to go viral.

By the way, a big round of applause for olegt!

Date: 2008/05/11 08:17:01, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 11 2008,08:10)
Quote (olegt @ May 11 2008,07:15)
Gloppy is no more.  All 4 of his May 10 posts at UD are gone and TheBrites.org site is empty.

Brites.org may be down and the GP's UD posts now 404s, but brites.org's statement vs a summary judgement by the 9th Federal District Court is a spoof of Yoko Ono and her legal actions against Expelled. I'd guess that the UD 404s are designed to lend the spoof verisimilitude.

Hints: there is no Judge Utphray Opsla in any court. In fact, the string "Utphray" appears exactly once in a Google search (at theBrites.org) indicating that it isn't a name at all, in any language; nor does Opsla appear to be used as a surname. Utphray Opsla is probably an anagram. Further, FindLaw indicates that no decision at the Ninth circuit refers either to theBrites or Ono. There is no "Ono Inc." (it's "Yoko Ono, Inc.").

And so on.

All of that is interesting, and possible.  Yet Gloppy disappears just as oleg exposes his identity yet again.  It's hard to think this is a coincidence.

Date: 2008/05/11 08:23:02, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 11 2008,08:10)
Quote (olegt @ May 11 2008,07:15)
Gloppy is no more.  All 4 of his May 10 posts at UD are gone and TheBrites.org site is empty.

Brites.org may be down and the GP's UD posts now 404s, but brites.org's statement vs a summary judgement by the 9th Federal District Court is a spoof of Yoko Ono and her legal actions against Expelled. I'd guess that the UD 404s are designed to lend the spoof verisimilitude.

Hints: there is no Judge Utphray Opsla in any court. In fact, the string "Utphray" appears exactly once in a Google search (at theBrites.org) indicating that it isn't a name at all, in any language; nor does Opsla appear to be used as a surname. Utphray Opsla is probably an anagram. Further, FindLaw indicates that no decision at the Ninth circuit refers either to theBrites or Ono. There is no "Ono Inc." (it's "Yoko Ono, Inc.").

And so on.

Some anagrams for "Utphray Opsla":
Quote
altho papyrus
apply authors
arhat polypus
asphalt roupy
authors apply
hap pulsatory
happy torulas
harp outplays
harps outplay
hasty popular
hoar platypus
hora platypus
hotspur playa
hyla trappous
hypo pastural
hypo spatular
loath papyrus
lotah papyrus
outplay harps
outplay sharp
outplays harp
outpray plash
pah pulsatory
papula shorty
papyral shout
papyral south
papyral thous
papyrus altho
papyrus loath
papyrus lotah
parlay tophus
parlay upshot
pasha poultry
pastural hypo
pausal trophy
payout ralphs
phrasal pouty
plash outpray
platypus hoar
platypus hora
playa hotspur
polypus arhat
poplar thuyas
poplars thuya
popular hasty
poultry pasha
pouty phrasal
pulsatory hap
pulsatory pah
ralphs payout
roupy asphalt
roupy spathal
sharp outplay
shorty papula
shout papyral
south papyral
spathal roupy
spatular hypo
thous papyral
thuya poplars
thuyas poplar
tophus parlay
torulas happy
trappous hyla
trophy pausal
upshot parlay

From Andy's Anagram Solver.

Date: 2008/05/11 14:12:22, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 11 2008,09:33)
Fruit Loops.

Has pig latin gone out of style for the younger generation?

Damn.  Good on you Wes.

But I thought that would be "ütfray oopslay."

Date: 2008/05/11 19:32:38, Link
Author: Hermagoras
That doesn't speak for itself at all.

Date: 2008/05/11 20:53:06, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Quidam @ May 11 2008,20:24)
The two horns of the RAM are the two parties in dispute, Galapogos has a bigger horn than Ono, so he will come last.

The Ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward, but yet producing nothing 'that could deliver out of his hand' is clearly Dembski.

The 'king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences' can be none other than Judge Jones.

Thus D08 3423 is prophesying the End Times of the ID movement.

Fantastic!  Reminds me of a bit from the original Batman movie, with Adam West etc.  They receive a riddle from, of course, the Riddler, and quickly decipher it:

Quote
BATMAN: What sits in a tree and is extremely dangerous?

ROBIN: A sparrow with a machine gun!

BATMAN: Correct, Robin!  The only possible answer!

Date: 2008/05/12 05:41:50, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (didymos @ May 12 2008,01:23)
Well, ERV just nailed Marks' ass to the wall, complete with an AtBC shout-out/credit (as some of you already know). Our good friend WW showed up with his typical wit and wisdom. Read: dumbassery.

In case anyone ever wants the crap,  I used the Google cache to archive as much of The Brites as I could.  The images were a wash, but I did manage to use Google Images to get most of them in thumbnail form.  I need to clean it up a bit too: a billion pages all named searchSomeInteger.html isn't very useful.

DaveScot!  has commented on the exposure at paralepsis.

Date: 2008/05/12 16:02:17, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ May 12 2008,15:58)
no doubt.  one of you fuckers is Frost and I am chomping at ye olde bits and pieces to know which one.  because whoever is doing that Tard is a geeeeeeeeenius.  PM me you asshole.

Not me!  I could never sustain up a voice like that.  It's a sustained tightrope act.

Date: 2008/05/13 09:09:09, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Kristine @ June 01 2007,12:59)
Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ May 31 2007,19:48)

I respect that he calls them as he sees them - if ID was science, they would be doing ID science.  And no one is.  Or ever will.  Or ever intended to.  He notes correctly the tactics now employed by the tattered pathetic survivors of the ID-Armageddon.  UD now looks like some bad Mad Max vision of a post apocalyptic world.

But he irritates me with that "the moral code comes from a single source whether you acknowledge it or not" crap.  

Yeah, I don't get that part either.

Yeah, but compare that with the arguments for God via morality that you get from people like StephenB or (shudder) kairosfocus at UD.  

I'm not going to begrudge Heddle his worldview.

Date: 2008/05/13 12:34:10, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Wow.  

see sparc while you can:
Quote

Quote
like removing Prof. Bob Marks’s Web site

Do you refer to the latest incident described at uncommondescent.com?

Date: 2008/05/14 10:08:37, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Quidam @ May 13 2008,21:41)
I think that
...Next time I will remember to bring a feather to knock myself over with.

Sounds better than
...Next time I will remember to bring a feather with which to knock myself over.

Sometimes avoiding that trailing preposition simply results in a clumsy sentence

As Churchill put it, when an editor dared to modify a sentence of his that ended with a preposition:  "This is the kind of impertinence up with which I shall not put."

Just cut the "with" entirely:

 
Quote
Next time I will remember to bring a feather to knock myself over.

Still horrible.
 
Quote
Next time I'll bring a feather so I can knock myself over.

Lipstick on a pig.

Date: 2008/05/14 10:59:42, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Quidam @ May 14 2008,10:15)
Of the things one can legitimately criticize DoL for, that sentence is not one.

I don't know.  As a writing teacher, I think every sentence Denyse writes is subject to revision.

Date: 2008/05/14 14:30:24, Link
Author: Hermagoras
SCheesman misses LNF:
Quote

Where is LarryNormanFan? He would have provided the following lyric from the ’70s Larry Norman song “U.F.O”:
Quote
and if there’s life on other planets / then I’m sure that He must know / and He’s been there once already / and has died to save their souls

(In Another Land, Larry Norman, 1973, Glenwood Music Corp., Strawbed Music)

I wonder what happened to LNF. . . .

Date: 2008/05/14 14:33:08, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Here's what I was looking for!
larrynormanfan insults D O'L.
Quote

Hyperbole, thy name is O’Leary.
larrynormanfan - I don’t like your tone. Thy name here is history. -ds

DaveScot, so quick to defend O'Leary's honor.

Date: 2008/05/20 19:47:54, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Boston area, meself.  Formerly Durham NC -- all you NC residents make me miss my old home.

Date: 2008/05/21 13:04:56, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 21 2008,08:37)
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU
DO YOU I KNOW WHAT WE'LL DO?
A PARTY
WITH JOE G.
AND HIS 'BUDDIES' THERE TOO.


Wow, you know just what to get!

Date: 2008/05/21 13:36:44, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Mrs. Hermagoras intelligently designed a cake, but the icing message reading HAPPY BIRTHDAY HERMAGORAS went all the way round and under the cake, where it got smushed by the plate, before coming back up to the surface and ending in a ginormous (because life-sized) HERMAGORAPHALLUS.

Date: 2008/05/21 14:01:58, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (deejay @ May 21 2008,10:48)
Hey Hermagoras-

Happy Birthday!  Beautiful day here in Boston.

Yes, it is. Thanks!

Date: 2008/05/21 14:04:06, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (carlsonjok @ May 21 2008,11:48)
Hey, I once had a case of hermagoras, but it cleared right up after a course of treatment with anti-biotics.  

Here is hoping you get some penicillin for your birthday.

Your mom's going to give me a case on the way home.  Says she doesn't need it no more.  I'll send thanks.

Date: 2008/05/24 19:56:09, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Holy crap.  I'm away on a birthday bender and come back to find DaveScot on double secret probation?
Quote


Denyse

Upon my return from a couple days away from the computer I found I’d been summarily expelled from the inner sanctum of the “big tent”.

Here are a couple of ground rules that weren’t spelled out to me about being allowed inside the big tent:

1) Thou shalt not question the Discovery Institute, its purposes, intents, or methods.

2) Thou shalt not question that belief in Darwin’s theory on the Origin of Species made the holocaust possible.

In other words, you don’t have to believe in God but you’d better believe in the Discovery Institute and not wander off-message.

Date: 2008/05/24 19:58:55, Link
Author: Hermagoras
And yes, in case you were wondering about the coincidence of down-times: DaveScot bought his own drinks and was a perfect gentleman.

Date: 2008/05/27 19:32:42, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Doc Bill @ May 27 2008,18:36)
DT has always been Dembski's poodle.

All poodles need to be shaved from time to time.

Must . . . resist . . . image . . . . . . . . . . . . . WmAD  . . . . . . . . . . . . . shaving DaveScot . . .on the back  . . . . . . . . . . . . . porch . . . . . . . . . . . . .

aghghgh!

Date: 2008/06/07 08:32:41, Link
Author: Hermagoras
I've taken a break from monitoring the tard.  (Travel, projects, etc.)  I'm not missing it.

Date: 2008/07/28 11:20:41, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (olegt @ July 28 2008,09:33)
UD don't need no stinkin' diversity:
 
Quote

5
William Dembski
07/28/2008
9:17 am
Bob O’H is no longer with this forum.

Bob's offense?  Pointing out that Denyse can't write.  Duh.

Didn't DaveScot once promise to defend Bob at all costs?  

(Hi all.  It's been a while.  Had to pop in when I saw this news.)

Date: 2008/07/28 11:24:43, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 28 2008,10:35)
Uncommonly Denyse:
 
Quote
Were I the Dean of English, for example...

Were Denyse Dean of English we'd know that the end times were upon us, and backward talking be all would we.

Another O'Leary screwup: deans are of COLLEGES, not departments.  Possible O'Leary academic posts, in order of ascending fuckedupitude:

Professor of Journalismology
Dean of Farts and Seances
Provost
Emperor (It was Chancellor, but then the Sith took over . . . )

Date: 2008/07/28 12:34:11, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Quidam @ July 28 2008,11:51)
Quote (Hermagoras @ July 28 2008,10:24)
Another O'Leary screwup: deans are of COLLEGES, not departments.  

Not neccessarily.  In the UK & Canada at non-collegiate Universities, the Dean is the head of a faculty or group of departments.  

So while it is unlikely that a University would have a Dean of English, as English is usually just a department, it's not impossible.

Canadians.

Date: 2008/08/15 09:18:59, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 15 2008,09:06)
Quote (Jkrebs @ Aug. 14 2008,16:39)
I just posted the following at UD, but since I appear to be banned (which actually hasn't been acknowledged), I'll post it here (which probably adds to their reasons for thinking I should be banned.)

Anyway:

Quote
Dave writes,
Quote
Interesting that there are no reasons raised by critics for why we should not consider “intelligence comes from intelligence” as a law of nature.


Dave, at least in my case the reason you don't hear reasons raised by a critic is that you won't let me post.  It seems somewhat contradictory to me that you have banned so many people who offer substantial disagreements with the majority views on this board and then wonder why you don't hear from the critics.

DaveScot on the phantom banning.

Quote
DaveScot: Jack Krebs

I noticed your email address on the blacklist barring commenters. Since I could not find a reason given anywhere for why your name was added I removed it.

Given the years you’ve been a member here I think you’ve earned at least a public explanation of why you were banned and who did it.

There has to be a story there -- probably involving Denyse.  

Dave is at his best when his constant bubbling rage is directed at fellow-tardalongs.

Date: 2008/08/15 12:09:17, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Concluding paragraph of the "refuting" article:  
Quote
In conclusion, this work suggests that flagellar genes in endosymbiotic bacteria of insects belonging to the gamma-proteobacterium group seem to have undergone species-specific functional divergence events to adapt to the new environment and to become specialized in exporting proteins from the bacterium to the host. Our results however only support this hypothesis and do not definitively demonstrate such role. This work provides further support to the possible tight metabolic and biochemical communication between the endosymbiotic bacterium and its insect host. Further experimental work that targets specifically genes shown here to be under functional divergence (fliK, fliM, fliN, and flgK) may shed light on the veracity of these hypotheses.

Emphasis added.  There are a hundred other reasons why DT's victory dance is, um, premature, including the dubious application of this paper to his argument in the first place.

Date: 2008/08/21 11:27:14, Link
Author: Hermagoras
DaveScot celebrates the first anniversary of a truly terrible front-loading paper by BU oncologist Michael Sherman.  

I checked the Web of Science: in the year since its publication, this ground-breaking article has been cited a total of zero (0) times.  

It has, however, been fisked (twice) by Bob O'Hara.

Date: 2008/08/21 17:45:37, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 21 2008,17:16)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 21 2008,16:56)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-294345

   
Quote
38
CEC09
08/21/2008
4:37 pm

......
There is little constraint on the generators of “Denyse O’Leary” text.
......

Yeah, like the rules of grammar or the need to convey an idea in a coherent manner.

He really hit the nail on the head with that one.

CEC09 is great.  Whoever that is, I am very impressed.

Date: 2008/08/22 19:32:08, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 22 2008,13:25)
From Davey's ERV thread, a fractally stupid comment from bFast
Quote
My understanding is that about 30% of DNA is somewhat conserved between man and mouse. If natural selection, which only acts on the phenotype, is responsible for this conservation then at least 30% of human DNA renders in the phenotype. This is a serious problem for the darwinian theory. The other alternative is that there is another preservative in DNA, something other than the broad-based error correction technology that is know. This would suggest that a major discovery is called for.

I'ts too late in the week to even start on the stupid that this comment represents. All I can say is "wow".

"fractally stupid": fantastic.

Date: 2008/12/04 20:26:15, Link
Author: Hermagoras
[peeking in]

Damn, this Olofsson smackdown is the best thing on UD in years.  How long can it play out?  Will Olofsson lose patience before he's banned?  

[ducking out]

Date: 2008/12/05 11:02:57, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 05 2008,10:31)
 
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 04 2008,22:27)
That would be the fact that you know how to do needlepoint, but don't realize it.

Fun Fact:

This is actually a possible state of affairs. Persons who have suffered destruction of both hippocampi, and are therefore unable to retain new declarative memories, can still subsequently and efficiently acquire non-declarative motor skills such as golf or even executing the Towers of Hanoi puzzle. They can quickly and efficiently perform those tasks yet have no recollection whatsoever of ever having seen them before.

The really interesting finding (IIRC) is that they acquire the solution to puzzles like the Towers of Hanoi over successive attempts during successive sessions as quickly as unimpaired controls. Each session having no recollection of ever having seen the puzzle before.

I understand that the recently deceased H.M. did the crossword puzzle most days.  I wonder if the completed puzzles were saved and the success over time analyzed?

Date: 2008/12/06 17:55:27, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Ra-Úl @ Dec. 06 2008,15:14)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 06 2008,08:56)
Maybe I am just easy to entertain, but yesterday afternoon, right before heading out for dinner, I popped over to UD to see if Prof. Oloffson was continuing his spanking of PaV. I was amused to find that UD is expanding their advertisement program beyond linking to the various buy-my-books.  Observe:


New motto for UD: Serving Pizza to the Intelligent Design Community.

The stuff I miss with AdBlock.  

BTW, Oloffson has finally lost patience with PaV.  But PaV refuses to learn, and to PO's mention of an email to PaV explaining Bayesian inference at greater length, PaV huffs:  
Quote
As to the email, don’t expect a response.

Another victory for Intelligent Design!  PaV can't  refuses to can't understand, and so he wins.

Date: 2008/12/07 10:52:12, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 07 2008,10:34)
UD seems to be having some technical difficulties.
What dreams may come?

Endless loading time?  I feared it was my pimped-out Firefox.  Glad to know it's not.

Date: 2008/12/07 12:50:07, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 07 2008,11:55)
Will the Olofsson thread survive the site reboot? Anyone want to apply the EF to this one?

EDIT: Whoops, I guess it did.

Site's down again.

Date: 2008/12/07 17:10:20, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 07 2008,17:06)
Quote
This Domain (intelldesign.com) Has Been Disabled
For information on restoring your account please call customer service as soon as possible

When/If you call our support help line, please have your site name ready.

Hilarious.

BarryA is a great site admin.

Date: 2008/12/07 17:19:07, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Talk amongst yourselves.

I'll give you a topic:

The accidental suspension of UD was neither accidental nor a suspension.  

Discuss.  Apply explanatory filter CSI as needed.

Date: 2008/12/07 17:56:05, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Well, it's back up.  That felt like a hack to me.

Date: 2008/12/07 23:10:06, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 07 2008,22:39)
Oh noes!!!1111!! Clive can haz ban button!!!TWELVE!!!:

 
Quote
Clive Hayden
12/07/2008
7:17 pm
I told you my criteria. Inappropriateness is determined on a case by case basis, some arbitors will be condescension, name-calling, rudeness, incivility, etc.

And I reckon you should take me seriously because I can delete your comments.

So are threats of deletion examples of inappropriateness?  Should the banner be banned?  

Norman -- coordinate!

Date: 2008/12/08 16:12:09, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 08 2008,14:53)
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 08 2008,14:22)
Someone at UD (possibly Patrick) has put me under moderation.  I don't feel like playing comment roulette, so it's time to doff the ribczynski sock.

Carry on, fellow puppeteers!

Sad, actually.  

He will be missed.

You were like the only voice of reason at UD, crying laughing alone in the wilderness.

(UDers not exactly known for sense of humor...)

Do we have a Puppet Of The Week Award?

edited for extra comment

Not the only voice.  IDskeptic, RoyK, PO, and Daniel King.  But one of the most sustained.

Date: 2008/12/09 21:20:41, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 09 2008,12:44)
Quote
Obviously, somewhere along the line the matter of an infinite loop would have to be resolved, but how is that different from methodological naturalism?


I suppose that methodological naturalism leads to verifiable descriptions of how things change from state to state.

Speaking of state changes, UD seems frozen in time.  No new comments all day.

Date: 2008/12/09 21:52:09, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Very strange.  When I look at it, the last comment is by IDSkeptic, dated 11:15 today:
linky-link
Quote

And Joe, your position “MY point that is in any “infinite regress” game, your position regresses back to the SAME point.” is a straw man.
I’m not arguing ‘who designed the designer’.
I’m stating that ID theory postulates that life cannot have natural origins anywhere in our universe at any time up to the present due to a lack of probabilistic resources.

Date: 2008/12/12 12:43:11, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 12 2008,12:01)
Uncommonly Denyse:
 
Quote
Computers vs. Darwinism? A computer teacher comments

...The following excerpt from his book, Agents under Fire is the clearest explanation I have read so far of why the Darwinist argument that intricate machines inside the cell can be built up without any intelligence underlying the universe are unbelievable.

It's also unbelievable that Denyse are a professional writer.

RoyK seems to agree
Quote

I don’t find much clear here. Part of the fault may lie in Denyse’s introductory comment. Is there anything clear about this?
Quote
why the Darwinist argument that intricate machines inside the cell can be built up without any intelligence underlying the universe are unbelievable

Holy cow! A clear explanation requires a clearly stated problem.

Date: 2008/12/15 16:29:46, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 15 2008,15:59)
The brain as radio does deserve some thoughtful commentary.

Here's some by the San Francisco poet Jack Spicer, from Language, 1964:  
Quote
Sporting Life

The trouble with comparing a poet with a radio is that radios don't develop scar-tissue. The tubes burn out, or with a transistor, which most souls are, the battery or diagram burns out replacable or not replacable, but not like that punchdrunk fighter in a bar. The poet

Takes too many messages. The right to the ear that floored him in New Jersey. The right to say that he stood six rounds with a champion.

Then they sell beer or go on sporting commissions, or, if the scar tissue is too heavy, demonstrate in a bar where the invisible champions might not have hit him. Too many of them.

The poet is a radio. The poet is a liar. The poet is a counterpunching radio.

And those messages (God would not damn them) do not even know they are champions.

Date: 2008/12/15 18:27:46, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 15 2008,17:08)
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 15 2008,10:57)
Me thinks RoyK might have a secret death bannination wish.

 
Quote
RoyK: I’m curious: which materialists say that consciousness is an illusion? Can you provide citations to that claim? Is is really the case that all materialists think this? There is a distinct odor of straw about this post.

Barry Arrington: RoyK, your question suggests one of two things: (1) you are deeply ignorant; or (2) you are just throwing rocks into the gears to see what happens. Either way, you are on probation

RoyK: Is this what it takes to be on probation? Asking for examples?

Barry Arrington: RoyK is no longer with us.

I was RoyK.  [bows]

"MikeKratsch," whoever, you are, I salute you and your moniker.

Date: 2008/12/15 18:49:09, Link
Author: Hermagoras
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 15 2008,17:20)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 15 2008,17:12)
Doering asks too many questions.

       
Quote
Barry Arrington: Norman Doering is no longer with us.

I wonder. If the bannings are not on the same post, but on consecutive posts, does that count as a double bannination?

On top of that, Barry A offers this justification

     
Quote
As these two persons have just learned, the fastest way to get yourself booted off this site is to make personal attacks against the moderators.


Problem is, neither RoyK nor Norman Doering made any personal attacks against the moderators.  They merely pointed out the gaping flaws in the moderators' arguments.

I guess Barry A is from the Dembski school of emotional maturity, where he still can't tell the difference.

Actually, as RoyK, I made an inference (now missing).  From the following comment --    
Quote
Or maybe the people you cite (if they, in fact, say the things you say they do) are simply run of the mill morons who deny the conclusions that are inexorably compelled by their own premises. [emphasis added]

-- I inferred that BarryA hadn't read the literature and (added in edit -- Hermagoras) might want to, you know, read some of the literature before drawing his cartoons.

I did not make a personal attack.  For example, I did not call him a "moron."  
Nor did I call him a fuckwad, asshat, douchebag, dick, wanker, fatso, or bloviating gasbag.

I may have called him a lawyer, though.

[Edited to identify the inference -- H]

Date: 2008/12/15 21:25:56, Link
Author: Hermagoras
New UD author Donald M. introduces himself:  
Quote
While I am not a working scientist, I do hold a Masters degree in a scientific field.

He has a Masters Degree . . . in science!


Now, look Donald M.  I know Dr. Science.  Dr. Science is a friend of mine.

You, Donald M, are no Dr. Science.

Date: 2008/12/17 11:19:54, Link
Author: Hermagoras
JackInhofe wants parenting advice from WmAD:  
Quote

Dr. Dembski,
Yes, I agree 1,000%, but what are we to do then?
My wife and I do not have the ability to home-school our kids, and sending them to public school virtually guarantees that they become indoctrinated into Darwinism. What do you recommend for those of us that see thing differently, and with a good Christian world-view?
Should we try to locate ID advocates to teach our kids after Sunday School? What are YOU doing to make sure your kids are brought up right?
I am rather new here, although I have been trying to read back to earlier posts, so I would be extremely interested in hearing about what some of you regular contributors are doing about this?

In other, strangely related news, I'm really enjoying Frank Schaffer's Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back.

Date: 2008/12/18 07:22:56, Link
Author: Hermagoras
I love MikeKratch!
Quote

KF
Quote

Weasel is an apt example of a search algorithm that undertakes DIRECTED search, in an environment that is designed; and based on active, foresighted information fed in at the beginning. (I do refer to this sort of thing in the paper, but only briefly.)

Weasel is a trivial toy exampled used to illustrate a teaching point.
The fact that you claim to have “defeated” it in a “paper” no less speaks volumes as to your real adjenda.
Why don’t you publish this “paper” in a peer reviewed journal then if you are confident you have refuted this trival example?
Quote
Until you can show me in error, the appendix therefore stands. As does the rest of the note.

You are in error if you think that “Weasel” is representiative of the state of the art in this area.
You need to read more in this field to become familiar with more then then toy examples used to explain to the general public the concepts Dawkins was trying to comminucate.
It’s like claming that a “Learn to read ABC” book aimed at 5 year olds has little literary merit. Quite right, it does not, but it fulfills the purpose admirably.

I'll say it again: I love MikeKratch!

Also, I love to watch Barry struggle with JackInhofe.  Barry fought JackInhofe, he tried to forbid JackInhofe, but he could only stop JackInhofe for a few days.  Now Barry can never stop JackInhofe!

Apologies.  I'm a child at heart.

Date: 2008/12/18 08:20:02, Link
Author: Hermagoras
kairosfocus:  
Quote
MK (and JK):
I have to go just now, so  will be far more brief; but

and we're off! Though, to be sure, the 577 words of this comment is far below the mean.

Date: 2008/12/25 09:54:58, Link
Author: Hermagoras
DaveScot, voice of reason:
Quote

Verily, scrolling through kf length dissertations (comments are bible verse length not bible book length) doth weareth out thou mouse wheel and cause a great weariness to come upon thy fingers. It testeth the patience even of Job.

His imitation of KJV English may suck,