AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Ichthyic

form_srcid: Ichthyic

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.226.46.21

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Ichthyic

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/05/29 20:32:10, Link
Author: Ichthyic
transition complete.

I think Wes will update my post count, otherwise, looks like I'm done.

thanks all for the input and ideas.

cheers

Date: 2006/05/30 08:36:49, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Sure thing.

or even:

sir Icky-icky-icky-icky-p'tang-zoo-boing-goodem-zu-owly-zhiv.

;)

Date: 2006/05/30 08:43:06, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
it's just too boring, compared to the Vegas-style magic show he calls christianity.


amazing how someone could conclude that a system of non-reality based off a single, very boring, hard to read collection of short stories could somehow be more exciting than the near infinite variety and fantastic real-life stories that come out of science every day.

any stories like wasps making zombie slaves out of their cockroack prey in the bible?

nope.

Date: 2006/05/30 08:59:24, Link
Author: Ichthyic
nice tank.

looks like a cardinalfish; likely the Pajama Cardinalfish (Sphaeramia nematoptera)

and a rabbitfish?

likely the barred spinefoot rabbitfish
(Siganus doliatus)

looks like you might be doing a "natural reef" type tank?

how's that working out?

oh, btw, don't forget when you take pics of your tank to adjust the focus for the change in density between your subject and the camera.  I've often found that if you use autofocus, it doesn't work too well.

alternatively, if you're using a digicam, boost the iso and shoot a narrower aperture to get a better dof, and it won't matter if the autofocus is a bit off.

cheers!

Date: 2006/05/30 09:03:15, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Yes, he has persuaded me that he is far more brain damaged than I thought was humanly possible


has he persuaded you he shouldn't be teaching children?

or is the answer obvious?

Date: 2006/05/30 09:06:34, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I think Dave wants to become a martyr here, and be like crucified in public. Seriously.
The more you insult him, the better he feels.


a little mental mortification to go along with the corporal mortification?

Date: 2006/05/30 09:23:28, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Yay! My new ACME Ironometer 4000 with advanced overload protection just arrived.


i'll bet it didn't come with a warranty.

dam*n ironymeter cos. know exactly how to make money.

that's why i switched to irony divining rods ages ago.

Date: 2006/05/30 10:14:29, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
But refresh my memory - where can I read about the zombie cockroaches?


http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/the_wisdom_of_p.html

Date: 2006/05/30 10:52:27, Link
Author: Ichthyic
yup.

ranks in my top ten most definetly.

...right along with the first time i heard about how male anglerfishes reproduce by becoming essentially a parasite on the female, and the first time i saw a single population of fish with no less than 4 distinct but simultaneously successful reproductive strategies.

wait; i'll stop there before i make a post that goes on for at least 8 pages.

8 pages, heck it would go on for 10 times the entire length of AFDave's KJV, for that matter.

Date: 2006/05/30 10:58:05, Link
Author: Ichthyic
that would of course completely depend on what he specifically decided to teach, and especially HOW he decided to teach it.

for reference, check out the places he is proud to send his kids to.

Date: 2006/05/30 12:29:28, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
. Every time I have a bit of spare money in my pocket I start dreaming of upgrading to a 180 gallon, but i have to remind myself that 600 bucks for the tank is a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the equipment, not to mention the operating cost of more lights and pumps. Plus, I want to make my 75 as awesome as possible before I upgrade, and there's still plenty of room for growth.


the "wonderful" thing about aquariums is that a lot of folks have tried them at one time or another, which means there's always used tanks you can grab for a very small fraction of the price of a new one.

When you're ready to try a bigger tank; try checking out your local paper, or any local pet-trader magazine.  also, putting up a want ad at your local aquarium store (if the owner is cool with that), can get score you a new tank cheap too.

sorry to hear of that crash; I had many of those myself when i used to keep tropicals.  I gave up on that years back in favor of local temperates i could catch myself, and put in refrigerated aquaria instead.  they seem much more tolerant.

keep pluggin and have fun with that tank!

cheers

Date: 2006/05/30 15:17:27, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
brain damaged ex-Marine


... and we have our own brain-damaged ex-AF pilot, who happens to also be named Dave.

coincidence?

hmmm.....

;)

Date: 2006/05/30 18:38:01, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Dembski sputters:

Quote
Think of atheists like the mafia and ID as cutting into their profits


I do wonder if the members of the DI have strategy meetings where they figure out the best projections of their own issues to use on their opponents.

atheists are cutting into their profits, not the other way round.

How many times have we seen the DI and its lackeys accuse the opposition of the very dam*n things which they themselves are actually culpable?

don't they ever tire of this approach?

well, I guess it's a proven winner in political mudslinging, so why not everywhere, eh?

phhht.

you know, it's probably this single strategy that irks me more than any other.

they KNOW they are lying when they say crap like this;
yet the psychophants and general public eat it up like candy.

*sigh*

Date: 2006/05/31 08:57:10, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Ouch. I'll make sure to bring my sunscreen. I've been trying to make a work trip out of NZ for the last 5 years but so far, no luck. It could happen though.


see you there.

;)

Date: 2006/05/31 09:00:52, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I'm so ugly the Speed of Light can't slow me down


that's a nice little bit of self-deprecating humor!

gotta remember that.

Date: 2006/05/31 09:03:41, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I think you'll have to wait until he publishes that "thesis" he's been promising for what, ten years now?

Date: 2006/05/31 09:19:06, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Is it just the level of sophistication in his weaseling?


not to put too fine a point on it, but:

yes.

I think it is for most anyway.

If you're not proficient in mathematics, biology, or information theory, he comes across much more credible than he really is.

there is also this little niggling thing in the back of my mind that he's simply running an "experiment" to collect some cash.  I doubt that's all of it; he exhibits the same signs of dissonance from time to time that Nelson and Behe do, but there is some history to the man that suggests he at least thinks he is playing a game.

You might have missed the whole "street theatre" episode, but he did detail a small bit about how he started in this mess, and while it looked about half like pure backpeddaling, it did lend at least a bit of credence to the "I'm just doing this for fun and profit" MO.

I personally would break it down from the evidence presented so far like this:

75% pure dissonance
25% actual dishonesty for fun and profit

It's trying to figure out the correct proportions of each that keep Dembski interesting in my book; all of his pseudointellectual claptrap was shredded years ago.

Date: 2006/05/31 09:40:07, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Davey tries to go all new age on us:

Quote
It still comes from within while reality comes from without.


hmm, this seems like the new age definition of projection to me.

...and he continues to document his struggles with dissonance:

Quote
It’s best to keep the real and the spiritual in different compartments and don’t mingle the two together


attempts at compartmentalization that have dismally failed with poor Dave.

Dave subconsciously recognizes he's got a serious problem, but the rampant use of denial helps to prevent him from consciously recognizing it.

classic.

Date: 2006/05/31 09:54:41, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I'm only going to say this:

It's about time you took yourself a little less seriously.

I do wish you luck with your presentation.

have fun.

Date: 2006/05/31 10:01:33, Link
Author: Ichthyic
nice!

I especially like this stanza:

A noachian flood
Of sky pixie crud

Date: 2006/05/31 11:38:33, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I cheated:

Quote
Maybe it’s a good idea for us to keep a few dreams of a house that we shall live in later, always later, so much later . . .
—Gaston Bachelard, The Poetics of Space

Date: 2006/05/31 11:46:52, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Think about it. Imagine (and it will take imagination! ) that some piece of evidence surfaces tomorrow that vindicates ID. I'll be surprised. I'll be fascinated.


and you can bet that it wouldn't have come from any "research" the IDiots did.  It would of course come from folks who actually do research, namely the biologists.  a great argument as to why if these dolts actually "believed" in ID as a concept, they'd stop kocking the "darwinists" and start trying to do some actual research.

OTOH, maybe Dave's fungal fubarishness will generate evidence of ID, huh?

God, I kill me.

;)

Date: 2006/05/31 11:50:28, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
DaveTard2 and Hovind types aren't "producers, " they're leeches, but DaveTard2 wants to POSE as an academic, per his "Hypothesis."


yes.  In fact, somebody round these parts created the term:

"pseudointellectual intellectualism"  

which kind of fits Davey boy to a "T".

 
Quote
(I'd much rather discuss)...the really neat stuff I picked up on antibiotic resistance


so let's.

I do wish there could be less threads started for the likes of T-diddy, AFDave, and Gawp, and more along the lines of what you just mentioned.

So grab your references on AR, and start a new thread where we can take a gander and comment on something of real intellectual significance to contrast against the endless idiocy of AFDave and co.

It might not go for as many pages, but I personally would be happy to see it.

Date: 2006/05/31 12:01:07, Link
Author: Ichthyic
...

(yeah, that's my answer)

Date: 2006/05/31 12:31:25, Link
Author: Ichthyic
*sigh*

this isn't starting off any more interestingly than the LUCA thread.

GoP already backpeddaling and pre-qualifying any argument he is going to make is not promising at all.

Gees!  get some balls already!  nobody takes you seriously here, and they never will, so run with it!

Date: 2006/05/31 12:49:43, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
And the sun also rises,


ugh, that novel made me hate Hemingway for anything but his short stories.

Date: 2006/05/31 12:52:11, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I guess it depends on the context.

Date: 2006/05/31 16:11:32, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
But it did provide Hunter S Thompson with a cool title he once used for an essay, "The Scum Also Rises".


HST...

*sniff*

we hardly knew ye.

I guess he never really made it out of Las Vegas after all.

Date: 2006/05/31 16:23:09, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
What Dembski’s atheistic materialist opponents obviously can’t understand is that in this case censorsip is free speech.


I'm sure that more of them actually believe this than will admit.

oh wait, most of them DO admit this.

oops.

anyone else remember their true fantasy:


Date: 2006/05/31 16:31:42, Link
Author: Ichthyic
hey skeptic -

congratulations on becoming the replacement scratching post at ATBC.

There's not much left of AFDave and T-diddy.

Your timing couldn't be better, really.

Did someone here send out an ad for a new resident troll?

Date: 2006/05/31 17:03:31, Link
Author: Ichthyic
no apologies necessary; seems you got what you asked for.

;)

i gotta admit, skeptic appears to have at least a bit more background knowledge that AFDave.

please insert appropriate joke here.


oh, BTW, if any of you feel your claws are sharp enough having shredded the scratching posts on ATBC, and you want a chance to argue with Nelson or Dembski, your best bet is to hang around ISCID, AFAICT.

http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?category=1

I've seen some interesting debates there.  Not that they still don't get shredded, but the information used to shred them is beyond the high-school level information needed to dispose of the likes of AFdumbass and co.

just in case you're bored here and want to check out something different.

Date: 2006/05/31 17:07:55, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
the Bible is filled with help that has kept me from suicide multiple times.


I hear it works well to keep folks who are alcoholics from drinking too, especially when used in combination with a program like AA.

that's not hope.

that's "artificial support" to aid in recovery.

in all seriousness, good luck with your recovery.

Date: 2006/05/31 17:17:43, Link
Author: Ichthyic
since the topic has been raised in THIS forum, you might want to check Gawp's previous thoughts on the issue in one of the other antievolution.org forums (yeah, there's several aside from ATBC):

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....3;t=247

Date: 2006/05/31 17:29:32, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
It is a confusion of the two that nullifies both, along with more traditional creationism.


in other words, ID is a black hole of mental masturbation.

yeah, that about sums it up alrighty.

no light ever escapes from it.

Date: 2006/05/31 17:34:29, Link
Author: Ichthyic
John, you should log in with your real name so you could argue with yourself.

I'm sure that would clear up the issue for everyone.

Date: 2006/05/31 18:57:10, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I'm sure that's one of the reasons Dembski chose it for his "vice strategy".

*rolleyes*

Date: 2006/05/31 19:19:30, Link
Author: Ichthyic
no no, it's "Ignorance is Strength"!

Date: 2006/06/01 09:00:17, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
There are other kinds of trolls, and various transitionals among them.  Are you a troll, skeptic?


although much of the common usage of the term in online fora revolves around the definition as a noun (like a Tolkienesque "troll"), the original usage was more of a reference to fishing.

To troll (verb) is using a baited line, drawn continuously through the water, in order to attract fish to bite.

hence, the original online usage was referring to someone who posted lines intended to elicit an emotional, rather than reasoned, response.

"awww, he's just trolling".

However, it is often the case that those who "troll" often aren't prepared to be called on the content of their attempt; IOW, to have someone say, "there's nothing but a hook under that bait".

whereupon, when forced into a corner, it often becomes apparent that the "troller" was incalcitrant and ignorant, which leads to the "rockheaded and stubborn" adjectives often associated with the noun "troll".

So we see the term often confused in common usage, but the "new" usage still works fine for most cases.

Quote
People still aren't sure about you.


I am.

he's an idiot.

EOS

Date: 2006/06/01 12:58:34, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
researchers used trawling nets and scuba divers to explore down to 3 miles


trawling nets?

yes.

scuba to 3 miles?

not possible; unless you just want to use dead scuba divers as weights on the trawling net.

I guess you wouldn't exactly call that "diving" though. ;)

I'm sure the sentence is really just combining all the methods used to help survey into a single sentence for brevity.

Still, it does lead one to wonder if the author had any clue what he was essentially saying by wording it like that.

BTW, the newly discovered cave system is neat, but hardly the revolutionary find implied by the headlines I see the news articles associating with it.

Date: 2006/06/01 13:04:14, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I'm not, Im just saying there isn't enough evidence to conclude ID.


...and there's not a single objective bit of observational data to even form a hypothesis, let alone a conclusion!

"infertile" as PVM would put it, but i would say it goes farther to it being entirely neuter!

"Yes, this man has no dick."

Date: 2006/06/01 14:02:44, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Maybe that’s what happen to AFDaveTard2!


nawww, his head started off at the size of a tennis ball.

that, or else there's an awfull lot of room in that skull of his for such a tiny brain to rattle around in.

microcephaly, indeed.

Yes Ved, Scuba ranks as the best possible outdoor activity I can imagine.

like having the ability to fly with interesting things to look at.

...and the occasional large predator to add a bit of spice :)

Date: 2006/06/01 18:11:41, Link
Author: Ichthyic
"atheist satanist".

*sigh*

Date: 2006/06/01 20:33:08, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Crichton and global warming...

sorry, he really kinda flunked that course.

check out what the folks who actually do the research had to say about Crichton:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

They were pretty disappointed, especially since Crichton apparently spent a significant amount of time getting background info. on the subject from them.

I guess Crichton figured the "scientists as radical terrorists" position would sell more books.

hmm, I wonder if BeerVolcano liked that book?

Date: 2006/06/01 20:47:27, Link
Author: Ichthyic
yeah, yeah, i know i dredged up an oldie, literally, but somehow i felt it needed some sort of punctuation.

Date: 2006/06/02 08:13:32, Link
Author: Ichthyic
well, before you discount it entirely, I know a photographer who lives in Monterey that might give you pause to think twice:

http://scilib.ucsd.edu/sio/nsf/gallery/index.html



Date: 2006/06/02 08:28:40, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
As I said before, I can not go back and independantly confirm the conclusions that have been made because I lack that expertise.


it's not hard to gain the necessary background "expertise" to be able to critically examine the basics of evolutionary theory.

You haven't even done THAT yet.

that's why we said, when it was readily obvious from your very first post, that you should go back and pick up some basic background info., THEN rethink your approach and what questions you want to address.

right now, you're still just playing the idiot card.

we've seen that card.

many, many times.

I don't know exactly what you think you're accomplishing here, but you don't appear to be learning anything, and you certainly aren't able to instruct anybody else here with any interesting or new information, not even in your "claimed" field of biochemistry.

so, what's left...

the very thing you said you had no comprehension of:

you're just trolling.

Date: 2006/06/02 08:34:30, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
That whole "Mission Control" folderol looks far less real than Mr. Toad's Ride.


why do i think that Gawp spent too much time trying to "lick toad"?

Date: 2006/06/02 10:28:54, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Newton and Leibniz equivocated on the definition of the derivative to avoid dividing by zero at inopportune moments; future mathematicians patched over the gaps and provided a firm foundation for the calculus. Morris Kline is priceless on this -- you really should read him.



that's about as close as you can get to the "galileo" excuse as possible without actually using the name.

c'mon... I'm sure you can do better.

You should just trash this thread and start over again.

Date: 2006/06/02 10:33:27, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Strangely, a test for DNA using Ethidium Bromide dye fluorescence technique indicates absence of DNA in these cells.


uhh, it's raining blood?

EDIT:

LOL.  actually, if you take a gander at figure 11 and 12, they do, in fact, look VERY much like mammalian red blood cells!

Did somebody blow up a slaughterhouse or something?

 
Quote
An estimated minimum quantity of 50,000 kg of red particles has fallen from the sky through red rain.


so, a meteoric airburst event with over 50K kg of "organic" material, isn't noticed by any astronomers...

hmmm.

talk about some ridiculous conclusions.

even if the meteorite was entirely composed of these "organic particles", don't you think it odd that nobody would have noticed a 50K kg meteor striking the earth's atmosphere?

the evidence is presented as "some folks heard a sonic boom".

yikes.

Date: 2006/06/02 10:50:12, Link
Author: Ichthyic
LOL.

sounds more like the subplot from the recent "War of the World's" movie.

the aliens are just trying to grow red fungus over everthing!

Date: 2006/06/02 11:06:46, Link
Author: Ichthyic
what's interesting is that the micrographs of the spores don't resemble anything like the electron micrographs from fig 11 and 12 of the paper being discussed here.

again, fig 11 and 12 look EXACTLY like pictures of centrifuged red blood cells to me.

I suspect the authors of a bit of "hoaxery".

OTOH, it wouldn't surprise me that single celled algae would adopt a similar bi-concave shape; it's very efficient for gas transfer.

meh, six o one...

either way, the "meteor burst" idea is absolutely ridiculous.

Date: 2006/06/02 11:31:21, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Not only does my model remain unrefuted, nobody was even able to muss its hair.


WHAT model?

all i saw was a bunch of non-sensical attempts at innapropriate and ill-done math, and a bizarre set of graphics that have nothing to do with anything.

not refuted?

that's like saying if I said an orange is a banana, and claimed 2+3=17 is proof of this, I have presented an irrefutable model.

LOL.

you claimed you needed more time to think, which is what you always claim, but I still say that regardless, you should scrap this heap of dung and start off with something at least more amusing, if not convincing.

But, hey, I'm not the dictator of what should or should not be done with your attempts at idiocy, you are, so if you think you've got something to work with here, don't mind me.

do proceed, doctor.

Date: 2006/06/02 11:41:01, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
It's just a pity, the bad light he shines on other Christians with his continued dishonest and craven behavior.


well, yes and no.

Does a schizophrenic claims of scientific knowledge have any bearing on how we view other scientists?

Ever see "A Beautiful Mind"?

no, I don't think Davey sheds a poor light on xians, but rather a poor light on the rest of us for letting the kind of cognitive dissonance that leads to this behavior go untreated for so long.

Davey has about as much to do with xianity as schizophenia has to do with advanced mathematics.

I do hope that someday the kind of malady suffered by thousands of folks like AFDave will be recognized as such, and treated accordingly.

I have my doubts tho; it does seem that funding for mental health care has taken a severe nose dive over the last 10 years or so.  Many hospitals in CA, for example, have even closed their mental health care depts. completely.
I assume it's a simple matter of economics, combined with the apparent "stigma" associated with mental disease as opposed to others, but it's still troubling.

Date: 2006/06/02 14:13:36, Link
Author: Ichthyic
http://www.physorg.com/news68455520.html

Now THAT's a meteorite!

Date: 2006/06/02 14:51:22, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
And the DI will say they've discovered the location of Gomorrah.


lol. yeah.

hmm, i guess we should start looking for a pillar of salt somewhere thereabouts?

gimme some time on dat der satelmajiger!

*ahem*

yeah, this impact is beyond comprehension.  It basically is like hitting an eggshell with a ball-peen hammer.  Well... maybe not quite that bad.  more like shooting an egg with a pellet gun.


still, yikes.

Date: 2006/06/02 16:46:36, Link
Author: Ichthyic
As much as i rail on conservatives and how they have let the GOP become polluted with fundy filth, if you are of the republican bent, and want to help take your party back to some level of sanity, here's a way to get involved:

http://www.indiancowboy.net/caid/

there's a bit in Scientific American about it here:

http://blog.sciam.com/index.p....=1&pb=1

Date: 2006/06/02 17:47:53, Link
Author: Ichthyic
hey Richard, you said it just a few posts up:

Fallacy Bingo

Date: 2006/06/02 18:02:38, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I'll take it that it's at least somewhat significant then?

The relatively few sigs so far (around 140?) has me a bit worried.

but... "from humble beginnings", as the saying goes.

Date: 2006/06/02 18:05:54, Link
Author: Ichthyic
welcome, Rich.

Date: 2006/06/02 18:21:58, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
In the early 90's conservatism seemed to morph into a movement of knuckle-draggers like Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter.


no "seem" about it.  it was a very deliberate strategy on the part of neocons to gain control of the party.

It worked fantastically.

You can see a microcosm of it if you look at the history of GW's rise to power in Texas with the help of Karl Rove.

However, I happen to live at the epicenter of the beginning of the technically "reborn" neocon movement that started in Southern California in the late 70's, and really gained momentum with the nomination of Reagan for the presidency.

Really, when looked at from a purely political perspective, the neocon strategy of media spin and galvanizing the fundamentalists to become a fantastic grass-roots support network is nothing short of genius.

It's only now, when they have somebody who thinks he is a "decider" at the helm, that the strategy is starting to show some serious fraying at the edges.

How much damage?  How much lost?

I compare the last 25 years of neocon strategy as analogous to the Enron scandal.

funny enough, a lot of the same folks were involved in that at some point too.

Date: 2006/06/02 19:12:08, Link
Author: Ichthyic
oh yes, skeptic, do please bring your tremendous observational skills into this discussion.

We're all waiting with baited breath!

(oh, BTW, the preceeding was an example of "S-A-R-C-A-S-M")

Date: 2006/06/02 19:29:10, Link
Author: Ichthyic
you're forgiven, but just this once.

you may go.

Date: 2006/06/02 20:10:31, Link
Author: Ichthyic
no... just... go.

Date: 2006/06/03 07:52:37, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
AFDave seems to be running out of steam. He's reduced to quoting Dembski's snide whining and calling scientists 'lemmings'. And of course, the predictable sniveling about how 'persecuted' creationists are.


Dave, like Dembski, learned his biology from old Disney films.

http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm

Date: 2006/06/03 08:00:10, Link
Author: Ichthyic
if you had any clue whatsoever, you would already know all about these examples, as well as whether they were specifically predicted or "implied".

yet again, your ignorance of the relevant issues and evidence relegates your thoughts on these matters to little more than rampant speculation and incredulity.

You just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.

Soon, your soap-box won't be tall enough for us to hear you from the bottom of the hole you are digging.

but hey, whatever works for you.  guess you need to burn a few calories digging holes.

Date: 2006/06/03 08:09:49, Link
Author: Ichthyic
that reminds me...

IIRC, there is a display in the geology dept. at the univeristy of Hawaii which consists of a burned rockhound suit.

why?

turns out some years back, a hawaiian geologist was working on lava flows and actually feel thru the crust of one up to his hips in molten lava.

(for those unfamiliar, that's over 2000 F).

He survived, as the clothes created a quick-cooled pocket of lava around him, and kept him from incinerating instantly.

his buddies had enough time to fly a nearby chopper over and haul his butt out of the lava.

3rd degree burns on his legs, of course, but as far as i know, he completely recovered.

Date: 2006/06/03 09:18:23, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I finished with any attempt to educate you long ago.

I'm just having fun sniping at a troll now.

plink-plink.

Others can waste time trying to do something productive with you.

your stench is all too familiar to me.

but like i said...

so long as you're burning calories, keep on diggin'.

Date: 2006/06/03 10:32:37, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
... does his brain just filter all that stuff out?


lalalalalalalalalalalaa...

what?  did you say something?

repeat ad nauseum.

seriously tho, you actually hit the nail right on the head.  that is very close to what his brain actually does.  Filters out anything that would icrease his level of cognitive dissonance (a form of denial as a defense mechanism), or else projects his own delusions onto it as it gets processed.

Davey is one sick dude.

Date: 2006/06/03 10:39:21, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Because I believe that Einstein is wrong,...


why are you setting your sights so low?

*snicker*

Date: 2006/06/03 10:43:35, Link
Author: Ichthyic
gees, only took you six months to respond!

that's uh, great...

did you go out and buy some shovels, and figure they can be used to dig up rotted corpses as well as to shovel s*it?

Quote
A wise person wrote:
Quote  
It's a tough burden - always being so darn correct.  It's a lonely destiny.

But somebody's got to do it


interesting... now where did i just see that...

hmm...

Date: 2006/06/03 14:22:29, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
By the way…was Einstein an "evolutionist"?


of course!  haven't you ever heard of "Darwinian Physics"?

;)

Date: 2006/06/03 15:40:56, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Seriously, I hope some of our Darwinists friends who post comments on this site can help me understand how evolutionary theorists deal with their cognitive dissonance...


I think I struck a nerve.

However, this is just another example of projection.  On the positive side, some of them are apparently starting to research their problem;  on the negative side, I doubt it will result in anything other than the projection noted above.

Most of these folks, Dave Scott Springerbot included, won't be able to adress their maladies with self-help programs.

If you're reading this (we know you are...), seek professional help gentlemen.

Date: 2006/06/03 17:56:25, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
but I did like the Disney flick ... gives a good mental image of Evolutionists mindlessly following the crowd.)


now why doesn't that surprise me?

one - that's another great example of projection

and

two - like i said, Dave learned all his biology from disney films.

I guess it's too much to ask him to take a gander at how disney made those "nature" films.

hey dave -

I don't think your stupid, per sae (we already hashed that out), i just think your nuts.

and you should seek treatment.

Date: 2006/06/04 09:00:07, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Amazing blinders he and those like him wear.


that part of the disease is called "denial".

Date: 2006/06/04 16:24:19, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
As every layer comes off the onion, it just gets stinkier and stinkier.


...and when you're all done, there's nothing left.

I used to have fun calling IDiots "onionhead" in german once upon a time:

Zwiebelkopf

Date: 2006/06/04 16:41:27, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Now, a blunt, honest liberal evolutionist would say he finds Bible-believing Christians so abhorrent they should be thrown in prison camps. Of course, fish-boy can't say that because it would upset his image of himself and other liberals as caring, compassionate, believers in liberty, equality and fraternity for all mankind! As everybody known, the totalitarian temptation is the exculsive purview of pale-faced right-wing Christians.


LOL.  that's some pretty good BS there, paley.  Who's analyzing who here?

It's the actions, not the beliefs that characterize the malady, so when you characterize someone in the way you just did, how do you think that defines yourself?

But, what's really motivating your objection here?

jealous that Davey is attracting more attention with his dementia than you are?

gees, first you dig up an old thread to try to get more attention, then use the same shovel to spread some shit around to get even more attention.

pretty pathetic, on just about any level I can think of.

However, if you think you're really on to something here, feel free to pursue it. Go ahead and show us how your characterization of myself and "liberals" is more accurate than mine is of AFDave.

take as many posts as you like.  He11, create a new pseudo-mathematical model to try and showcase your idiocy, if you like.

I only need about half of one of AFDave's threads to show how consistent he is with his projections and denials, and I don't even have a psych degree.

I don't have to bring political bents, religion, or anything else for that matter, into it to demonstrate my point.  Hence the exact reason i said that Davey doesn't reflect poorly on christians.

otherwise, unless you consider yourself as demented as Davey, I feel you owe me an apology.

or at least a more amusing model than you have presented to showcase any of your "theories" so far.

Date: 2006/06/04 19:25:13, Link
Author: Ichthyic
what's the count up to now, Deadman?

gotta document this for posterity.

I've been watching threads here on ATBC for about 2 years now, and I think AFDave may in fact take the cake as the epitomy of the word "creobot".

can anybody else think of anybody who has ever posted here that has been as illogical, intractable, and incapable as Dave?

I really think Dave sets a unique standard that should be documented.

I think BWE spent some time simply listing all the irrational and contradictory arguments presented by AFDave in one of these threads, and that alone took up 4 pages.  there has to be some way to synthesize all of Dave into a series of relativeley few posts, and then use that as a measure of "creationicity" to see how other creobots measure up.

It really is quite remarkable.  

I've gone way beyond Dave making me sick, to Dave making me fascinated to see just how many topics he will attempt to filter through his irrational mindset before he finally gets bored.

will he get bored, even?

Quote
Wow.  Cornell is really falling fast!  First an ID course this summer.  Now this!  Evos had better get busy!


ROFLMAO.  what's really funny, Dave, is that you think this course is in support of ID.

go ask Alan MacNeill (the instructor), if he thinks his course is trying to promote ID.

like i said, you just are mentally incapable of processing information from outside of the mindsets you've created for yourself.

You're not well.  I'm sorry your parents or peers did this to you, but I'd recommend at least visiting a mental health care professional before you really decide you're "god's gift" to all the kiddies out there.

Date: 2006/06/04 19:59:58, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Gulag Archidemocratcigo

lol.  I just added that one to my list of interesting terms I've picked up here on ATBC.

I knew this thread would be good for something!

Date: 2006/06/05 08:38:36, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
...Seriously, sceptic, are you past eighth grade yet?


hmm, I'm thinking the opposite direction.

past 60.

only skeptic knows for sure...

Date: 2006/06/05 08:42:02, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
My guess is that intelligent design is the product of engineers trying to reconcile their faith with their knowledge.


ID is the result of cognitive dissonance.

now where have I heard that before...

;)

Date: 2006/06/05 08:48:44, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
This movie review may seem off topic, but it raises important questions about the abuse of science in our culture.


what I am truly getting sick of is the exact reverse of this:

the abuse of science by our culture.

which actually is a far more important issue in the long term.

Date: 2006/06/05 09:13:57, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Oh no.  I didn't say he is trying to promote ID.  But nevertheless he IS promoting ID.  Ain't it great!


would it be redundant at this point to say:

Only in your mind, Dave.

I could pick any of a million topics to show the logical fallacy in your statement, but since it's been raised;

Your statement is equivalent to someone saying that a professor who asks his students to research the history of research on AIDS is "promoting" AIDS.

IOW, you apparently are of the belief that "there is no such thing as bad publicity".  Since in the end, anyone taking MacNeill's course would come away with a VERY clear picture of exactly how bad ID has really performed from a real world standpoint.

However, it doesn't surprise me you think bad PR is "good" PR.

one more reason you shouldn't teach kids.

Quote
 I have noticed that you don't have much sciency stuff to say.  What is your occupation?


we're dozens of pages and hundreds of posts into your dementia.

at what point did you think ANYBODY here was really thinking they could educate you, or that you even came here to understand anything?

but I am curious, what effect would you knowing that I'm the emporer of outer Mongolia have on your ability to reason?

I suspect it would have something to do with an irrational belief in authority, rather than substance, as you exhibit continually.

It goes right along with the malady you are suffering from, as it allows you to present a "non-defense".  In other words, it allows you to deflect contradictory evidence onto someone else's arguments than your own.

don't agree with evidence OA presents on radiometric dating?  No reason to have a position based on evidence yourself, you can just deflect his arguments onto the RATE guys.

Works great, eh?

It's not an argument that will stand in reality, tho.

again, one more reason you shouldn't teach kids.  All they will have to rely on is the argument from authority that you give them.

what happens when they find out that the "authority" you refer them to really isn't?

How will YOU be able to help them then?

you won't.  which means that they will have to try and resolve the issues all on their own, which in your case didn't end up too well.

Could you even answer their basic questions wrt to physics relating to your proffered specialty of electrical engineering?

you seem to be lacking even basic knowledge of your own field.

did you reject it entirely?

did you reject everything you learned after your parents taught you about god?

did you go through a period of rejecting your parent's teachings, only to be "born again"?

now if you could only figure out why...

Date: 2006/06/05 09:41:03, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
'Your dad's jungle natives'? So, as the man who introduced Fundamentalist Protestantism to them, they 'belonged' to your dad? ?



that statement speaks volumes, eh?

We're all children to Dave.  He's trying to practice the indoctrination methods he plans to use for the kids he wants to "teach".

Just be glad he doesn't live in your neighborhood.

Quote
I thought you knew the Bible DaveTard? What does chapter 11 of Genesis say?


I totally forgot that Dave had clearly shown his ignorance of the very "source material" he says he relies on.

However, it really doesn't surprise me.  He's been consistently ignorant about EVERY topic he's ever raised here.

again, quite remarkable, really; not only does he filter "controversial" topics like ToE through his dementia, but ANY subject apparently goes down that black hole.

I predict that no matter how long he stays here, he NEVER will be able to make any argument without falling back to relying on false authority, and then jumping to another subject.

He is a transitional creature, ever deflecting any attempts to crack those defenses he's so carefully built up around himself.  When you get close to pinnning him on one issue, he'll just squirt like a watermelon seed onto the next.

Date: 2006/06/05 09:52:22, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Part of the problem, I now see, is that many educated liberals don't know about Foucault's true beliefs.


ever thought maybe it's more likely they don't care because Focault is irrelevant to the issues at hand?

oh wait.. not to you though.

just you...

go back and keep working on those models if you want some attention.

you're attempts at "the history of liberal philosophy" are just pathetic.

Date: 2006/06/05 10:07:23, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Among the liberal atheists I know, I'd say the most influential people have been Einstein, Feynman, Dan Dennet, Kurt Vonnegut, Voltaire.


hmm, I've actually considered that I have been more influenced by the likes of Robertson, Fallwell, and IDiots like Behe and Dembski.

...as a very heavy negative influence wrt to religion.

and Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, and the rest of the "neocon" blackguards as great negative influences of the "conservative" bent.  Though I doubt they even remember what a true conservative really is.

Yeah, let's not forget the value these folks have had as "influential" thinkers as well.

;)

Date: 2006/06/05 10:28:35, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
So, where'd all the water go, Dave?


heh.  I think I can predict where Dave will go for the answer to your question.

I do recall having heard what the idea for that was on one or other of the god-bothering bible-thumper sites years back.

I'm sure Dave can google it on his own.

I won't spoil the fun for anybody who hasn't seen it yet.

Date: 2006/06/05 10:45:20, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Gawp projects his true sexual preference:

Quote
Number Nine wrote:


hmm, i know the reference, but what about looking at the supposed entire phrase that seems to run in gawp's mind:

Number nine was supposedly:  "You turn me on dead man" when played in reverse.

hmm.

Do dead folks really turn you on, gawp?  You do seem preoccupied with the philosophy and sociology of dead men; and one of your favorite threads to post on here is the one dealing with homosexuality...

does make me wonder...

Date: 2006/06/05 10:58:08, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I quite like her implication that 'data and facts' are the antithesis of 'wisdom and truth'.


uh oh, I feel a Homer Simpson moment coming on...

Date: 2006/06/05 11:41:26, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Yes, AC.

just like that.

;)

*whew*

i feel better now.

In case someone needs source material for future reference, here is Homer's wisdom:

http://www.angelfire.com/home/pearly/homer/homer-quotes1.html

"God bless those pagans."

"I'm having the best day of my life, and I owe it all to not going to Church!"

Date: 2006/06/05 12:01:45, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
OK, I'm going to avoid trashing AFDave's thread,


ROFLMAO.

riggghhhhhtttt.

Quote
Being a horse's a$$ is part of what makes us human, after all.


then you must be super-human!

Date: 2006/06/05 12:28:11, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I think "Life of Brian" was more anti-terrorist than anti-religion. Was bloody funny though.


...or anti cult.

Date: 2006/06/05 14:39:47, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Those evil gays, with their firm thighs, and their big arms which make you feel so secure...


LOL.

ohhh youuuu!

ya big silly.

Date: 2006/06/05 14:46:47, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
AFDave is a Young Earth Creationist who believes the earth is no more than 5,000-6,000 years old, and who believes in the literal truth of Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel


...but can't remember which supposedly happened when.

phht.

Dave is learning from gawp's example.  want more attention?  invade somebody else's thread and spew your idiocy there as well.

Gees, Dave, don't you think you get enough undeserved attention as it is?

I'ts looking like you are winning the contest poll of "dumbest poster on ATBC".  Isn't that enough for you?

didn't you get enough love as a child?

Date: 2006/06/05 14:57:37, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
(Whoops, I hope that doesn't qualify as a violation of Godwin...)


actually, I claim it does.  

shut it down!

However, I'm personally biased cause this thread has gotten so ridiculous.

why doesn't Dave spend any time on his own blog?

Date: 2006/06/05 15:03:39, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I have to admit, from a purely satirical viewpoint, your model is much improved today.

almost Dembskiish in its, er, complexity...

Date: 2006/06/05 15:06:59, Link
Author: Ichthyic
nice catch, Steve.

Your workaround does the trick every time I've run across the issue so far.

Date: 2006/06/05 15:45:43, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I understand the sentiment, but so far it does seem we have a clear winner..

Date: 2006/06/05 15:59:24, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Steve:

oooohhhhh!

aaaahhhhh!

Your model has more mathiness to it, but ya needs some perty piktures too.

I love fireworks....

Date: 2006/06/05 17:52:16, Link
Author: Ichthyic
hmm.

I don't really have a good answer for that.

think i should?

Date: 2006/06/05 18:03:13, Link
Author: Ichthyic
yes! dem's sum right perty pikturz.

now all you have to do is add some trumped-up nonsensical sound bites that superficially appear relevant to the topic at hand, and you can call it a hypothesis!

Once you've done that, we can compare it to gawp's, and we can make a new poll to see which is better at supporting geocentrism.

oh wait, I think you have to somehow overturn GR theory along the way.

Or is that already in your equations?

Just say yes or no; no need to be specific.  In fact, specificity would be discouraged in a "relativistic" model, eh?

go bold!  Big, sloppy brushstrokes are needed here to create a convincing model, I think.

Date: 2006/06/05 18:11:52, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I worked 3 years at the NMNH in the Vertebrate Palaeontolgy Lab and Applied Morphmetrics Lab.


hey now, that sounds pretty interesting.

any good stories?

I'd much rather hear about morphometrics arguments from the NMNH lab than watch information continue to be sucked into the black hole that is AFDave.

what was the current ongoing controversy in the dept. when you were there?

don't tell me "none".  I've never seen a paleo lab that lacked some juicy arguments behind the scenes.

GW as dilettante...

yes, for some reason, that works quite well in my mind.

maybe it's because before he was "born again", he was in fact, very much a dilettante.  I don't see much of a change in attitude, regardless of the verbiage Karl Rove put in his mouth.

Date: 2006/06/05 18:22:11, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I am taking the time to go back and look over all DaveTard2's claims and make a synopsis


that is bound to be useful at some point.

thanks.

I think i wouldn't be able to eat for several days if I attempted it myself.

You're a braver man than I, Gunga Din.

Date: 2006/06/05 18:28:25, Link
Author: Ichthyic
yeah, i gotta agree that the results of a quick-poll won't weigh more heavily than 40 pages of evidentiary argument...

oh wait.  this is AFDave we're talking about.

a poll might in fact, be just the thing that appeals to the way his mind works.

maybe we should take a poll on whether folks here think AFDave will pay this poll any heed?

Date: 2006/06/05 20:13:18, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I was often asked to work on the 3-D digitizer in the Morphometrics Lab.


*sigh* i'll bet it was lightyears ahead of the digitizer we had in the lab at Berkeley.  I bet it was a fun thing to play with?

no stories?  no problem, it was worth a shot.  I spent a couple of weeks as a visitor to the museum some years back (was working with an forum on oceanic ecology and funding intitiatives).  I could have spent months there.

If there is anybody here who has never been to the Smithsonian before, it's worth the trip.  Plan on spending at least a week exploring it.

Date: 2006/06/05 20:23:32, Link
Author: Ichthyic
yeah, but I'm sure the rest of the IDiot community would simply bash any resulting offspring with a rock.

It's happened before, and here's the tale, as told by Sean Cullen:

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~cgullans/chimpwoman.html

here's the tune in case you'd like to sing along:

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~cgullans/ChimpWoman.mp3

Date: 2006/06/05 20:31:18, Link
Author: Ichthyic
awww, pim, you're losing your sense of humor.

Date: 2006/06/05 20:58:13, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Is that juicy enough?


oh yeah, how did you ever make it past that?

I would have quit on the spot!

to think, an institution like the NMNH settling for the "cheap" solution.

*shudder*

;)

Date: 2006/06/06 09:47:00, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Rusty!

long time no see.

where ya been?

(the artist formerly known as Sir_Toejam)

Date: 2006/06/06 09:51:09, Link
Author: Ichthyic
hey, one fish's reprehensible is another fish's bliss.

who are we to judge?

:D

Date: 2006/06/06 09:56:41, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I have to admit, AFDave outlasted me. It's just boring now. Maybe I'm getting soft? Who knows. Skeptic was entertaining but I just ran out of things to say.  


nawww, you're just a little burned out on ol AFD.  go do something productive for a week or so, and when you come back, you'll again feel like pounding his head into soft mush with rapier wit again.

Date: 2006/06/06 10:01:47, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Sure, they are all challenged by fact, logic, and manners, but is one more stimulating of interesting side-tracks than others?


no, none of them are more stimulating of side-tracks, per sae, but it's the sheer volume of posts spit out that inevitably lead to at least one or two interesting tangents.

In that sense, over the long term, I gotta hand this one to gawp, as he's been productive in that area not only here, but on PT as well.

However, if AFD hangs around a bit longer, he might be able to overtake gawp with sheer volume.

Date: 2006/06/06 10:15:32, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
There is an element (AFAIK) that believes what this person said: that god will protect us or the rapture will come first anyway.


consider your contention proven, no need to add the AFAIK to it anymore.

I've met several people over the last 20 years or so who think exactly like this.

it's both fascinating and disgusting to hear how they view their responsibilities.

I sense that it has more to do with depression and a sense of futility in their lives, than anything any pastor told told them, or they read in a book.

When they get together in a group, they simply reinforce their own destructive projections, and claim it has something to do with religion.

Date: 2006/06/06 10:46:33, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Ok, I think it's time we hashed this out.

for as long as he has been hanging about here, GoP has posted stuff that indicates he has some level of intelligence, but then immediately thereafter posts stuff that is just so far off the wall as to make one question his sanity.

so, let this thread be the great debate over whether Occam's suggestion that he's just having fun getting us to think he actually believes things like geocentrism is correct, vs. whether he really is just another creobot with occassional flashes of creativity.

Me, I gotta wonder about someone, who, if he's just trolling for fun, would spend so much time posting such consistent drivel.

I lean towards him being an IDiot, who tries to mask it with occassional attempts at trollish behavior.

but I'll reserve my vote until i hear both sides of the argument.

probably best to provide direct evidence one way or another by reference to his posts.

have fun!

Date: 2006/06/06 10:53:19, Link
Author: Ichthyic
and yet, take a look at his responses on several threads, like the gay marriage thread (yeah I know that's not the title of it, but gees, that's the content), or his frequent expositions on the evilness of liberalism.

How could somebody have "fun" with that for as long as he has, unless he at least believes part of what he's saying?

what about the crap he always pulls on PT any time a new fossil discovery is discussed, or a bit of morphometrics or cladistics?

Date: 2006/06/06 10:56:29, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I voted troll. GOP seems too inteligent to believe the nonsense he posts. Also, he does not spend that long posting here, check the posting dates/times. Seems to specialise in "drive-bys".


it's not the time/day he spends here, it's the duration in months he's spent here.

Gawp's been posting to ATBC and PT for a long time now.

Date: 2006/06/06 13:47:42, Link
Author: Ichthyic
OK, maybe it would be easier to focus on just one thread.

How about his most recent "model".

Just for fun, or is he really trying to prove a point?

Satire or Satyr?

Date: 2006/06/06 13:53:33, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Did all your heterosexual marriages implode as a result?


actually, why assume that civil unions aren't heterosexual to begin with?

In a country where a civil union might (?) carry the same legal weight as a "marriage", i could easily imagine hetero couples deciding it would be a better choice for them.

Date: 2006/06/06 14:04:48, Link
Author: Ichthyic
how would those here read this post of gawp's:

Quote
Quote

Are you sure you'll have time to work on your solutionopinion piece whilst preparing your paper and working on your theory of geocentrism.


Your concern is touching..... but relax, Foxy. I may not be good at much, but I can multitask like crazy.


 
Quote
 
Quote
 
Come on, admit it. You are parodying. No-one can be (apparently) this lucid and yet so completely irrational.


Oh, how the imams must be laughing at your clueless ass. How are my opinions irrational? Remember, this is an American board, so you can't get Big Bro to shut me up - you'll have to support your diatribes with logic n' evidence. Good luck, Monsieur - it's all you can rely on, apparently.


I think this kind of post, so frequent from the mind of gawp, illustrates my confusion on the issue, and why i posted the poll.

what part of the above is he serious about?  what part of it is simply bait?

If it's all just trolling, don't you think he would have gotten bored after so many months?

Date: 2006/06/06 14:33:38, Link
Author: Ichthyic
you know, it would have been a hoot if someone had contacted us via PM ahead of posting the poll, and we ALL voted "fundy xian".

I wonder what AFD would have made of that?

Date: 2006/06/06 14:49:31, Link
Author: Ichthyic
t-diddy-

look at the poll results.

now look at the question you posed.

look at the poll results again.

get it yet?

Date: 2006/06/06 14:55:03, Link
Author: Ichthyic
doesn't bother me a bit.

it keeps him mostly out of everybody else's hair, and if he wants to explore his sexuality, more power to him I say.

Date: 2006/06/06 14:58:45, Link
Author: Ichthyic
*sigh* now if only you could spin your feux models as fast as you spin your projections, you could be far more productive.

Hey, you promised that if there was a vote on a preference for your "models" that you'd work on whatever was voted for.

giving up already?

that's not like you.

Date: 2006/06/06 15:15:01, Link
Author: Ichthyic
21 votes so far, not including yours i guess.

seems pretty clear to everybody else.

wonder why that is...

oh that's right, we're all part of the liberal consipiracy against rationality, right?

let me ask you this:

If you were a senator and had to vote on the constitutional ammendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman, how could you vote?

heck, they haven't even defined what marriage is yet?  have they?

frickin' idiot.

Date: 2006/06/06 15:17:24, Link
Author: Ichthyic
more like in more denial than ever...

Date: 2006/06/06 15:34:25, Link
Author: Ichthyic
didn't you get the memo, Clamboy?

we stopped doing all that stuff last month.

Date: 2006/06/06 16:07:23, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I like them all, just in different circumstances.

gin and tonic after a long day;

tequila when I'm really looking to get blotto at a fun bar.

bourbon on a cold night.

rum on a date.

ice cold (as in straight from the freezer) absolut vodka when hanging out with a few friends at home.

no way could i vote on one in particular.

Date: 2006/06/06 16:19:35, Link
Author: Ichthyic
we need to have another secret meeting to get all this straight.

I thought we stopped playing johnny ebola seed when we stopped burning churches last month?

I just can't keep up with all of our evil schemes any more.

Can i excercise my golden parachute yet?  I hear we have a great severance package.

Date: 2006/06/06 16:23:18, Link
Author: Ichthyic
some sushi to go with that sake?

hmm, do they use sake as the blood of christ in catholic masses in Japan?

Date: 2006/06/06 16:29:24, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
LOL cute idea, ickthyhk uh however you spell that.


hey here's an easy way to remember:

just think Ichthyologist

and

evolutionistic

weren't you the one who kept complaining about my old name?

boy, ya just can't make some folks happy

;)

Date: 2006/06/06 16:34:07, Link
Author: Ichthyic
*whew* I thought i was the only one.

You're a brave man, AC.

Date: 2006/06/06 17:34:05, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Some are firm and probably correct within the context of human experience but all are based upon human reasoning and sensory perception and therefore limited.  So I have to say that you guys have more FAITH than I. LOL


no evidentiary support to anything Theobald had to say, huh?

somehow, I think a few might contend with that notion.

*shrug*

Quote
What can I say I'm skeptical.  I was the guy who spent many a late night in college in a chemically-induced haze discussing the existence of existence.  There's always another side to the coin and it is only hubris that forces us to deny that.


no, that's not skepticism, that's flashbacks.

but it does tend to suggest some things.

Quote
First prediction soon to come...


yeah, i have a prediction too, but I don't think you want to hear it, obvious as it is.

Date: 2006/06/06 17:47:03, Link
Author: Ichthyic
uh oh...

*gulp* you don't think ol Springerbot banned him "permanently" from existence, do ya?

The Springerbot does get kinda jealous of anybody who gets more attention than he does.

Date: 2006/06/06 17:51:09, Link
Author: Ichthyic
you must have killed all the "right" neurons...

Date: 2006/06/06 17:57:02, Link
Author: Ichthyic
lol.  i had totally forgotten about the Church of the Subgenius.

thanks Crabby!

Date: 2006/06/06 18:03:19, Link
Author: Ichthyic
*whew* we thought maybe Dave Scott Springerbot had eaten ya, Daaavvvveeeyyy.

Quote
Quote
 
IOW, you apparently are of the belief that "there is no such thing as bad publicity". Since in the end, anyone taking MacNeill's course would come away with a VERY clear picture of exactly how bad ID has really performed from a real world standpoint.


No. It's just a simple fact that whenever Denton and Behe's works are given exposure, no matter in what light they are presented, it is a GOOD thing for ID and Creationism.


LOL.  exactly.

god... i just have to keep reading that over and over...

welcome back, and yes, you are deserving of your title as "dumbest".

Date: 2006/06/06 18:11:13, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Icky, would a vote for gay "marriage" include the state-sanctioning of a man who wants to simultaneously marry a three year old intergender child and this plane right here


only if there was some good mathiness involved.

Quote
I have some phone numbers for you, if you think that'd be helpful.


those wouldn't  be 976 numbers by any chance?

T-diddy,

this is a poll, not a place to start your idiotic ranting all over again.  you already have a thread for that.

scram.

Date: 2006/06/06 18:16:04, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote

Thordaddy! We're reaching out to you!


with strong, supple arms...

Date: 2006/06/06 18:23:26, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Incidentally, here's a reference for the poor bastards that Dave's father turned into Southern Baptists:


I wonder if Dave has ever seen "The Mission"?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091530/

Date: 2006/06/06 19:05:27, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
it is up to those who deny that right to justify their actions in terms of the Constitution, especially in light of the 14th amendment.


nawww, they gave up trying to argue the justification in favor of changing the rulebook.

Date: 2006/06/06 19:18:20, Link
Author: Ichthyic
t-diddy -

nobody's biting, slick.  go peddle your wares on your own thread.

...and put on those leather chaps i like so much.

e. Adam and Steve (no relation)
f. The entire cast of Happy Days
g. a lesbian, a John Deere tractor, and the lesbian's tattoo artist
h. All of the above
i. All of the above, plus six dolphins
j. captain kirk with a martian with inscrutable genitals
k. chewbacca and his weight in ewoks
l. thordaddy and his shower head
m. a Winnebago--####, a herd of Winnebago's we're giving 'em away!
n....and a baby's arm holding an apple.

Date: 2006/06/06 19:25:52, Link
Author: Ichthyic
hmm, is there an emoticon for a group hug?

Date: 2006/06/07 14:14:17, Link
Author: Ichthyic
AFD spends money on his delusion:

 
Quote
I ordered both RATE Books so I can have ALL their side of the story.  Do you have these?


nawww, I have enough toilet paper, Dave.

now you can stop crying, Deadman.

;)

oh, and Dave -

do you believe that "there's no such thing as bad publicity"?

Date: 2006/06/07 14:31:29, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
What religious beliefs?


indeed, he mentioned something about a bit too much chemistry experimentation in college.

obviously too many psuedo-religious experiences with hallucinogenic substances has lead to a continual flashback state for him.

On this point, I'll take him at his word.

Date: 2006/06/07 14:35:01, Link
Author: Ichthyic
OK, it seems clear we can't rule out that gawp is an idiot.

An IDiot who trolls, is still an IDiot.

so I have to vote IDiot.

done.

Date: 2006/06/07 15:28:22, Link
Author: Ichthyic
did similar circumstances to those proposed for  H. floresiensis produce "dwarfed" dinos too?

http://www.physorg.com/news68905641.html

Date: 2006/06/07 15:49:20, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
How do I write a poll?


that's a good question, actually.

Is it just me or is the new poll button missing?

Date: 2006/06/07 16:17:56, Link
Author: Ichthyic

Date: 2006/06/07 18:08:20, Link
Author: Ichthyic
well, either way, the poll results are ambiguous enough for him to continue as is.

Date: 2006/06/07 18:13:38, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
D*mbski reminds me of a wind-up toy at this point.


he does seem to have completely immersed himself in the role, at this point.

no way to go back to the "street theatre" stage he was claiming shortly before he tried to mothball UD.

Date: 2006/06/07 19:53:14, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I can't wait to hear his excuse for not using it.


because it's illegal to burn public property?

Date: 2006/06/07 19:59:47, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Traditional marriage is the union between one man and one woman at its most fundamental level.


unless of course you're living in a society where it isn't.

where does the constitution fall on your scale of "tradition"?

you do amaze.

It's like watching an autistic child with a helmet bang his head against a wall.

over and over and over again.

you couldn't get enough attention on your own dam*n thread, so you came here to bang your head on this wall?

again...

look at the poll data, and ask youself:

who in the 9hells do you possibly hope to convince with your lame-ass, completely idiotic, drivel???

go back to your hovel, idiot.

hugs be damned!  you need brain surgery.

Date: 2006/06/07 20:08:02, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Dembski doesn't seem to realize that the 'sick, dirty feeling' has nothing to do with PT and everything to do with himself.


gees, folks, not to sound like a broken record *again*, but this is yet another classic bit of speech that fits the definition of... you guessed it...

projection.

the Kitzmiller trial did seem to send Dembski for a loop.  It was pretty clear based on his "predictions" before the result was announced that he wasn't expecting quite the blow to his ego that it turned out to be.

It's still unclear as to whether the blow was felt more by his religious worldview, or his pocketbook though.

I bet sales of his book went downhill substantially after the verdict.

regardless, ever since then he just hasn't been "on his game", and has posted some really, uh, questionable, tidbits for us to chew on.

Date: 2006/06/07 20:15:18, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Your poll just shows how corrupted science is by liberal ideology.  Are 95% of scientists REALLY political liberals?  


hmm, glancing at the question the poll is asking, and the potential answers....

nope.  don't see anything about liberal ideology there.

or scientists.

seems pretty straigtforward.

It's YOU that's confused about the issue, and projecting your psychology onto it.

it's why we keep asking (only half-jokingly, btw) if you aren't repressing your own sexuality?

being "liberal ideologues" tho, if you came out of the closet we wouldn't think you any less stupid than you are now.

Date: 2006/06/07 20:20:11, Link
Author: Ichthyic
what if his mom was already married to his brother, who also happens to be his father?

would his mom have to divorce his brother/father to marry her son/nephew, before he divorced his sister?

Date: 2006/06/07 20:39:15, Link
Author: Ichthyic
you put out the most idiotic posers anybody's ever seen, and you think WE'RE the one's not taking the issue seriously?

yikes.

Date: 2006/06/07 20:43:08, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Yaay for me!

woot!

*ahem*, er, actually I hadn't even noticed.

(hangs head in shame)

I suppose if I had, I might have made it about something a bit more weighty than a rip on the inbred nature of Thordaddy's family.

meh, maybe not.

:p

Date: 2006/06/08 10:18:23, Link
Author: Ichthyic
lol.  You KNEW that was gonna get booted.

still good advice tho...

;)

Date: 2006/06/08 10:40:14, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?


no, you should use more BBQ sauce.  Then your neighbors will bring beer.

Quote
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?


No need to ask Dr. Laura, a visit to downtown after midnight should reveal some good sources to ask.  Look for guys wearing a lot of jewelry and a fancy hat, maybe driving a purple Lincoln.

Quote
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.


ahhh, but it's the level of the response that acts as a good indicator.  If you ask, and the woman simply states offense, probably not.  If you ask, and she hits you upside your head with a baseball bat, you have your answer.

Quote
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?


naww, if they're working 7 days a week, the work itself will probably do the job for you.

Quote
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?


yes.  have them eat shellfish taken during the months of a red tide.  After they're dead, ask them again.  You can get information on the correct time to harvest for best effect here:

http://seagrant.uaf.edu/features/PSP/psp_page.html

...

Date: 2006/06/08 11:00:34, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
TRANSLATION:  Boy, this AFD guy is tireless ... what am I gonna say now? ... how about an insult ... yes, that's it ... Insult #42 ... the old "up the lithium dose" insult.  That'll work!



First time I can recall anybody saying that here.  do you hear that "insult" a lot Dave?

Methinks thou dost protest too much...

Date: 2006/06/08 11:49:07, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote (stevestory @ June 08 2006,16:38)
   
Quote

ID is alive and well and coming soon to a high school near you! You can take that to the bank.


And at the bank, we'll put it in our safe deposit box, right next to that bottle of single-malt scotch


(apologies to Steve)
for those not really interested in wading through Dembski's drivel, here's the relevant passage:

   
Quote
They are herewith throwing down the gauntlet. I'll wager a bottle of single-malt scotch, should it ever go to trial whether ID may legitimately be taught in public school science curricula, that ID will pass all constitutional hurdles. To see why, check out the fine Utah Law Review article by David DeWolf et al. at http://www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/utah.pdf.



I wonder who collected that bottle of scotch from WD40?

Date: 2006/06/08 11:56:21, Link
Author: Ichthyic
interesting.  Hadn't seen that paper before.

thanks for the link.

Date: 2006/06/08 12:23:37, Link
Author: Ichthyic
for those wondering about potential motivations for ID suppporters, some time ago, I found this little essay by Ron Bailey.  It's well worth considering.  I don't necessarily agree that one of the primary underlying factors is the old Straussian idea of the need for religion as a stabilizing influence, but he does raise some interesting points about the politics and history involved in this issue.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/784133/posts

Date: 2006/06/08 12:31:21, Link
Author: Ichthyic
OH! OH! is this one of them Mad Libber thingies?

ummm.

penis!

tee hee!

Date: 2006/06/08 12:57:24, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Arden, I think you missed what the author was pointing at.

In fact, he wasn't dissing darwinism at all, he was trying explain where the position of Kristol et. al. comes from, and what THEY are saying, and why.

His point isn't to defend or deny darwinism, but to point out relevant bits that relate to the historical context of the neocon position and adoption (as of 1997) of the concept of intellgent design, and why there was a  vehement argument against "darwinism". However, if you read far enough, Bailey does briefly expound on the mountains of evidence in favor of the ToE, including the fossil record, genetics, and molecular biology.

in that sense, I found it a cogent treatise on the mind of a neocon, and while I didn't agree with several of his conclusions, the material presented in the essay is quite informative; not from a scientific perspective (it was never intended to be presented as such), but from a socio-political one.

hence why i recommended it.  there are LOTS of folks who haven't a clue about the history of the politics involved, or even what neocons have to do with any of this.

The article provides a nice summary perspective on that issue, which is quite relevant IMO.

Date: 2006/06/08 13:09:39, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
The instrinsic value is in part why you are here even if you deny that value.


actually if we use yourself on point, I'd say you make a great case as to why we should make same-sex marriages the norm.

Date: 2006/06/08 13:29:19, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Do you not see this?


LOL.  wow.  haven't you figured out that NOBODY sees this but you?

aren't you troubled by that at all?

Date: 2006/06/08 13:42:41, Link
Author: Ichthyic
can't you see you are delusional?

where did you get the idea that everybody who participated in this poll is a scientist?

or a liberal, for that matter?

you've totally lost your mind.

get help.

Date: 2006/06/08 16:01:31, Link
Author: Ichthyic
don't forget plants.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan99.html

Date: 2006/06/08 16:18:53, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Jupiter-

I posted a bit about Strauss here quite a while back; here's the link:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=1122

there's a couple of perspectives on Strauss' history and beliefs there.

Quote
When did the neo-cons become Liberals?


Spike -

did you ever consider the possibility that the elitism profered as characteristic of liberals was actually a projection of the neocons themselves?

"liberal" wasn't a dirty word until the neocons made it one.  don't confuse a neocon with a true conservative.  Entirely different animal.

Date: 2006/06/08 16:28:38, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I agree with OA.

what is there left to say that hasn't already been said?

T-diddy is delusional.

best to ignore him altogether at least until he gets off this particular subject, which seems to have wound him up so tight he broke the spring.

Date: 2006/06/08 17:10:45, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
If something is true, conservatives and liberals ought to be able to make a better case for it than, “We want to protect you from yourselves.”



I might use the term pragmatic, practical, or efficient, rather than "true", but otherwise I absolutely agree with you.  

truth is not something that is within the purview of a politician, regardless of whether they think so or not.

Heck, I think most politicians would be hard pressed to present a case of "correctness", let alone "truth".

I'm usually more than satisfied if they can simply present a case that balances needs, using actual evidence, which is rare enough these days.

oh, i suppose i should add "non-falsified" evidence too.

:)


Edit:

pet peeve -

I see this quite frequently, both here and on PT, and lots of other places, but:

Quote
I make my own assessment of liberals based on the policies they promote and their methodologies for implementing those policies


"methodology" is the study of method, like "ichthyology" is the study of fish.

the correct term to use here is simply "methods".

Date: 2006/06/08 18:06:37, Link
Author: Ichthyic
IIRC, there was also a study of this type on leg-length and hopping speed of a species of frog in OZ, that seems to be increasing its distribution more rapidly as temperatures get warmer.

Do recall, tho, that the standard creobot response would be that this is "microevolution"....

It's still just a frog.

:p

Date: 2006/06/08 19:12:25, Link
Author: Ichthyic
before this gets going any farther:

I've had my fill of the liberal vs. neocon flame wars.

that said...

play through.

Date: 2006/06/08 19:17:36, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Is there really any reason for you to enter this discussion?


what discussion?

all i see is you making an idiot out of yourself, and everybody else essentially egging you on, or just plain poking you with a stick.

it's another delusion on your part to think what you continue here is a "discussion".

It far more resembles the argument sketch from Python.

Date: 2006/06/08 19:31:49, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Can you tell us what the result of your poll is supposed to tell us?


No.

I can't tell you what it tells "us", because the answer is already obvious to "us", it's just not to you.

nothing i say would qualify as an answer that would satisfy you.

you've made that abundantly clear.

over 50+ pages of blithering idiocy and delusions.

it really doesn't matter.

I have no questions for you.  I don't care what you think, as you aren't rational.

get help.

Date: 2006/06/08 19:45:33, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I don't usually find myself disagreeing with you, but in this case I must.  "Methodology" is legitimately used to refer to a set of practices or procedures, both in my field of engineering and in the language at large (see  here and here).  Think of it as analogous to the word "ideology".


actually, I both agree and disagree.  The usage you cite in the dictionary reference refers to a general "set" of inclusive methods for entire disciplines, not a specific method(s) used in a study, for example.  To get more specific, you don't read a published scientific article with a "methodology" section in it, instead there is a "methods" section.  
That's why the distinction is useful, not only to seperate what I just described above, but also to identify the specific field that involves itself with the study of methods (which, actually, in this case would more commonly be refered to as "methodology" in the general sense in which you refer to it, and as the first definition in your dictionary reference).  However, it would be odd to say that the field of methodology involves the study of methodologies.

I'm not sure if that's at all clear?  I can try again if not.

Date: 2006/06/08 19:51:12, Link
Author: Ichthyic
nope. you're simply a waste of time.  completely and utterly.

why do you think i never bothered with you in your own "gay" thread?

you've been a waste of time for months now.

the only reason i bothered to respond at all was just out of sheer boredom, and for fun.

I also kinda had a very small hope you might actually consider getting treatment, but that was superfluous.

and with that, I no longer intend to respond to your nonsense until you say something worth responding to with more than ridicule, AND on a completely different subject than your apparent repressed sexuality.

Date: 2006/06/08 19:56:54, Link
Author: Ichthyic
ok, one, last note:

Quote
Then take yourself out of the thread you created


i didn't create this thread.

just more evidence of your delusion.

Date: 2006/06/09 08:19:45, Link
Author: Ichthyic
LOL.

I think we can conclude it's what he really wanted.

Now he can claim martyrdom, and start his own blog right next to larry my-name-is-legion farfromsane.

personally...

woot!  40's for everybody!

Date: 2006/06/09 08:49:11, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html


now, why doesn't it surprise me that this has already been addressed in the talkorigins archives?

Date: 2006/06/09 08:58:11, Link
Author: Ichthyic
ahhh, the UCSB student from Isla Vista pounding back a 40 brings back memories....

Date: 2006/06/09 09:43:14, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
What role should governments play in science?


for the sake of argument, I'm going to assume you meant government at the federal/state level?

the same role they should play for any other realm of public endeavor.

-help with organization if needed
-publicize the need for good science as part of our economy, if nothing else (and there's a lot of "else").
-use the above to justify why the government spends tax dollars on research and science education.

really, I can't see burdening the government with much else, because whenever they try to take on additional roles, they fubar it.  Obviously, a lot of this has to do with abusing science for political gain, so naturally limiting the role government gets to play is beneficial.

personally, If my goal was to win grass roots support and my base thought an aspect of science was "evil", it would be a conflict of interest for me to get involved.  However, I naturally would have to choose the views of the majority of my base if I want to get elected.

I don't blame politicians for this attitude from a pure political perspective, and perhaps it's unrealistic to ask them to be more responsible (I'd like to think it's not, and that playing a leadership role will also galvanize a decent sized base).  Hence, as things stand, I would think to limit the role government gets to play in science as much as possible.

Quote
Should governments sponsor scientific research?


yes.  there is no evidence that public support is consistent enough to maintain funding for research.  Most nonprofits that do research rely on grants from governement and other ngo's to function, and public funding is almost always a secondary source of funding.

Moreover, the only way a government need to justify spending is to show how scientific endeavor leads to an improved economy.  Not hard.

Quote
Should governments control the products of scientific research?


the end products?  like resulting consumer goods?  Or do you mean the actual data?

I've seen government attempt to control (and modify) both.

I'd say the government could claim a legitimate interest in controlling the production of products and consumer goods from scientific research, but overeaches tremendously when they attempt to control and modify the data and results of specific research.

Quote
Is human health and nutrition a special case?


on the surface, in principle I would say no.  I'm sure with more thought, I could think of some counter examples, tho.

Could you perhaps be more specific here?

Date: 2006/06/09 09:46:06, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
and where Sir_Toejam can join us to diss my "extreme libertarianism."


actually, since Wes made that thread, it would be a good place to discuss that very thing.

Date: 2006/06/09 11:36:37, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
polyamorous puppy-pile


I'm adding that one to my list.

:)

Date: 2006/06/09 12:10:12, Link
Author: Ichthyic
but... ID itself was just a cheap tuxedo.

don't they get hot wearing all those layers of cheap clothes?

Date: 2006/06/09 13:11:38, Link
Author: Ichthyic
aww, I just found this bit of scientific advice for Thorbuddy I wanted to impart before he left.

oh well, I guess he can still see the link...

http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/stupid.wav

Should I post this for AFD too?

Date: 2006/06/09 13:19:54, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Bill should adopt the strategy of another Bill we all know and love when trying to play the denial game:

http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/BillDeniesIt.wav

Date: 2006/06/09 13:29:28, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I thought the NCSE and it's supporters here at ATBC had an interest in "stopping bad science."


you don't even meet the criteria as a defender of bad science, AFD, you're just... bad.

I don't think even the luddites at UD would have you.

I think you should take the advice i left for Thordaddy over in one of the poll threads.

Date: 2006/06/09 16:20:09, Link
Author: Ichthyic
hmmm, IIRC when i was taking physics in college, we were spending time trying to calculate the rate N2O diffuses from rubber balloons...

Date: 2006/06/09 17:22:28, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Deadman is comparing zircons to tennis balls now ... mmm ... yes, quite similar in their ability to hold their Helium no doubt ... :-)


actually, I'd rate your head as a far better container to measure the ability to hold helium.

It too seems to be filled with helium, and has a very slow diffusion rate.

...and I'd love to run the same sort of tests on it, like extended exposure to vaccum, extremes of temperature, etc.

Date: 2006/06/09 18:01:58, Link
Author: Ichthyic
meh, screw this noise, the season finale of Dr. Who is on!

Date: 2006/06/09 22:34:48, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Oh, Crabby,

where would our good buddy AFDumbass fit into the Church of the Subgenius?

Is it possilbe he might need be sent directly to *gasp* Bob?

Date: 2006/06/10 08:22:38, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Dave mocks himself, albeit unintentionally.

why am i not surprised.

Date: 2006/06/10 08:33:08, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
You DO think I'm gullible, don't you!


You mean you're just figuring that out now?

not only gullible, but very, very, ssssllllllloooowwwww.....

Date: 2006/06/10 09:12:45, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Please send me your contributions so we can buy DDTTD a pipe and set him on the path that leads to ACTION -- THRILLS -- SUCCESS IN SEX AND BUSINESS GUARANTEED!


all my capital has already been invested in maximizing my potential for slack, as Bob intended.

Of course, all my dreams have come true.

I'm truly living la vida loca!

Date: 2006/06/10 09:16:18, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
My roommate threw a boot through the picture tube.


funny, that's pretty much how i feel when i read AFDave's idiocy.

Date: 2006/06/10 11:03:41, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Paley-

make sure you have cookies enabled in your browser;

I often disable them when surfing the net, and forget to re-enable them for sites that I frequent.

If still no go, try deleting the cookie for this site, logging out and logging in again and see if that works.

Date: 2006/06/10 11:18:02, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
A) Dave is lying.  He has been shown the information; he is aware that he is wrong; but he's just too egotistical to admit it in public (given the nervous, tentative, blustery nature of his most recent spew, I'd say that's what's going on).

or

B) Dave is literally too stupid to understand that he's wrong.  I feel bad about this one because it's not nice to kick morons; it's not nice to abuse morons; and this would certainly imply that Dave is a moron.

or

C) Dave is insane (like Larry Fafarman).  He's blathering without any clue that we're responding.


actually, I believe Steve and I already investigated those claims a couple of weeks ago.  (You'll have to pan back a few hundred posts *sigh*).  I think considerably more evidence existed then that AFD is suffering a mental handicap as a result of severe cognitive dissonance.  

since then, the evidence simply is mounting in favor of that hypothesis.

but, as i said then...

how do you argue with a schizophrenic?

if you try to tell a schizophrenic that the blue bugs he sees crawling up the walls behind you aren't real, they'll tell you that YOU'RE the one who is nuts.

sound familiar?

There is no way in an online forum anybody here will actually be able to convince AFD he is wrong, or that he needs treatment.

You can either laugh or cry, or maybe throw your boot through the screen ;) , but them's about your only options.

His peers and family are just as unlikely to be of assistance in alleviating Dave of his burdens.

I see little hope for him, really.

Date: 2006/06/10 11:44:34, Link
Author: Ichthyic
well, I see no problems with the code or the ability to edit posts on this end.

It suggests something has changed on your end.

did you recently upgrade or change your browser?

try a different browser and see what happens.

Quote
Their "Internet Options" probably deletes the cookies. Funny thing - I seem to remember editing posts before at this location....


oops, missed that bit.

It would make sense that they would disable cookies entirely; maybe they finally reconfigured the browser to do so?

ask the propietor if you can enable cookies temporarily?

Date: 2006/06/10 12:21:28, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I am anoyed that it has gone on so long without somebody calling it.


an explanation was given as to why that was.

still, there is a difference between calling somebody a child abuser, and claiming their indoctrination methods might imply a form of child abuse.

If you want to get involved in deciding which is which in AFD's case, you might want to go way back to his discussion about the places he's proud to enroll his kids for indoctrination, and the way he plans to utilize his "arguments" to teach kids himself.

If you want to jump into more detailed discussion, you might want to check out the thread i started a few weeks back on the subject.  it's gone a bit dim lately, as I think a lot of participants are trying to check out some of the literature referenced, and think it through a bit more.

bottom line, don't protest too much; she has a point.

Date: 2006/06/10 13:52:01, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
"the assault rate on on children of parents who subscribe to the christian fundamentalist belief in male dominance, is 136% percent higher than for parents who do not have this belief system."



Did they actually conclude the specific belief structures are causative, as well?

Or was it just a correlative study?

I'm suspecting that the belief structures themselves have an underlying causation; perhaps even a genetic component to some extent.

There have been a few articles published on the subject in the last couple of years looking at potential underlying causative factors like genetics; but they aren't overwhelmingly convincing either way.  Just suggestive at this point.

Date: 2006/06/10 14:01:21, Link
Author: Ichthyic
naw, they would just use it as "proof" and say..

"we told you so..."

er, if they were hypothetically still in existence.

Date: 2006/06/10 14:32:41, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
John Davison, on the other hand, should just get a lobotomy.


seconded.

but...

I'd much rather have this bottle in front of me.

Date: 2006/06/10 15:37:02, Link
Author: Ichthyic
only slightly OT, thinking about how government actions will affect the future of sites like antievolution.org, did anybody else know about this:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world....416.ece

soon, if this passes, popular sites like this or PT might start having to pay a "surcharge", simply because they're popular.

the implications, of course, are enormous, and go far beyond PT.

it's one of those "write your congressman NOW!" times.

Date: 2006/06/10 15:48:06, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Arden, I take it back, he's not in a very bad area at all, he's near Culver City, south of the 10 frwy. I thought he was closer to Inglewood, but he's  here


no, you don't need to take it back.

relatively "upscale" has little to do with "good".  the headquarters for our internet entertainment business was in Culver City.

yyyyeeeeuuuccckkkk.

I was SO glad our production office was in Santa Cruz.  If I had to live in Culver City for long, I would have gone just as fubar as AFD.

Date: 2006/06/10 15:53:20, Link
Author: Ichthyic
fuzzy... yup.

I often wonder if the old bruhaha over EO Wilson's sociobiology causes researchers in these areas to be overly cautious.

Not that being cautious is a bad thing, but it can be taken to an extreme, and interesting questions are left poorly addressed.

If you or Fractatious run across any other relevant articles, I'd be obliged if you remember to post the links here.

Date: 2006/06/10 16:01:56, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Did Paley fail so badly in modeling a geocentric universe that he suicided his thread?


?

no, it's still there, and he thinks he's about to make a "revelation" of some kind.

Date: 2006/06/10 16:06:08, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Oh brother!! ... and you say I live in a dreamworld?


Hey Daaaavvveeeyyy,

Why don't you tell us what you think of Dembski's plan to convert ID into IE?

let us know if you haven't a clue what I'm talking about.

Date: 2006/06/10 16:30:29, Link
Author: Ichthyic
this from JAD's blog from around the time of the Pianka affair, talking about his "student" Dave Scott Springerbot:

Quote
I am sure Dembski and the rest of the "groupthink" would just love to know what you have to say about me. He hasn't got the guts or the common decency to even mention my name because he is scared fecesless of me and my sources. He should be. He is no better than Esley Welsberry and you are no better than Sir Toejam.


glad to see i left a lasting impression on him...

er, I think.  OTOH, maybe I should remove my address from the phone book.

*psst*, John....

Date: 2006/06/10 17:03:18, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
So you'll have to pardon me if I assume wrongly that you guys are the same way.


wrong assumptions are de rigeur for you.  It wouldn't help to go all the way back to the beginning and show you why you came off as an arrogant idiot right out of the gate, and I doubt anybody here has the stomach to even bother.

Face it, the only reason you get attention here at all is because you're so consistently delusional, nobody can really grasp it.

I myself have never seen a poster exactly like yourself before; you're #### near as whacky as John Davison.

And brother, that's saying a LOT.

Date: 2006/06/10 17:11:05, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I have not a clue.  Enlighten me.


well, technically, the fact that you don't have a clue is nothing new, and we tried to enlighten you for several weeks, and you weren't able to be enlightened.  

You can't cure a man of willfull blindness with evidence.

I suppose another try couldn't hurt tho.  Here is Dembski's latest thoughts on the evolution of ID:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1199

How do you interpret it?

Date: 2006/06/10 17:21:07, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
What was John Davison's story in 25 words or less?


Was a published biology professor at the University of Vermont.

Had a psychological break in the mid 80's.

Was relieved of teaching duties and given "emeritus" status.

released his "prescribed evolution" hypothesis shortly thereafter.

Was quickly voted crankiest evolutionary thinker on the net.

Has been a raving lunatic ever since.

consider it a cautionary tale for what happens when you try to impose your religious belief structures on to real science. (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)

BTW, here is an example of how you are so insulting, apparently without having a clue, which i guess is no surprise, really:

Quote
Trying to pass yourself off as a fighter pilot just to stroke your own ego is an insult to the real men who were good enough to earn a seat in a fighter aircraft.


see?

Date: 2006/06/10 17:30:55, Link
Author: Ichthyic
give us a break, just like everything else, you haven't a clue what Dembski is saying here, or whether it's correct or accurate (neither does Gil, btw).

did you want to throw Dembski's misadventures into information theory on top of the pile you've made already?

don't you have enough on your plate already?

btw:

Quote
but my delusion is that I imagine that no one could possibly reject Intelligent Design if they really understood it.


the word you are reaching for to describe this is "projection".

You're so full of it (and denial), it would be good for you to at least attempt to use the correct wording.

Date: 2006/06/10 17:41:55, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
No.  I cleared my plate this morning.


nope.  not even close.  more delusions on your part.

check again.

oh, and BTW, your response is quite insulting to all the work that has been done to try to "enlighten" you.

perhaps if we keep pointing out how insulting you are, you might start getting a clue?

Date: 2006/06/10 17:55:56, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Dave, admit it:

all you saw was the bolded part:

Quote
The only thing that baffles me is the fact that Darwinists are baffled by the fact that most people don’t buy their blind-watchmaker storytelling.


and you completely ignored the idiocy of the rest of what you quoted, didn't you.  In fact, i doubt you read a single word beyond the bolded part.

That's called "selective filtering", and is also a common symptom of the kind of mental illness you seem to be suffering from.

Date: 2006/06/10 18:01:07, Link
Author: Ichthyic
prediction:

1.  AFD will respond by asking you to point out where he ever lied.

2.  anybody expecting anything different will lose a few more brain cells.

Date: 2006/06/10 18:24:56, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Cue music tape from South Pacific

OT, but I actually hiked to the top of the mountain featured in the film version.

It's on the island of Moorea.

great place if you ever get a chance to visit; interesting dichotomy between the islanders, about half and half original pagan vs. introduced christianity (French).

funny, they NEVER fight about it.  Quite refreshing to see.  You can spend a day with a family living just like they did 200 years ago, then walk (or swim) a couple hundred yards and visit a family that has embraced christianity and sings in the local choir at church.

Date: 2006/06/10 19:00:51, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
The original 1958 classic film was shot on the northern coast of Kauai, near Princeville.


hmm.  I was told while I was there (by reputable sources, mind you), that "Bali High" the mountain featured in the film was actually the mountain I mentioned on Moorea.

further research to check sources...

and i am correct:

from the Moorea information page on the gotahiti.com site:

 
Quote
The south rim of the ancient volcano makes up the mountain range on Moorea.  At 3,959 ft., Tohiea is the highest pike. Others include Moua Puta (the mountain with a hole) at 2,722 ft., Rotui at 2,624 ft., and Moua Roa (Bali Hai from the film South Pacific) at 2,499 ft. Mt. Mouaroa is the mountain that is commonly referred to as the "shark’s tooth." It is frequently depicted on post cards and is the image on one side of the 100 CFP coin.


yes, part of the film was filmed in the hawaian islands, but not all of it, apparently.

EDIT:

more anomalies:  the IMDB does not list Moorea as a film location.

*shrug*

funny enough, I've been to quite a few places in the tropics both in the atlantic and pacific (comes with the territory), but I never have actually visited the hawaian islands.

I've never heard of anybody who visted that had a disagreeable experience.  in fact, several acquaintances have moved to kaui or hawaii over the years.

Date: 2006/06/10 19:23:05, Link
Author: Ichthyic
... and yet i was there in 1989, and was told that the shots for the mountain in the 1958 film came from the mountain in Moorea, so it couldn't have been the 2001 version.

also note the bolded section from the gotahiti site says film, not TV production.

any other ideas?

btw, relying on wiki isn't always the best thing for movie data.  I've found IMDB to be more complete usually, but even here there are discrepancies.

IMDB also lists two other locations that were used for the film:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052225/locations

to add to the fun, evidently Michener actually used what he saw of an island in the Vanuatu chain as the original inspiration for Bali Hai:

http://www.vanuatutourism.com/vanuatu/cms/en/kids/volcanoes/ambae.html

I have to admit though, seeing that IMDB only lists the three locations for the 1958 film, and none of them are moorea, I tend to now agree with you that it was more likely to be a range in Kauii, rather than in Moorea that was featured in the film.

as an best guess, the tahitian tourism board probably is the source of the claim of Moorea being the source of the mountain for the film, and nobody bothered to question whether it was really correct or not.

All the locals seemed pretty sure of it when I was there.  I know I didn't make it up :)

I'd have to see the movie again and see if i can verify by memory as to whether there actually is footage in the film from Moorea or not.

The island has very distinctive features, so it shouldn't be too difficult; I think Turner Classic Movies shows it every couple of months or so.

Date: 2006/06/10 20:00:31, Link
Author: Ichthyic
well, the best way to settle it would be for both of us to sit down and watch it!

then you could tell me which parts came from Kauii, and I could figure out if any came from Moorea.  I could even break out my photos and see if they match up.

I haven't seen the film since before 1980, so needless to say my memory is a bit fuzzy.

A "South Pacific" film party!  break out the mai tais!

Date: 2006/06/10 20:25:30, Link
Author: Ichthyic
CRIPPLE FIGHT!!!

ahhh, so that was you.

I was wondering when i saw that last comment there, why larry would spell his name with so many "fars"

also humorous was JAD's conviction that somehow I am the analogue to DaveTard here on ATBC; I am to Wesley as DT is to Dembski.

I must have REALLY pissed him off with the questions about what happened to him in the 80's.

Heck that was what? a year ago? more?

Date: 2006/06/10 20:30:05, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Elvis IS everywhere...

http://www.uncoveror.com/elvites.htm

Date: 2006/06/10 20:39:43, Link
Author: Ichthyic
pre-flood atmosphere?

I just can't seem to muster the impetous to even make a serious attempt.

more power to ya.

Date: 2006/06/11 09:10:35, Link
Author: Ichthyic
that's a great idea, Jean.

I'm sure the insightful mind of Dave Scot Springerbot will quickly be able to asses the value of AFD's conceptualizations...

Date: 2006/06/11 09:24:19, Link
Author: Ichthyic
yesterday I said this:

 
Quote
prediction:

1.  AFD will respond by asking you to point out where he ever lied.

2.  anybody expecting anything different will lose a few more brain cells.


Today, AFD said this:

Quote
Quote
 
Did I mention – stop lying.  Folks around here can deal with ignorance.  As Will Rogers said: “we’re all ignorant, just on different subjects”.  What we cannot tolerate is lying.  

Show me where I have lied.


conclusion:

Dave is so oblivious and predictable, we should be trying to sell him various bridgeworks for cash.

Date: 2006/06/11 09:31:54, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Gather yer purses on the way out the door, you show-tune singin' homos. Yer banned!- dt


lol.  I think Undeadman is trying to give you a challenge, there, Steve!

Date: 2006/06/11 19:30:51, Link
Author: Ichthyic
oh yes, bob.  even periodic examination reveals that Dave Scott Springerbot is "tired" of that specific question, and has banned folks for asking it previously.

prediction:

if DT notices your post, I'd say you have a 60% chance of being banned outright, and 80% chance he will make a snide comment about your intelligence.

..er, assuming it ever makes it there.

Date: 2006/06/12 08:03:24, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
No.  No way.  We don't agree and that's not what I meant and I won't call it a draw.


IWONTIWONTIWONT!!!!  you can't make me!!  nyah nyah!

I think he's in regression.

go sit in the corner until you get yourself under control, dunce.

Date: 2006/06/12 08:08:23, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
First, believe it or not, I do sincerely want evolution minded scientists and long age geologists to have a fair shake at presenting information.  And I was serious when I said that I would become an evolutionist if presented with enough credible evidence.


rrrriiiigggghhhhttt...

and Hovind was serious about his 250,000 offer.

If you plug your ears, scream "lalallalallala", and close your eyes as tight as you can whenever credible evidence is presented to you, then yeah, i guess you could call yourself just as serious as Hovind alrighty.

You're a sick man, Dave.  Is this method of being "open" to credible evidence the same one you plan to teach your kids?

NEW PREDICTION:

 
Quote
TROLL CONTROL SECTION
I have a couple of observations to make regarding our resident trolls, Rilke and Aftershave.


Quote
Faid- you're becoming a troll ... I wasn't anywhere close to a lie on the 'multiple universe' thing.


EDIT:  oh my, seems this is proceeding faster than I had anticipated, as i catch up with dave's ever faster spinning mind:

Quote
Note to self:  Add Incorygible to the list of trolls with Rilke and Aftershave.  He can't even insult me in a mathematically convincing way.


Eventually, Dave will put everybody who points out how wrong he is all the time into the "troll control section", whereupon there will only be himself left.

Then he will claim that he is the only legitimate poster at ATBC, and everybody else here is just a troll (including Wes).

Then, his projection will be complete.

(cue evil laughter)

Date: 2006/06/12 08:41:41, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Quote

For some reason, you actually think you're making progress in your attempts to overturn a century and a half or more of scientific research. Whom do you suppose you're making that progress with, Dave? Do you think you're persuading anyone here?


Dunno.  My job is to give out the truth, then leave the results to God.


IOW...

"Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out!"

right Dave?

Date: 2006/06/12 09:02:47, Link
Author: Ichthyic
can it be fixed?

not unless we start dealing with the underlying factors seriously.

How is that one becomes a creobot in the first place?

brainwashing? genetics? simple peer pressure?

It's really got far less to do with actual religious beliefs than most seem to think.

We often point out how the vast majority of xians have no problems with science or the ToE.

creobots are a special case, and it's easy to identify and categorize the differences.

they frequently exhibit manifestations of mental disabilites that are very similar from case to case.  Anybody who takes a look at large at how they argue, the things they say, can readily see rampant projection and denial that characterize a severe state of mental confusion, with active defenses on high alert.

Until we deal with the cognitive dissonance this specific belief stucture creates in folks, the problem will only compound itself.

We see it at the highest levels of government, and in federal funded GO's like the FDA.  Take the case of Plan B with the FDA as a great case on point.

Yes, science as a discipline remains fairly isolated, as these individuals simply can't function at the level needed to publish a legitimate piece of scientific research that would in any way increase their level of dissonance.  

However, science as a career has and will be further eroded by this belief structure, especially as it is promoted by high level peers like the President.

Think about how "school vouchers" and the encouragement of funneling money into xian charities, instead of secular NGO's, will only contribute to the problem in the future.

I see the psychological and economic pressures that create the "creobot" only INCREASING in the long term, unless there is something done to treat this as a legitimate problem, instead of a just a simple set of harmless beliefs.

If we wait much longer, the problem will reach large enough proportions that drastic action will become a necessity, and then we WILL have our own american-born Taliban.

Date: 2006/06/12 09:32:48, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
...and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!


Dam*n those trees!  

Pesky buggers.

Date: 2006/06/12 11:44:26, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
This got me to thinking. Polls seem to consistently suggest that nearly half of all Americans are essentially young-earth creationists, i.e., they believe that God created the earth, all life, and human beings, in more or less their current form, some time in the last ten thousand years or less (six thousand years seems to be a popular figure).


hmm, IIRC, most of the poll data I would guess you are thinking about (like the gallup data cited in the Nat. Geo. article from 2004), wasn't inclusive as to "all life"; but human life only.  IOW, the data i saw didn't include questions about how old the earth was, but whether the repondents thought "god essentially created human beings, in more or less their current form, some time in the last ten thousand years or less."

so, there may be a bit of a dichotomy between folks who can't imagine how humans could be anything but creations, and folks who think everything must have been a creation in the same vein.  I don't recall the poll data on age of the earth type qeustions; but it would be interesting to see if there is data like that.  I would imagine the numbers to be far smaller.

EDIT:

It's quite likely that the estimation of how many YEC's there are comes from the YEC's themselves quote mining the results of the gallup polls to support their own contentions.

here's an example:

Quote
According to a 1993 Gallup poll, 47% of the American public adopted the young earth creationist view that humans were created by God around 10,000 years ago. Another 35% were theistic evolutionists, and only 11% believe the universe has evolved naturally. This makes evolutionists who try to portray young-earth creationists as a small fringe group look a bit silly.


(from http://www.rae.org/polls.html)

note how this misrepresents what questions were actually asked in the gallup polls.

/EDIT

It's bad enough that there are large numbers of americans who don't know that "one year" represents the time it takes the earth to go around the sun (pardon's to Gawp ;) ), but I don't think we can yet classify half of america as being YEC's.

yet.

I have the links to the gallup poll data floating around somewhere.  If you're interested, I'll track them down and post them.

EDIT:

unfortunately, gallup doesn't allow public access to poll data, but there are plenty of sources around that have the correct questions asked and the data from the gallup polls cited by Nat. Geo.  Here's one:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

I still have yet to see poll data with actual YEC type questions from gallup published anywhere.

I suppose poll data on a simple thing like "how old is the earth?" would be at least suggestive; you'd think YEC sites would post this data if gallup had conducted such a poll, and it made them look good.

Date: 2006/06/12 11:57:28, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
The long term trend in America is one of liberalization. Short term regressions mean nothing to me.


long term in the sense of centuries? perhaps yes, but if you consider the last 25 years to be "short term" and of little consequence, you must not have seen the same things I have.

I'm sure Islam in the long term will become more liberalized as well;  but how far will it go in the meantime in the opposite direction?  how much damage will there be?

There has ALREADY been significant damage to education and science in this country because of creobots.

I'm sure you don't need me to cite section and verse.

what evidence can you provide to indicate we need do nothing, and this will all go away on its own?

Hey, unlike Dave, I'd be happy to see evidence that suggests creationism and the belief structures surrounding it are "just a passing phase in the march to liberalization".

Maybe your great grandkids might be able to look back and agree with that statement from a historic perspective, but right here, right now, the economics, sociology, and politics seem to favor increasing levels of this kind of dissonance, not decreasing.

In some sense, I'd also bet that the increasing disparity between the rich and poor, and the decline of the middle class, will contribute to many looking for ways to gain "empowerment" by joining the ranks of the extreme religious right.

heck, if they can have such an obvious influence on politics, that's sure to act as a recruitment factor...

Date: 2006/06/12 13:25:02, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
AIDS cures fags...


ahhh, cue the right reverend Fred "feltcher" Phelps:

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

*sigh*

to think this guy actually has a significant following.

Date: 2006/06/12 14:51:25, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I'm totally bored of your attempts at psuedo-political idiocy.  I'm still waiting for you to do something interesting with your geocentric model.

why don't you make this thread really useful?

just use it to announce when you've finished your geocentric model.

Date: 2006/06/12 17:40:09, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
total worldview reprogramming.


well, they should know, eh?

ever see the curriculum from WD40's seminary courses?

talk about reprogramming!

Poor Bill seems to have become a victim of his own scheme.

Date: 2006/06/12 18:54:15, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
It occurred to me that maybe you are unaware of the level at which you are not being respected.


LOL.

Oh, by the way old boy, I believe your hair is on fire.

Date: 2006/06/12 19:19:29, Link
Author: Ichthyic
nice try, OA, but we know YOU'RE just a troll.

AFDave said so:

Quote
TROLL CONTROL SECTION
I have a couple of observations to make regarding our resident trolls, Rilke and Aftershave.


see.

do note that I, however am NOT a troll.

nyah nyah.

Date: 2006/06/12 19:22:10, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I thought it was under 100 people, mostly within his own family.


gotta love inbreeding...

Date: 2006/06/12 19:48:29, Link
Author: Ichthyic
well... OK... but you're on Double-Secret Probation, mister!

Date: 2006/06/12 20:09:00, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
What do you suppose the conversation is like when Dembski discusses his unChristian revenge fantasies with his Maker?


like this:




(kudos to whoever made this; I've forgotten who it was here who did)

Date: 2006/06/13 08:50:43, Link
Author: Ichthyic
ya know, UD often makes me think i need to go out for a beer...

in fact:

http://www.physorg.com/news69380566.html

40's for everybody!

Date: 2006/06/13 09:19:54, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Quote  
that it is quite unbelievable to say "Poof !!  


Suddenly you don't like 'Poof!'? I thought 'Poof' was an essential cornerstone to any Creationist argument!

Besides, it's only at the 'poof' level of sudden if you're biased and ignorant. (Oh yeah, I forgot...)



rule #1:

NO POOFTAS!

Date: 2006/06/13 10:06:06, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I wonder if Denyse knows the real history of that symbol on the front of her book?

http://www.halexandria.org/dward097.htm

Date: 2006/06/13 10:15:57, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
There's something about holding a fish...


indeed there is!

have you embraced your inner fish today?

Date: 2006/06/13 10:21:44, Link
Author: Ichthyic
in case anybody missed it, continuing with my prediction,
AFD added StephenWells to the troll list.

what's that up to now?  5?

I'm sure we're ALL on his private "troll" list, he just hasn't made it public yet.

Quote
Dave, arguing with you is kind of like arguing with a four-year-old.


I'm sure he'll take that as a compliment, since that's who his arguments really are for anyway.

Date: 2006/06/13 12:30:49, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I'm basically on the erectus side, since I got intro'd to a bunch of grad students and profs through Gail Kennedy, who specializes in erectus.


hmm, IIRC, I recently heard of another school that is proposing that floresiensis' ancestor wasn't erectus.

are you familiar with that line of inquiry?

Date: 2006/06/13 12:40:35, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I got the impression that the pathological hypos have been pretty much shot down, except with certain Indonesians (who shall remain nameless, lest I start calling them names :) ), but that the linneage issue was still open to debate.

Who has distribution evidence to support which linneage at this point?  Are the other linneages simply based on morphological similarities?  what?

oh, and before someone else beats me to it, since you mentioned nobody had done so yet:

I hereby claim both the goblin and troll hypotheses.  

I'm currently researching definitive paleontological resources like "The Silmarillion" in order to determine likely distribution patterns to distinguish trolls from goblins as the likely ancestor.

:p

Date: 2006/06/13 12:55:03, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Rilke-

Why do I keep think of the Washington Generals vs. the Harlem Globetrotters?

Date: 2006/06/13 13:08:33, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I've no idea.  I don't know what your context is.  I've heard of the Globetrotters - are they still playing?  Who are the "Washington Generals"?


oh...  well i guess it wouldn't make sense unless you grew up watching the trotters.  *shrug*

the generals was the name of the team that always played the trotters, and always lost of course, by design, and by large margins.

when you listed your "scores" it kept reminding me of those games; it was all the trotters showcasing their skills, and the generals just being poor schmucks who were there to help showcase the trotter's skills.

Kind of like AFD has done a great job of stimulating the production of interesting information by being a complete idiot.

think of it as an entirely americanized view of the MacGuffin hypothesis.

EDIT:

ahh, i see you found the reference ;)

Date: 2006/06/13 13:19:01, Link
Author: Ichthyic
thanks for the nature PDF; been trying to grab that for a while now.

keep us posted, eh?

when something significant turns up, I would highly suggest floating a head's up to Wes, you might get to be a guest contributor over on PT, or at least get the info out there for somebody else to post up.


I'll be posting my results on "Dungeons and Dragons Monthly", as soon as I manage to tease out whether the goblin or troll linneage is more likely.

;)

Date: 2006/06/13 13:30:16, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Otherwise, this whole thread will rapidly degenerate into farce...


You mean that's not what it was supposed to be in the first place?

Date: 2006/06/13 17:16:26, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Because honestly, this is getting really boring.


well, occasionally i keep dropping hints that someone should take ANY of the interesting issues that have been raised, and start a new thread to discuss any one of them.

Rather than categorize AFD's drivel (which, as has been pointed out, already exist in the TO archives - no, AFD has said NOTHING that every creobot and his ma haven't said before), perhaps it would be a better idea to categorize the several INTERESTING topics that have spawned from the blasting of AFD's drivel?

then pick a topic and run with it.

ATBC only is as boring as any here wish it to be.

Date: 2006/06/13 17:22:09, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Clammy-

your wife sounds like a goer!

why not invite her to start the thread herself?

I'm sure many here would get a kick out of it.

Date: 2006/06/13 19:27:34, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
my wife would like to be flattered by being called a "goer"


in this context, I meant it as a description of someone who apparently has a stong opinion about things and isn't afraid to share it.

(not in the monty python sense :) )

Quote
...and my wife calmly and rationally explained her perspective


uh huh.  Somehow, I form a picture in my mind that is anything but calm...

I sympathize.  I often wanted to "calmly and rationally" explain a few things to Ms. Coulter myself.  Rush Limbaugh too.

Date: 2006/06/14 09:44:26, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Remember the IDiots who got all up in arms about Pianka's lecture on global disasters?

I wonder if they will now label Stephen Hawking the new "doctor doom"...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages....id=1770

 
Quote

"Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of."



I'm genuinely curious to see what their PR machine makes out of it.

(In a "I'm curious about how parasites affect brain function" kinda way)

Date: 2006/06/14 10:03:40, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I still maintain that he is so dumb and crazy that he doesn't know he's wrong.


well, progress is being made.  You used to think he was just dumb.

Look, folks, in case you haven't noticed by now, trying to argue logically with someone who MUST reject logic or risk having to deal with his cognitive dissonance is rather a frustrating prospect.

If you enjoy it, fine, but don't whine that Dave isn't listening to your arguments.

He simply CAN'T.  You can't "fix" him in an online forum, so if you feel you need to sharpen your arguments on him, enjoy, but don't expect your arguments to be fruitful on Dave himself.

In case you had forgotten, early on Dave was shown how AIG lied to him about aspects of the GULO controversy, he at the time admitted that they were wrong.... and within two days had completely reversed himself.

Someone even made a thread to note this fact, and even ask him why he had never confronted AIG.

You really ARE fooling yourself if you believe for one second that when Dave says he can be convinced by evidence, that he really means it.

Date: 2006/06/14 10:14:29, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Nobody has brought up the obvious...

Hawking WANTS the IDiots to make a big deal out of what he said.

Hence the overgeneralized statement noted by Jean.

I think he wants to rip them a new one.

We'll see.

Date: 2006/06/14 10:24:21, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Someone asked me for some juicy gossip from my time at the NMNH and I sort of blew it off and don't have the time to find who it was that asked me ...


That was me, and thanks, that was exactly the kind of gossip I was hoping for ;)

Quote
honest preparers told the truth


could you refresh my memory here?

as to archaeopteryx, I seem to recall some discussion on current bird/dino status on PT a few months back; related to a new fossil find IIRC.

sorry I can't be more specific; I'll try to find it and post the link here.

In the meantime, I think this is the find Jean was referring to:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news....no.html

cheers

Date: 2006/06/14 10:41:28, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
If I started thinking like Mike Gene, every post on here would have to be a separate flash animation.


more like "flashback".

Date: 2006/06/14 10:44:17, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Is he used to dealing with those twits?


well, he did guest-star on the Simpsons...

;)

Date: 2006/06/14 10:53:14, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Steve-

well, you can't just quantitatively evaluate "crazy", there's a big qualitative aspect of it too.

IOW, there's lots of different kinds of crazy.

a sociopath and a schizophrenic don't have much in common, regardless of the degree of affliction.

Not being a psychologist, I haven't a good idea how to classify AFD's current affliction, but I'd bet serious money that cognitive dissonance plays a causative role.

as to whether Dave is actually dangerous or not, that would be entirely relative, and we don't have enough information to judge one way or the other.

However, based on what he's posted and how his mind apparently processes logic, I'd say he could at the very least be considered a significant negative influence in an instructional setting.

You wouldn't hire him as a teacher, now, would ya?

Date: 2006/06/14 11:15:15, Link
Author: Ichthyic
...and yet the controversy remains.

here is the post on PT I was thinking of:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/new_archaeopter.html

Quote
Thus, Archaeopteryx turns out to be even more of a mosaic of bird and dino features than previously thought. You might even call it a transitional fossil.


seems like a good place to start your investigations, Crabby.

Ironically, the very post was spawned out of discussion we had with yet another ridiculous creobot by the name of "blastfromthepast".

Date: 2006/06/14 11:23:54, Link
Author: Ichthyic
note this reply, as it cites some studies on point:

Quote
Posted by GFA on December 2, 2005 11:58 AM (e)


Regardless of your preference for Aves or Gauthier’s Avialae, I think everyone would agree that “birds” are those members of the clade formed by Archaeopteryx, extant birds and their most recent common ancestor. This doesnt imply that there is a huge morphological gap, only that some clade has to be birds, and historically, its been that one.

As far as the evidence for Archaeopteryx being closer to birds than traditionally non-avian maniraptorans, thats almost always the result of phylogenetic analysis. Two recent papers (Makovicky et al. 2005 and this here paper) have birds that fall out as deinonychosaurians, but really only one (Maryanska et al. 2002) has found some tradtionally non-avian dinosaurs are birds. In each of these instances, there are very good reasons to be cautious of the results, but particularly the last two.

But who knows. More taxa and/or more characters could change that. At least, lets wait until those studies are in before shaking up the maniraptoran tree.



..and this was also a thread that had a few experts on the subject drop by to comment like Holtz, check Comment #61149.

Date: 2006/06/14 11:47:26, Link
Author: Ichthyic
So, what's your opinion on Hawking's goal here, Wes?

Date: 2006/06/14 12:03:43, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Get the book.  I did and he explains it perfectly.


He does?

Wait...

If you have the book, Dave, and it explains it perfectly, why do you do such a poor job of it?

can't you just quote chapter and verse from the book?

Date: 2006/06/14 15:09:06, Link
Author: Ichthyic
about "Man Coulter"...

Now, why you gotta go and accuse her of being a man!

I'm gonna sick GW on ya:

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2002/082002.asp

Quote
"Husky baritone or not, this broad's too stacked to be a man."


btw, there is some evidence to suggest that the idea that coulter is a transexual started in the White House press core itself; shortly after Coulter called Helen Thomas "that old Arab".

thoroughly disgusting "thing" is Ann  Coulter.

Date: 2006/06/14 19:31:07, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
It’s great how you guys prove Ann had you guys pegged. Darwinism *is* the Catholic Church of the 21st century. Either subscribe to it’s laughable concept of science (I particularly love the attempts to equate evolution with gravity), or be subjected to a witch hunt.


not much of a witchunter, is he?

I saw more of the  "you guys are big meanies, so just shut up!" argument than I did any of the so called wonderful arguments from Coulter that Randy seems so hot about.

Randy:

If you think Coulter gives you wet dreams, you're welcome to explain why here.  Nobody is stopping you, but we all think you're simply afraid to see the truth.

why is that?

what do you have to be afraid of, but literally fear itself?

Witchhunters are supposed to track down magic users, aren't they?

come back and we'll show you who is really putting on the magic show.

Date: 2006/06/14 19:35:03, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I'm not a paleontologist, but the subject of course interests me.

If you discover anything new in your investigations, share!

cheers

Date: 2006/06/15 09:05:21, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
The ACLU is similarly trying to eliminate all reference to God in public school PERIOD.

This is un-American and naive.


uh oh, now the writers of the constitution were UN-AMERICAN!

If Dave were there, I'm sure he would have told them:

"love it or leave it"

eh Dave?

Ever consider that the vast majority of actual americans today wouldn't mind a bit if YOU took off?

what exactly do you contribute?

You can't teach.

you're retired from business.

Your're dumber than a box of rocks.

so what is it, exactly, that you think you contribute to american society at large?

Ever considered maybe you're just a waste of space?

Date: 2006/06/15 09:20:19, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Dave-

how well do you think you would do if a silverback gave you a social heirarchy test for gorilla society?

my guess is you'd be a smear on his fist in about 2 minutes.

How would a chimp do on that same test?

same likely result.

does that make chimps closer to you than to gorillas?

earlier, you used "the dating game" to suggest that a human would be ill-advised to seek companionship at the zoo (where all apes live, right Dave?).  Do you think your advice would apply equally to chimps and gorillas?

do you think a chimp would date a gorilla or vice versa?

would a shark date a tuna? Heck, they're both fish, eh?

the only thing that's more ridiculous than the ICR crap you parrot are the arguments you make up on your own!

You are the nutty professor there, Dave.

Date: 2006/06/15 09:41:00, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
It was compared to someone trying to prove that Apollo 11 didn't happen, for example.  

The problem with the above approach is first, that it appeals to an attempt to humiliate an opponent rather than reason with them, and secondly, that the conclusion is assumed to be true from the outset.  How would someone distinguish a 'close minded creationist' from a 'close minded evolutionist' in this case.  Both are firmly convinced that they have exclusive ownership of 'fact'.  Both claim that the other has not proven its case or disproven its own.


you've got to try to understand that many of the people who post here have post graduate experience in biology, and some even ARE practicing evolutionary biologists.

What happens is that those of us who are in that boat have seen the evidence for the ToE up close and personal.  We've either read thousands of studies that test some aspect of the theory in the lab or the field, or we actually do these experiments ourselves.

To us, based on the evidence we have seen and the experiments we've participated in, the bulk of the current ToE IS as obvious as the Apollo 11 mission.

Try to picture it like this:

Say you've been a building contractor for 40 years.  You've done or seen just about everything regarding construction.

Then a car salesman walk up to you on a build site and tries to tell you that you're doing it all wrong.

How would you expect the building contractor to react?

Why would the car salesman have grounds to think he knew more about construction than the building contractor?

Quote
The biggest problem in discussing this issue, in my opinion, is that it's very hard for any layperson (or even a fairly scientific literate person in another specialty) to be in any kind of position to debate some of these areas.


this is EXACTLY the point.  so why do you think Coulter feels qualified to "debate" the issue?

Is she a biologist?

no.

Is she a scientist of ANY kind?

nope.

Do you think she really has read and understood any of Dawkins works, or read any basic text on evolution like the Futuyma one?

that said, you've spent several posts whining about your mistreatment.

enough already.

get over it and get to your point, or go and read the recommended references.

also check out the links on the front of the Panda's Thumb for some great references online.

so, bottom line...

Quote
any way the 'game' can be played without it getting personal?  


sure.  understand the material before you begin.

very simple, really.

Want to argue with a building contractor about construction?  maybe you'd be best off learning something about construction first, eh?

Date: 2006/06/15 09:52:45, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
If we gave you, the monkeys and the apes an IQ test in Esperanto I think you'd all come out the same. Would that be fair?


actually, in that specific case, I think the results would be the same regardless of the language used...

Date: 2006/06/15 09:55:51, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Last night I spoke with God.


funny, I speak with God all the time, and your name hasn't come up yet.

Date: 2006/06/15 10:00:20, Link
Author: Ichthyic
make sure cookies are enabled in your browser.

delete your cookies cache in your browser (or manually delete the cookie for this site)

close and restart your browser.

log yourself back in and see if that works.

if not,

write to Wes and tell him what browser version you are using, and I'm sure he will have some idea how to fix it.

Date: 2006/06/15 10:10:01, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
So what is the response when someone who meets that same critiera disputes their view of the evidence?  


answer:

I don't know, I've never met one, online or off.

anybody else here?

so when you say:

Quote
Yeah, but there are people in the field who don't agree.


you should probably back that up with specifics, as I sure can't think of any evolutionary biologists who reject evolutionary theory.

Date: 2006/06/15 10:18:47, Link
Author: Ichthyic
you need to provide specifics, Randy.

I've certainly never met one, and the popular anti-evo icons are:

Behe - biochemist (not biologist)

Dembski- degree in mathematics (not even a practicing mathematician, let alone a biologist).

Nelson - Isn't he a lawyer?

so who did you have in mind, exactly?

what's remarkable is that there are actually VERY few biologists of any stripe who reject the soundness and credibility of the evidence supporting the ToE.

There are those that like to say that supports the "religion" idea, but then take a look at whatever religion you can think of and see if the same pattern holds.

How many religions are there?  tens of thousands?

obviously you can't say that there is the same level of consistency within "theologists" about which evidence supports which religion, can you?

but, you can easily see this for yourself, rather than continuing in your ignorance, by reading some basic background text, and then examing the evidence yourself.

Date: 2006/06/15 10:21:22, Link
Author: Ichthyic
not that I've heard, but hey, God might be biased.

Date: 2006/06/15 10:34:45, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Someone remarked that only a minority of people in this country believe in evolution.


you should adjust your approach along the lines of "understand and accept the evidence for" instead of "believe".

I never "believed" the ToE, I was convinced of its usefullness through evidence and practice.  got nothing to do with belief.

as to the minority issue...

How many folks in this country do you think "believe" in quantum theory?

pretty much a minority, I'd bet.

think that has anything to do with the evidence for the theories in question?

or does it have more to do with the very issue we raised here:

that most folks simply don't want to bother to examine how the theories were formed the evidence in support, and the thousands of tests performed on the predictions and assumptions of the theories?

which do you think more likely?

when we use the term "ignorant", it isn't meant as an insult, but as a description.

I'm as ignorant of the things that go into making a high-rise building as you are of the ToE.

Date: 2006/06/15 10:44:13, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I know, I just defended... successfully!  


WOOT!!!  congratulations!

wow, that's two thumbites who defended successfully this week.

now the serious question:

Why aren't you partying yourself comatose at this point, instead of posting here??

Date: 2006/06/15 10:47:19, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
(there's gotta be an anti-"must-look-at-web-page" medicine somewhere I can take!..


if you find some, let us know...

Quote
I'm not claiming persecution, just trying to head off the inevitable...


it's only as inevitable as you make it.

you know how to not make it so.

read, understand, present arguments based on evidence.

that simple.

Date: 2006/06/15 11:00:14, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Some suggested topics are...


actually, I'd like to see Randy point out where Coulter is wrong in her claims himself.

so much of what coulter says is absolute BS to anybody who is conversant in even the most basic aspects of the ToE, it shouldn't be difficult at all.

after all, coulter's ranting is what lead him here in the fist place, right?

Date: 2006/06/15 11:03:02, Link
Author: Ichthyic
vishnu, vishnu....

nope, God says they've never heard of them.

;)

Date: 2006/06/15 11:10:07, Link
Author: Ichthyic
so, RG, now that you've defended your thesis, what will you do now?

Date: 2006/06/15 11:18:07, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Not necessarily in that order!


oh...

so you don't want to go to Disneyland?

"Ok guys, put the lights and the camera back in the truck, the promo's a no go!"

;)

Date: 2006/06/15 11:21:59, Link
Author: Ichthyic
yeah, I'm already quite bored of the persecution complex content.

pretty much anything would be more interesting.

Date: 2006/06/15 11:55:12, Link
Author: Ichthyic
the topic of traffic at this site and Uncommonly Droll have occured periodically, so I thought I would point out a nice site that measures traffic for comparitive purposes, Alexa.com.

http://www.alexa.com/data....umb.org

Date: 2006/06/15 12:05:26, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
(oh, and by the way that's "E.O", not "Edmund", Wilson who writes books of a very different kind, though just as offensive to creationists ).


well, E.O. also wrote a few treatises that also pissed off a lot of folks too.

Sociobiology comes to mind ;)

Date: 2006/06/15 12:23:03, Link
Author: Ichthyic
*yawwwwnnnn*

Date: 2006/06/15 13:05:50, Link
Author: Ichthyic
yes it refers to the publication of meyers article, but of course the specific issue revolves more around the supposed "martyrdom" of Sternberg in that whole mess.

You know, the "anything to claim martyrdom" tactic of the IDiots?

If Randy is curious, here is some clarification here:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/02/a_second_dimens.html

Please note that regardless of the claims of Coulter that Sternberg was "martyred", he actually didn't lose his job.

there are some cases on the OTHER side of the issue that biologists could better claim as martyrdom, but we see little PR value in it, other than as contrast to the claims of Coulter and others ignorant to the real issues involved.

Date: 2006/06/15 13:16:56, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
It does take a lot of work, Randy, I'll grant you that. I've been at it for almost 30 years, completely as an avocation (i.e., I don't get paid for it). But if you're willing to spend the time on it, and view the evidence and arguments on both sides dispassionately, you can separate the wheat from the chaff.


there's also the possibility that Randy is perfectly happy to be used as a pawn by politicians relying on the vote of the religious right.

Randy, does the timing of the release of Coulters book before the midterm elections spark any ideas in your mind?

no?

how about the timing of the release of the book Coulter released before this one?

see a pattern yet?

Date: 2006/06/15 14:19:15, Link
Author: Ichthyic
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/152006b.asp

*sigh*

Quote
"Biology departments in the universities around our state are absolutely controlled by people who are afraid, for some reason or another, to look into and encourage students to look at all aspects of the question of evolution," Fair says. He believes the newly established biology standards will help change this situation.


oh yeah, all the bio depts. I've ever been involved with were absolutely terrified.

don't know how any of us got out of bed in the morning.

frickin' Idjut.

Date: 2006/06/15 16:46:35, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
God help me, I've finally reached the point where I've followed enough of these threads where I could probably argue YEC better than some of the people who believe it.


Congratulations!  I think that's the watermark that indicates you now have an advanced degree in anti-evolution argumentation.

now if there was only some way to make money with that...

Date: 2006/06/15 20:40:41, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Wes's comparison to Lamarck is off base, at least where I am concerned.


I gave up caring what your concerns were ages ago.

keep living in that flashback world o' yours.

er, you DID stop taking hallucinogenics once you left college, didn't you?

Date: 2006/06/15 20:49:04, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
anti-creationist bias in the outcome.


you mean the creationist bias in the input?

where in the 9 he11s did he get the idea that water would significantly modify radioactive decay rates in retained isotopes?

Oh, that's right, just like Dave, he makes it up as he goes along.

phht.

ya know, we had a great opportunity to do this country a service during that Creation Mega-claptrap.

I guess we decided to become church-burning ebola-boys just a little too late.

Date: 2006/06/16 10:31:42, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Anybody else feel "let down" when the pile got dumped?


yeah, that's the reality for most of us.  gotta take time to absorb that the big weight has been lifted.

I doubt it's unusual at all.  You'll feel like partying soon enough.

;)

Date: 2006/06/16 10:36:02, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I also see that rmagruder is now happily integrated into the UD community.


Yeah, they really like "witchhunters" over there.

What I see is someone too chicken to do the work to see behind the show that folks like coulter put on.

Ignorance is bliss, eh Randy?

Date: 2006/06/16 10:45:14, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I have both books, but I just skimmed the evolution parts because, of course, evolution seems like a fairy tale to me.


add one more lie to your list then, as you told us that you were open minded to being convinced otherwise.

how can you be convinced if you ignore all the evidence we (or anybody) present because you think it born of a fairy tale?

the fairy tale thing is a projection on your part; the rest is sheer denial.

Quote
He is a tormented man.


again, this is you projecting your own torment on to others.

Quote
I have a simple solution to his dilemma:  become a YEC.


that was your own solution to your own cognitive dissonance.

Judging from the results shown here, I don't think your self help program is working out so well for you.

which is why I still suggest you seek professional counseling for your problems.

Date: 2006/06/16 10:56:14, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Are you kiding?  Ken Ham makes over $100K a year.


no, no.

You missed the meaning...



how does a graduate of THIS make money with it?

go on circuits with Dembski like Ruse does?

Date: 2006/06/16 11:00:38, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Personally, I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that a YEC cannot be a real Christian, but can only be some sort of book-worshipping cultist.


yes, there are great similarities between cultism and the type of behavior Dave shows us here.

Date: 2006/06/16 11:34:33, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Quote

what exactly do you contribute? You can't teach. you're retired from business. Your're dumber than a box of rocks. so what is it, exactly, that you think you contribute to american society at large? Ever considered maybe you're just a waste of space?

 
Said by someone who has contributed exactly ZERO sciency information to this thread.  Said by someone who sometimes uses proper capitalization, sometimes not.  Very telling.


I did early on, but then you seem to forget anything that happened in your threads about 2 days afterwards, so that's not surprising.

frankly I don't really blame you for forgetting, as it was quite a while ago that i decided, and stated repeatedly, that bothering to post "sciency stuff" (??) for you was a waste of time.  All you keep doing is continually demonstrating how correct I was in that assessment.  Tho, OA pointed out the value to lurkers.  I personally think that any lurkers who bother to read this thread will get sick to their stomachs after reading the first few pages of your posts.

...and, you still haven't answered my question, which wasn't addressed to the value in this thread, which is meaningless, but:

What is it, exactly, that you think you contribute to american society at large?

You have to convince me you're not just a waste of space, Dave.

get to it.

Date: 2006/06/16 11:39:09, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I never realized before the close connection between air travel and intellectual vacuity.


that's the first argument I've ever seen that actually has made me afraid to fly.

Date: 2006/06/16 12:11:38, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
That sounds egotistical but I think that my insights are available to anyone with a clear mind and courageous heart.


more like available to anyone who has smoked too much crack.

Date: 2006/06/16 12:18:02, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Mr. Bill, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Occam…


I think you'd be better off introducing him to Mr. Sluggo...

Date: 2006/06/16 12:35:28, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
And how can y'all stand to immerse yourself in it daily?!


personally, I can't.  I can only take about 30 seconds of UD before I feel my IQ start to go down.

however, the comments about UD in this thread are often quite witty.
I leave it to others who want to spend money on ironymeters to actually comb UD for humor content, and they courageously have done quite a nice job of it over the months.

oh, and btw - welcome back?

Date: 2006/06/16 20:07:38, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
One of the problems with the DH concept is that it essentially requires commenters outside the "in" group to withhold commentary. I see this as a problem, in that people learn by doing, and commenting is what this board is for.


there's enough regulars here that anybody could organize using the PM system.

several of us have used this to organize responses on various threads before.

It's just that the effort required needs to have an obvious payoff.

Skeptrypin':

Quote
Not a real stretch


LOL.  spoken like somebody who hasn't the slightest clue what's behind the "simple" fields of endeavor Wes listed.

Just like anybody else, you get spanked when it's obvious your pontificating without knowledge.

don't want to get spanked?  do what we suggested on the very first couple of pages of your thread.

go learn something about the very endeavors Wes posted, for example.

Or heck, why not read even a basic evolution text like Futuyma?

otherwise, you deserve all the derision sent your way, regardless of how much you want to whine and play the victim.

go back to your cave, skeptrypin.

...and lay off the pyschedelics, duuuude.

Date: 2006/06/16 20:32:31, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Maybe others here missed skeptrypin' detailing how he came to the conclusion that there was something "wrong" with the ToE:

   
Quote

What can I say I'm skeptical.  I was the guy who spent many a late night in college in a chemically-induced haze discussing the existence of existence.  



no, that's not skepticism, that's flashbacks.


bottom line on "helping the ignorant" though.

Every new person who has ever come to here or PT who actually ASKS for help in getting information they are lacking is politely and copiously referred to excellent resources.

I've never seen otherwise, that I can recall.

Randy, Skeptic, Dave, and most other trolls that come here don't ASK.  they TELL (preach) us what is "all wrong with the ToE".  They might get to actually asking questions later, but they kinda set the tone when they come in thinking they know all the answers because they read Coulter's drivel, or spent time parsing the idiocy at AIG or ICR (or took too much LSD in college).

I've argued with so many creobots over the years, that I've found you can quickly sniff out the folks who really aren't interested in alleviating their ignorance, usually from the wording and tone of their very first post.

Date: 2006/06/16 20:52:46, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
he believes in super-macro-humungo-evolution at blindingly-fast speed.


Duuuuuhhhh!

It's called extreme mutation.

X-Men UNITE!

Hey, I read all about it in this peer-reviewed comic book I was perusing the other day.

I won't go into the details though, it's all too sciency for you guys.

Quote
My god, cognitive dissonance like that cannot be pleasant...


I rather think it's gone way beyond that.  the dissonance has caused permanent brain damage, AFAICT.

Date: 2006/06/16 21:01:12, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Are you saying that these people actually exist?


I've never met one, but yes, they apparently do.

there's plenty of flat-earthers still around and about too.

I missed it though, did gawp imply the earth was geostationary?

the universe could be geocentric, and the earth could still rotate on its axis, yes?

in fact, above he alluded to a model similar to an atomic one; nothing stopping a nucleus from rotating while electrons orbit around it.

Date: 2006/06/16 21:04:16, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Flint...nevermind, I don't have that much time tonight.


...and yet you had time to go over to the other thread and claim victimhood.

phht.

Date: 2006/06/16 21:43:06, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Why would the Earth spin in a geocentric model? If it can spin, why can it not be in orbit as well?


hey, it's Gawp's model, but I don't see any reason why it can't spin in a geocentric model.

again, think about the analogy he is using of an atom; just because electrons orbit around it, doesn't mean the nucleus has to be stationary.

the fact that the earth spins wouldn't change whether or not the sun and all the stars and planets still orbit it.

heck, back in reality, the moon orbits the earth, yes?  and yet the earth spins.

as to flat earthers, some nice history about the concept on wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

you could even visit the flat earth forums, where someone like Uncle Jim Bob might deign to educate ya on the finer points of argument:

Quote
Quote
Luke_smith64 wrote:
Do you FE'ers believe the sun will explode and turn into a red dwarf?


This post contains satire, a demonic verbal form of fellatio performed only on the worthy. I welcome your verbal fellatio with open arms and salute your efforts. Although it will not work this time around, for my bible protects me from homosexuality.


regardless of specific real or fake flat earth societies, with 6 billion plus folks on the earth, it's pretty much a guarantee that you could find real flat-earthers out there.

Date: 2006/06/16 21:55:06, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
what do I have to die for?


crabby!  I'm surprised at you.  As an upstanding member of the Church of the Subgenius, you KNOW what you have to die for.

slacker.

;)

Date: 2006/06/16 22:01:40, Link
Author: Ichthyic
not bad, Spike.

these are newsbot threads tho, you should grab a headline and discuss it over on ATBC.

Date: 2006/06/16 22:26:47, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
That would have profound implications on the speed of the Suns orbit through space.


well, i suppose it would rightly depend on the gravitational constants used in gawp's universe, and how far away the sun is supposed to be from the earth, but assuming distances are similar to reality, it would have an impact on how fast we perceive the sun orbits the earth, but it would have no impact (or at most an infitessimally small one) on how fast the sun actually moved through space.

again, back in reality... the sun spins.  the earth orbits the sun.  does the sun's spin have a major impact on the orbital speed of the earth?

back in a geocentric fantasy, if the sun goes around the earth once per day, that apparent speed (for an observer on the surface of earth) would have to do with both the actual orbital speed, combined with an apparent velocity due to the earth's rotation.

I don't see much problem with that, really.

in fact, if the earth's rotational speed matched the orbital speed of the sun (and was in the same direction), then the sun would not appear to go around the earth any more to an observer on the surface, would it?

Date: 2006/06/16 22:59:09, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
If the Earth spins in same direction sun is moving (1 turn/day) then sun orbits us twice per day.

If Earth spins couter to Suns orbit at same rate then the sun orbits us every 2 days.


first, reverse that.  second, the apparent direction and speed of the sun going round the earth entirely depends on exactly how fast the earth is spinning relative to the orbitial velocity of the sun.

let's say it actually DOES take the sun 24 hours to complete an orbit around the earth.

if the earth is not spinning, then the apparent time it takes the sun to go around the earth is the same as the actual time.

if the earth is spinning in the same direction as the sun's orbit, the apparent time it takes the sun to go around the earth would be longer.  As the earth's rotational velocity increases, the sun would appear to slow further and further, until the rotational velocity matches the orbital velocity, whereupon the sun would appear to "stand still", even though it is really still orbiting the earth at the same speed.  Increase the rotational velocity further still, and the sun would appear to actually reverse directions in the sky.

I can't illustrate this very well with ascii characters, but you could try playing with a couple of tennis balls and that might help you visualize what is happening.

even more fun, you could grab a friend, and make one of you the sun and one the earth.  Have whoever is playing the earth stand still at first, while the "sun" runs around you in a circle.  you'll see the "sun" appear on one side of you, and disappear on the other.

then, start turning yourself in place as the "sun" runs around you.  

(of course, you should drink heavily before doing this)

;)

Date: 2006/06/16 23:17:01, Link
Author: Ichthyic
hmm, not exactly...

Quote
the observed day


is the relative part.

Date: 2006/06/17 09:41:52, Link
Author: Ichthyic
anti copernicus AND anti darwinian.

why doesn't that surprise me?

Date: 2006/06/17 10:04:31, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Quote
What's troubling is that only about half the population buys into your long age Darwinian fantasies in spite of all these excellent, smart scientists who are peddling the theory.


It's amazing to me that you don't scratch your head and say ... 'Hmmm ... with all this opportunity that we Evos have to indocrinate everyone with our theory, why don't they buy it?  Could it be wrong?'


indeed it is troubling to us, Dave, but not for the reasons you think.

What it tells me is that when someone looks at the sky and sees the sun "rising and setting", intuitively they are more likely to believe that the sun orbits the earth.

If they refuse to accept the evidence that this is not the case, (evidently, a large number of americans do - far from a majority, but significant enough to measure) does that make a heliocentric theory incorrect?

do you think the sun orbits the earth, Dave?

why or why not?

answer those questions, and you will begin to see what is troubling over the much larger proportion of americans who refuse to accept the same level of evidence in support of the ToE.

The funny thing is, Dave, if scientists actually "indoctrinated" kids like you apparently think we do, the level of acceptance would probably be MUCH higher.

I'ts the INDOCTRINATION of religion masquerading as science that has caused the problem, although I doubt you could actually see this.  You're simply too far gone.

maybe this will help the lurkers see what I mean:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/feature....adlines

when folks think that the right reverend is "Asking the right questions between the two theories", they've already been set on a path that will reject any evidentiary argument.

When they think that their pastor is qualified to speak to the evidence in support of ANY scientific theory, based on their experience as a pastor, then they will fail to accept any real-world evidence garnered and tested by actual scientists.

yes, Dave, THIS is troubling to many of us.

Date: 2006/06/17 10:11:59, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
This is of a piece with WD & DS's usual "physical reality is whatever politics demands" stance.


I never have been able to figure out whether or not these guys ever read Orwell.

Date: 2006/06/17 10:16:36, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
No one said afdave was a child molester.


well, technically, someone did.  But they quickly retracted that and clarified what they meant, with evidence in support, no less.

It wasn't just a case of name calling.

Quote
 If my proposal has been tried before and has been shown to be totally ineffective, then discard it.


I've NEVER seen it work with someone who comes in guns blazing, fresh off reading a Coulter book or similar.

again, anybody who comes in with a reasonable approach is given the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.  Skeptic may deny this, but you can examine the thread yourself and see otherwise.

Date: 2006/06/17 11:26:18, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I'm pretty sure Rilke has never retracted her child molester statement.


with your reading comprehension skills, that doesn't surprise me.

look again.

the rest of your rant only supports exactly what I've been saying in this thread.

If you ever figure out what evidence and research mean, do try again.

Date: 2006/06/17 11:31:30, Link
Author: Ichthyic
You only have yourself to blame for how we've "pegged" you.

I bet you get that a lot though.

Date: 2006/06/17 12:07:38, Link
Author: Ichthyic
in the AFDave thread, I earlier wondered how one could make money with a knowledge of anti-evolution argumentation, like we gain from watching IDiots stumble over themselves again and again.

well, Seems 'ol WD40 hisself is already running with the idea:

Dembski says:

Quote
I would therefore like to offer my services, for a modest fee, to write denunciations of ID for any reputable science organizations needing to put ID in its place.


always nice to make money playing both sides of the field.

Date: 2006/06/17 12:11:59, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Chorillas and Gimps


lol.

do the Gimps come with a leather mask and a leash, ala "Pulp Fiction"?

I wonder what Dave would think about "Himps":

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~cgullans/ChimpWoman.mp3


 
Quote
Do you keep saying I am anti-science just to be an ass?  Does it somehow make you feel better to say I hate science?  Do you really have so little to say about the positive virtues of ToE that all you are able to do is blow a bunch of bogus hot air at me about how I supposedly hate science?  You are really ignorant in spite of your PhD if that is your MO.


*yawwwwn*  sorry, I fell asleep before i could finish the rest of your idiotic rant.

no Dave, we keep saying it because you DO, in fact, hate how science works.  You just like the end results.

Like a hypocritical self-proclaimed environmentalist that drives an SUV to a protest against global warming.

Yup, you're even worse than that.

and as to this:

Quote
ORIGINS is the problem, Arden.  Am I making that clear?


No, Dave, not at all.  Where have you discussed abiogenesis anywhere in your ranting before?

I thought we were discussing how much evolutionary theory, various dating techniques, geology, etc., invalidate your God "hypothesis"?

If you thought abiogenesis was the important issue, you should have started with that.

Idiot.

Date: 2006/06/17 12:37:43, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
They're just not worth the effort anymore.


naw, just you.

and you say you're not playing the victim card?

oh yes, please do extrapolate the discussion of agumentation techniques for a little online forum onto an entire national platform.

yeah, that's realistic.

Date: 2006/06/17 12:43:01, Link
Author: Ichthyic
oh, well Dave has a relative that speaks portuguese, doesn't he?

In fact I think he claimed this made him an expert on the issue shortly after he proposed the notion that P=F+S.

I have a relative that studies mountain lions.  ergo, you of course should ask me any questions about mountain lions you have, since I'm a defacto expert on the subject.

and I have a Master's Degree in....

SCIENCE!!!!

you're looney, Dave.  Get help now.

Date: 2006/06/17 12:51:24, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
The whole idea of having a "scientific" discussion with someone who believes the Earth is 6000 years old is ludicrous.


yes, it is.  only slightly more ludicrous than the directions you've been taking though.

You could always be a good MacGuffin.

time will tell.

Date: 2006/06/17 12:58:38, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I'm of the belief that you fuel the fire just by engaging in the argument.


hey, first thing you've said I agree with.  hence the Kansas Kangaroo "trial" that the IDiots put on that no biologist chose to attend.

EDIT:

 
Quote
If this played out in a worst case scenario the only real impact would probably be that science would be taught more vigorously in the public school system.


this is where you are very, very wrong.  go take a look at what is happening in states like Kansas where science standards have been laxed because of the creobots.  Perhaps we would all like to think that what happened in Kansas would somehow spur the teaching of real science, but instead, it opens the door for teachers with creationist belief systems to tear down any semblance of real science teaching whatsoever.  There's thousands of them just like AFDave, chomping at the bit to indoctrinate kids with their particular form of "anti materialism".  You can learn more about what really happens by checking out the NCSE site sometime.  It ain't pretty.  You're simply wrong that creationism will simply go away; there's been no significant change in how americans view creationism and evolution in this country in over 20 years, as long as Gallup has been polling.  It went from creation science to "Intelligent design", and it will morph to something else.  Ignoring it will simply allow it to fester and gain more influence.  Moreover, there are larger political ramifications to all of this as well.  Suffice it to say, it's obvious you haven't even begun to explore this issue, much like you haven't really explored the ToE before you expounded on its "failure".

/edit

However, that's a larger issue than a tiny forum like this one, where we can take the time to actually dissect the claims of the guys like yourself that want to claim knowledge of scientific theory.

as to the value of that, I think OA made a decent case for it being of value to lurkers.  

and there's always the MacGuffin factor, as previously mentioned.

Moreover, there are lot's of folks here who like to practice their arguments on target drones like AFDave.

so which is that you feel you are?

target drone?

macguffin?

participant?

Date: 2006/06/17 13:01:35, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Massive oils beds.  Massive coal beds.  Massive chalk beds.


I had a massive water bed once.  Does that count?

Date: 2006/06/17 13:58:00, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Darnn guys, I go away for awhile and you gone and brokded dave...


I don't think he came with a warranty, either.

However, I think under the lemon laws in my state, we could get the dealer to give us our money back.

Date: 2006/06/17 14:03:59, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
You give me all the world's school children and all the media and all the museums and all the encyclopedias to disseminate my message and I guarantee you I can raise the worldwide % of Christians a whale of a lot.


You missed it.  They already tried that.  It was called "the Dark Ages".

remember now?

but hey, since you spend time with your kids at home, and they have time to go to religious camps (your words), as well as church on sundays, how bout we set up a "darwin camp" eh?

another of your projected delusions is thinking that the amount of time kids are exposed to the ToE in k-12 is anything close to the amount of time spent being indoctrinated in your religion.

you act as if all that is ever done in public schools is some kind of evil indoctrination in the ToE.

Can't you clue yourself as to how paranoid that is?

Date: 2006/06/17 14:09:42, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
None of your links refute my statement or my explanations.  That's why you don't C&P any statements from them.  You just give all these links that you hope no one will go look at because they don't refute anything I said.


actually they do.  no need to cut and paste.  Your mind is simply incapable of recognizing when you are wrong.

again, a great sign that you should visit a professional mental health care practitioner ASAP.

Interestingly, you've never denied that you're nuts, probably the only bit of denial that hasn't been typed by you yet.

Date: 2006/06/17 17:26:32, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
To think that ID has some alternative standing and therefore must be attacked with all guns blazing is mindless


and here is yet another thing you haven't a clue about.

and another thing where YOU are the one approaching it as "gee, these guys must be mindless, there couldn't possibly be any value to what they are saying, or why they vehemently attack IDiots".

You own ignorance on this issue, and all others so far addressed by yourself, combined with your arrogance in thinking that your ignorance qualifies you to make conclusions, is the very reason so many of us here think you little more than a troll.

perhaps, with some time, you might re-think your approach.

Like I said before, if so, you'd be best off starting all over again with a new thread and a different approach.

 
Quote
Also, I'm glad to hear you've come around on the "evolution is fact" issue.


point of clarification -

actually, I don't think he ever denied it.  he did however, clearly state he didn't think there was sufficient evidence to support the current accepted mechanisms, nor evidence to support common descent from the fossil record, etc.

yeah, yeah, I know.

Date: 2006/06/17 17:45:33, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
So they can party down without having to worry about the consequences.


http://www.cartelia.net/fotos/l/littleni2.jpg

"Let the siiiiinnn... Begin!"

 
Quote
Can I get a little help here? Did I not take his bet? Did he not make the bet? Did he not utterly ignore the fact that I took the bet? Did he not declare victory without the debate?


confirmed.  he's ignoring you.  he's ignorant of everything else in the world, why not you as well?

I think Dave has reached the "which one of these means gay marriage" stage.

Date: 2006/06/17 18:04:38, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
what happens when a troop's brain is replaced with kitty litter.


It stays crunchy, even in milk?

Date: 2006/06/17 18:18:10, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Pat is actually an idiot savant....

of what?

Date: 2006/06/17 18:33:11, Link
Author: Ichthyic
ahh, one of my favorite "pythonite" movies.

Quote

Otto: You know your problem? You don't like winners.
Archie: Winners?
Otto: Yeah. Winners.
Archie: Winners, like North Vietnam?
Otto: Shut up. We didn't lose Vietnam. It was a tie.
Archie: [going into a cowboy-like drawl] I'm tellin' ya baby, they kicked your little ass there. Boy, they whooped yer hide REAL GOOD.

Date: 2006/06/17 18:42:29, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Actually, I'm pretty sure he did. He didn't deny that evolution "likely" happens, but he seemed to be of the opinion that evolution (as distinct from the theory of evolution) has not been proven.


go all the way back to the first page, and you'll specifically see him mention he has problems with the theory (his first post), but in latter posts he implies he agrees it at least happens.

like here:

Quote
Evolution does not occur at the population level, all diversity occurs at the individual level, actually the molecular level to be exact.


so he agrees that evolution accounts for diversity, but doesn't agree that any of the current mechanisms proposed have any evidence to support them, or are even testable.

as stated in his first post here:

Quote
Current evolutionary theory is fatally flawed because we lack the ability to perform experiments, collect data, and make predictions.


Hey this is fun!  arguing with a rational individual for a change.

Date: 2006/06/17 18:55:43, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Jay Ray, did you entirely miss the point of the common descent discussion?

there is currently NO evidence to support parallel linneages, and TONS of evidence for common descent.

heck, even Billy Dembski concedes that one.

Quote
Does it surprise you that Darwin suggests the possibility of multiple origins, or is this what you had in mind?


Darwin, unlike ourselves, did not have the advantage of the knowledge of genetics.

nor could he live long enough to envision the hundreds of thousands of experiments and observations that would end up supporting common descent.

Darwin was just one scientist.  The wonderful thing about science is that we can stand on the shoulders of those who came before to see even farther.

We build on what others have done, and as new evidence arises (either resulting from new technology or simple chance), we use it to build further.

Darwin influences current Evolutionary theory no more than Fisher, or Trivers, or Hamilton, actually.

Date: 2006/06/17 19:07:44, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Please don't forget.


have you bugged him with some PM's yet?

Date: 2006/06/17 19:13:28, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
But from what I can recall of skeptic's arguments, none of them have ever actually specified a few things.  


fair enough.

there is a WHOLE lot he never bothers to specify.  Probably because he hasn't a clue where to start.

Sorry for stepping on your toes.

Date: 2006/06/17 19:33:02, Link
Author: Ichthyic
er, before this gets much farther, when i mentioned anti-copernicus and anti-darwin, i was referring to the flat earth site referred to by steve, not gawp, though if the shoe fits...

Date: 2006/06/17 19:54:57, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Did Jesus visit you one day and tell you that unless you were an idiot, you wouldn't get into Heaven?


nawww, he just confused the whole "suffer the children" bit.

I tried to tell him it's "childlike" NOT childish, but he just won't listen.

actually, it seems Dave is hellbent on defying just about everything his good book ever said.

Monday I might go through this thread and see just how many times Dave has violated the very precepts he claims to hold so dear.

I might have to make a new thread for it, as a single post would likely take up too much room.

Date: 2006/06/17 20:43:07, Link
Author: Ichthyic
since Dave is so often compared to the Black Knight, I thought those who might need a refresher would appreciate a link to the clip:

http://www.geocities.com/eds_python/Monty_Python_The_Black_Knight.mpeg

(copy and paste the link in your browser window if clicking on it doesn't work; or rt-click and use "save target as")

It's a low res clip; I have a much better clip (it's about 45 mb), and would happily post it if someone would provide some room.

Date: 2006/06/17 20:50:40, Link
Author: Ichthyic
go ahead and make the thread!

I'm sure it will get filled in quickly enough.

;)

I'll use it to post my synthesis of Dave's "sins".

Date: 2006/06/17 20:59:05, Link
Author: Ichthyic
further discussion of this particular topic should probably use a different descriptor than "parallel evolution"; like parallel lineages, or parallel descent; since parallel evolution is already reserved for a well documented phenomenon, like convergent evolution is.

example:

http://www.sparknotes.com/biology....n1.html

Date: 2006/06/17 21:22:15, Link
Author: Ichthyic
to borrow a line from our dearly departed Thordady...

Arden opined: (man, was that irritating)

"Some people have talked about starting new AFD threads to discuss certain facets of his, uh, 'theories'."

Well, this is the thread to do this in.

example:

maybe someone would like to go through Dave's threads and count the number of times he actually has contradicted himself.

I'll eventually be adding the number of times he violates the precepts he says he holds so dear (both old covenant and new).

other ideas:

-the number of times he has simply ignored a specific question.
-how many times he has changed the subject abruptly when it was becoming so obvious he was wrong (hint: that will be a VERY large number)
-the number of times he has called the ToE a religion.

lots of opportunity for merriment, so feel free to pile on.

enjoy....

p.s.  maybe somebody could add in the number of times Thordaddy used the word "opine".

Date: 2006/06/17 21:31:28, Link
Author: Ichthyic
well, alrighty then...

done.

Date: 2006/06/18 09:40:48, Link
Author: Ichthyic
hmm, i thought i was pretty clear, but if I had to pick I'd go with:

 
Quote
or is this thread more like the Director's Commentary on the preexisting ones


but hey, whatever metadiscussion works.

Quote
we could just discuss the psychopathology of that belief system.


sure thing.  The issue runs parallel to the thread I started on indoctrination methods.

Date: 2006/06/18 09:50:35, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
As you said, public opinion vs evolution hasn't changed in twenty years and yet science has advanced tremendously.  Creationism has morphed into ID and it will likely take on some other form but again to no avail.  It has nothing to offer in the scientific arena.  Its pure philosophy/theology (whichever you chose) and nothing more.


look, you obviously don't get it.  ID indeed has nothing to do with science.  It's all socio-politcal.  Unfortunately, regardless of your musings, politics plays a rather large role in the kinds of things taught in schools, and the monies available for research.

I do trust that eventually you will start to figure this out.

IMT, you still remain as clueless as when you started.

     
Quote
We don't live in a theocracy.


tell that to McCain and the Republican party, eh?

have you ever bothered to look at how the pandering to the evangelists has had a DIRECT effect on the publication of scientific data, and the distribution of results?

Example:  Our current administration has tweaked the results and data from more government studies than any administration in history.  don't believe me?  why do you think dozens of prominent scientists (nobel winners, mind you), have gone about documenting that very issue?

Example: go check out the FDA's fumbling in the release of Plan B, and tell me pandering to the creobots has nothing to do with it.

You see what I'm saying about how creationism isn't going away, and how it DOES have an effect, but you dont't UNDERSTAND how that effect plays out.

Your assumption of how ID would play out in a classroom is totally wrong.  A creationist teacher simply uses the opportunity to teach religion instead of science.  The change in state standards like in Kansas gives them full opportunity to do so.  then this idiocy just keeps getting propagated, and morons like yourself don't see the problem.

DUDE!  get a frickin' clue!  why don't you try attending a school board meeting in a district full of creobots sometime and SEE what they would teach in schools if they had the chance.

Your approach to the ToE is EXACTLY the same.  You proceed from a position of extreme ignorance, and then presume you can muddle out significant alternatives to a theory that's been tested by tens of thousands of scientists who've studied the actual data and evidence, for over 150 years.

hubris?  your approach to every issue you've raised so far is nothing less than moronic.

Your approach causes far more damage than it helps anything.

You deserve nothing less than to be fully ridiculed here, and anywhere you attempt to press your approach to these issues.

about your ToE idiocy:

     
Quote
parallel evolution
 this doesn't mean what you think it means (to paraphrase a famous quote).

parallel evolution, as i already pointed out, has nothing to do with the  "parallel descent" idea you're flailing about with.

   
Quote
Is this likely?


how would you know?  you create a strawman and then try to calculate the probability of it.

You do realize that this is EXACTLY what Dembski and the rest of the IDiots do, yes?

no, of course you don't, because you NEVER BOTHERED TO STUDY ANY OF THE ACTUAL ISSUES before you proceeded to declare the ToE "fatally flawed"

Idiot.

 
Quote
Everything in chemistry and biochemistry seems at odds with random mutation.


everything in chemistry seems at odds with randomness (I can only assume you didn't actually mean "mutation")?

you DID say you studied biochemistry, right?

now I think you're lying about that.  Nobody who studied chemistry and got even average grades in it would ever say something that stupid.

and, before you think to ask, I had a minor in chemistry as an undergrad, and DID study biochemistry.

Hey while several others here apparently think you're all about asking honest questions, I don't.

You're the most dangerous kind of individual to the whole creationism fiasco - someone who thinks they know something but really doesn't, and has managed to convince themselves that in one sense the creos are RIGHT, and in the other, that they have no influence on society or politics at large.

You're exactly the kind of guy the IDiots are looking for.

If you don't see this, you really need to open your eyes a bit wider.

Quote
I know that history shows this not to be true but that would be a noble goal


..and yet, you don't seem to even comprehend what that statement means.

Date: 2006/06/18 10:36:16, Link
Author: Ichthyic
hey, wasn't this thread you're idea?

what I wanted to do with Davey's hypocrisy wrt his own religion will take some time, which i don't have today.

I don't want to control this thread.

let it run free!

Date: 2006/06/18 10:41:58, Link
Author: Ichthyic
First:

I think Coulter is best described as a combination of Paris Hilton and Pat Robertson.

that said:

 
Quote
do you think she's a good thing for the anti-evo movement from a strategic point of view? Furthermore, do you think her opinions are sincere?


the only reason she exists in the public arena is BECAUSE of the religious right.  She is just a firebrand, self created but whipped into a frenzy by republicans who need to mobilize their political base a few months before major elections.

so in that sense, yes, she's obviously a useful tool for the right, with anti-evo as a just another hot-button issue.

do i think her opinions are sincere?

I think she believes she is doing the right thing, but the specifics of her stated opinions are irrelevant to the issue.

so, yes in the large sense, no on the specifics.

oh and...

Quote
My model's in better shape than ever.


what model?  still haven't seen it yet.

Date: 2006/06/18 11:02:08, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Wasn't Larry Fafarman suffering some sort of mental problem? AFDave sounds as if he has the same one. The arguments are different, the blindness to being repeatedly defeated  is similar.


Yes, Larry's brother took the time to detail his particular deficiencies once.

It's hard to say whether Dave suffers the same thing or not, but you're absolutely right about the commonalities of behavior.

...but it's not just those two that share them, just about any creobot can be found to share them to a great extent.

Gawp:

You're being irresponsible.

Deadman:

Quote
The good part is that people around you are bound to notice your insane monomania.


hmm, I'd bet not, or if they have, they think them "harmless".

Date: 2006/06/18 11:06:57, Link
Author: Ichthyic
then get to it already!

less talk, more action.

Date: 2006/06/18 11:09:59, Link
Author: Ichthyic
you should repost the exact post where you made the terms of the wager.

no possibility of Dave claiming he was confused then.

I'll be happy to act as witness.

Date: 2006/06/18 11:25:32, Link
Author: Ichthyic
It's not "us" I'm concerned with.  Dave will take it as tacit support for his MO, without seeing the sarcasm.

Date: 2006/06/18 11:54:08, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I can't believe that Coulter can be good for the antievolution movement. She has zero credibility as a scholar,


how can you read the daily screed of AFD and say that with straight face?

zero credibility as a scholar has never mattered to followers of Robertson or GW.

remember the "wise" words of Ray Mummert.

Quote
I can't imagine she's 'converted' enough to people to antievolution -- or turned enough people off of it -- to make a net difference


interesting.  I myself have no problem imagining that she has in fact, served as a great source of inspiration to those already looking for reasons to turn off their minds.

example:

remember Randy?  He came to PT to poo-poo the ToE because of something he read in Coulter's book.

It's hard for any rational mind to initially "imagine" how an irrational stream of drivel like coulter's could influence others... until you see it happen over and over again.

then the sheer weight of evidence tends to start to be convincing.

Date: 2006/06/18 12:01:04, Link
Author: Ichthyic
clear as a bell.

"Flightless" Dave is starting to look ever more like another flightless bird...

Date: 2006/06/18 12:05:19, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
he's cribbing from Humphrey's nonsense


no wonder he keeps complimenting Davey.

like UD, I can't stomach spending time looking at the drivel over at AIG or ICR any more.

ruins my whole day.

Date: 2006/06/18 16:17:58, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
We could go back and forth citing instances of govt abuses and successes in the area of research funding over the last administration but it doesn't matter they are transient.


no, we couldn't.

I could provide a neat history, with references, of how things have slid progressively downwards wrt to education and science research in this country over the last 25 years.  You could provide... what?

How old are you anyway?

if you're older than 18, did you ever leave your house?

the reality IS out there.  why do you think organizations like NCSE even exist?

You're frickin' blind as a bat, and my anger at your attitude and approach is more than justified.

Quote
There's no need to focus so much of your energy on something that will ultimately have very little effect upon human history.  


lots of things have an ultimate impact that's quite small.  The bubonic plague, for example.  

Doesn't mean the issues for those in the reality of the time they are happening aren't important.

again, you're absolute complete cluelessness irks me to no end.

I'll get to your chemistry idiocy later.

I'll check back in a few hours.

Think of me like a bulldog.  I'm not gonna let you go on this shit any more.

you haven't a clue about ANYTHING you've posted here so far, not a one.

We had to even show you how common descent works, which should have been BASIC knowledge to anybody thinking they want to produce their own "theory".  Do I need to baby step you through all the efforts underway to stem the tide of idiocy in education being wrought by creationists?

can't you do ANY of the work on your own before you make such moronic statements?

oh yeah, you're my bitch, and I've decided I'm gonna keep slapping you until you cry uncle.

I can accept AFD, because he's just "lying for Jesus", and is crazy to boot.

but you... you're just a moron who thinks he knows stuff.

the fact you have half a brain on your shoulders just makes me all the angrier that you use it so poorly.

Date: 2006/06/19 11:02:19, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
The Black Knight never had it so bad; all he lost were a couple of (well, okay, three) limbs.



actually, he lost all four.

"Oh, runnin' away, eh?  Come back, and I'll bite your legs off!"

Dave's gone far beyond this.  Not only has he lost all of his limbs, I think he's been whittled down to little more than a toothless mouth.

Date: 2006/06/19 11:13:26, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Here, Jean, I think Darwin's own words will do the most to convince you he was no racist, at least from the perspective of the times he lived in:

http://home.att.net/~troybritain/articles/darwin_on_race.htm

a comment from the person who assembled the quotes from Darwin:

Quote
What we do know from the above quotes is that for a mid-19th century upper class, white, English male, Darwin was very enlightened and "liberal" minded.  He was a staunch abolitionist, he considered blacks and Indians to be people, he felt disgust and horror at their mistreatment, and he had much sympathy for their plight.  Therefore singling Darwin out among 19th century scientists for the label of racist is hardly fair.

Date: 2006/06/19 11:29:39, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
You can double-check my logic then.


just like your model, I have yet to see this as well.

so far, there IS nothing to double-check.

...less talk, more action.

Date: 2006/06/19 11:54:13, Link
Author: Ichthyic
http://www.physorg.com/news69949395.html

Quote
On the sun-splashed Caribbean island of St. Kitts, Yale University researchers are injecting millions of human brain cells into the heads of monkeys


I for one, welcome our new super-monkey overlords.

Date: 2006/06/19 14:17:22, Link
Author: Ichthyic
probably.  Now we just have to give them typewriters and teach them how to type.

and breed a few more of them...

well, OK, a LOT more.

Date: 2006/06/19 17:44:39, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
(in fact, I suspect it's less racist, since it doesn't hold that certain races are, by definition, more morally despicable than others.)


except in the South, and some midwestern states...

You're overarching view of conservatism and liberalism is beyond simplistic.

and what's it got to do with the topic of discussion?

Is Ann Coulter racist too?

based on the current political hotbutton regarding the immigration issue, I'm going to go out on a limb and say she has something bad to say about Hispanic immigrants that at least borders on racism.

anybody know?

Date: 2006/06/19 20:39:44, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Hey, so since Hawking said essentially the same thing as Pianka (and the same thing as Paul Ehrlich, and thousands of others), why do you supposed the IDiots over on UD aren't proclaiming Hawking the latest in the line of "Doctor Dooms"?

Why pick on Pianka, but not Hawking?

I want to explore this double standard a bit, if you don't mind.

Date: 2006/06/19 20:43:23, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Random mutation, meaning that the mutation that occurs has no bearing upon the fitness of the result,


that's not what it means at all.

another example of ignorance on your part.

Why do you keep insisting on TELLING us what the ToE "means", when you obviously haven't the slightest clue about what even the basic terms mean??

it just boggles the mind.

*slap*

Date: 2006/06/19 20:56:10, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Hi Dave, I see you are logged into the board! Hey, check this out.!


it just goes to show; when Davey the supposedly successful businessman is asked to "put his money where his mouth is", he just can't do it.

this is clear evidence that he really DOESN'T believe any of the stuff he has spouted continually here.  Otherwise, why would he pass up a sure bet?

besides, IIRC the terms weren't even monetary in nature as proposed by BWE. Dave should not only be happy to jump at the chance, but more than willing to up the stakes!

Dave, what are you, a chicken?  

or just so unsure of yourself that you can't even accept a gentleman's wager on the outcome of even something as simple as what BWE has proposed?

I'm leaning towards flightless bird myself, with a heavy dose of yellow running in a streak down your backside...

Actually, the mere fact you refuse to wager on your own contentions means that we defacto win every argument we ever had with you.

Until you're willing to back up what you say, you've simply lost.

DO YOU WANT TO BE A LOSER AND A CHICKEN, DAVE??

Date: 2006/06/19 20:58:55, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
But then again......


exactly.

learning isn't one of their strongpoints.

to put it mildly.

Date: 2006/06/19 21:02:03, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
upward genetic mobility


the "Yuppie" approach to biological research.

:p

Quote
but you couldn't have asked for more support from me.


now, now, baiting the trolls should not be considered "helping the ignorant".

Date: 2006/06/19 21:46:20, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
The shitstorm would be enormous.


wouldn't it just, though?

makes me all the more surprised they haven't.

they do seem to be of the philosophy that "there is no such thing as bad publicity".

I think maybe the right people just missed his announcement?

maybe somebody should drop them a hint...

nudge nudge, wink wink.

Date: 2006/06/20 13:20:53, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Given the cost of living here in the Bay area, that day may not be all that far off. :-)


already come and gone for me!  Now you know why I moved from the bay area to the desert.

Now, even the friggin desert is getting expensive!

#### real-estate speculators.

Date: 2006/06/20 13:27:05, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
'Thirst for knowledge' may be opium craving


http://www.physorg.com/news70030587.html

Dam*n!  that explains the addictive nature of PT.

Quote
This preference for novel concepts also has evolutionary value, he added.

"The system is essentially designed to maximize the rate at which you acquire new but interpretable [understandable] information. Once you have acquired the information, you best spend your time learning something else.


...and this explains why creobots get so boring so quickly.

Date: 2006/06/20 13:31:24, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
How Can We Make Monkey Brains Tastier?


hmm, I think they're pretty tasty as is.  If we made them any tastier, certainly the demand would quickly begin to outstrip supply, and just like caviar, the price would get so high as to make monkey brains only attainable by the super rich.

Is that what you really want?

Date: 2006/06/20 13:49:11, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
He's afraid that the combination of arrogance and ignorance he displays will be obvious to the people who think highly of him, and might read this.


This brings up an obvious question:

If Dave is so convinced we are all wrong, and so convinced he has presented overwhelming proof of the correctness of his position, and so convinced he has won all the arguments....

Has he posted a link to this thread on his own blog?

I haven't looked in a while, but I don't recall his having done so.

Dave, remembe when you said THIS on the very first page of this thread:

Quote
I expect to be required to do a great deal more work ... and I may fail.  I admit that.  If you used the same approach and your explanation was better, then it would be reasonable to adopt yours, to be sure.


Somehow, this doesn't jibe with the next 78 pages, does it?

Date: 2006/06/20 14:49:42, Link
Author: Ichthyic
child-eating swine?

Can't recall anybody here labeling you such.  is this something you might actually label yourself?

are you a pig that eats youngsters?

anyway, it's fast becoming obvious that your whole reason for starting this thread had nothing to do with Coulter, and everything to do with yet another attempt by yourself at spewing your idiotic political screeds.

Didn't you get enough love growing up?

Why the desperate need for attention?

Date: 2006/06/20 19:03:56, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I quit my day job after making my third million (about 6 years ago)


NOW we know why Dembski gave his blog over to this idiot.

heck, I'd sell this blog for a hundred grand.

Date: 2006/06/20 19:09:20, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Funny, but isn't  Scientific American the Springerbot's favorite "rag".

uh, oh.  You better tell him the truth.

;)

Date: 2006/06/21 12:37:56, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Hey, I'm not the one to dictate what should and shouldn't be the focus of the forum here, and obviously I too enjoy the slapstick comedy that the Springerbot and AFD present.  However, really, don't we have enough frivolity and enough creobots to poke a stick at already?

If we're voting i vote not to reintroduce them, if for no other reason than to encourage more effort to go into posting topics related to actual science, or even philosophy, to discuss.  

JAD is literally, a one trick pony, and the Springerbot, based on previous experience, will simply run away to his own blog (UD) whenever things start looking bad for him here.

Date: 2006/06/21 12:43:30, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
God is a negative 1? I didn't know that!


yup.  now you know.  any time you introduce "God" into a theory or equation, it automatically removes information and usefulness from that equation.

makes perfect sense.

Date: 2006/06/21 13:04:36, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Oh, by the way, you didn't answer the question.  Who said it?  I'll give you a hint. It was the same person that said "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."  


oh! oh! I know! pick me!

this person coincidentally has the same initials that most folks around these parts used to abreviate the last part of my old handle (which was Sir_Toejam, for those unfamiliar).

You know, Dave, one of those founding fathers you were so convinced were all of the same worldview as yourself.

Date: 2006/06/21 13:10:50, Link
Author: Ichthyic
that was it exactly; one day he (she?) simply went completely ballistic (and that's an understatement) on just about everybody, and used a considerable amount of profanity to boot.

when the moderators attempted to intervene, they got an earful as well.

that was the last time I ever saw Great White Wonder round these parts.

that was what?  over a year ago IIRC.

i do believe I've seen GWW posting on other forums though; gone from PT but still round and about.

I don't know if GWW has approached any of the contributors for reinstatement or not.

Date: 2006/06/21 15:26:30, Link
Author: Ichthyic
hmm, I recall that GWW did, in fact, mostly post rants and witticisms (sometimes inappropriate), but occasionally contributed something quite worthwhile to a particular discussion as well.

In fact, I sometimes think I'm pushing the envelope myself.

I would have put GWW at (on average) about 80% rants/witticism vs. 20% content; but the content was there.

I guess it's just that GWW's rants were a bit more on the extreme side in quality, as well as quantity, and around the time of the banning, there was essentially NO content, and the rants were off the scale!

With myself, I usually constrain my angrier rants for specific folks; like the Clouserbot, for example, and the occassional other like her that pretends to knowledge about the ToE but obviously doesn't know shit from shinola.  Those folks PO me even more than pure creationists like AFD.

However, if anybody is curious as to exactly what posts were getting GWW in trouble, the records should still be there on PT, if anybody cares to do a search for them.  shouldn't be too difficult.  However, any posts that got moved to the BW, or deleted entirely, won't be locatable any more.

Date: 2006/06/21 15:36:00, Link
Author: Ichthyic
hmm, this comparison sparked an old memory of a famous argument about false "design" detection based on the "face on Mars", but I can't recall the specific reference now.

anybody recall what I'm referring to?

Date: 2006/06/21 15:41:31, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Re "with a certified IQ north of 150 (MGCT and SAT tests)"


I have a certified IQ of 165.

Worship me, Dave.

(oh, and send money - even better)

Date: 2006/06/21 15:52:44, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
The 'Tard may be intelligent.  I've written this before, but I think it should be noted that he may not only be a severe ignoramus, but he may as well be quite stupid.  Perhaps he is a savant, with some flashes of intelligence, but with a near-total incapacity to understand things that normal people grasp with ease.


well, that would explain Carol Clouser as well.

... and Dave Heddle.

maybe a few others...

Date: 2006/06/21 16:02:08, Link
Author: Ichthyic
on converting SAT scores to IQ...

I found this:

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002360.html

Date: 2006/06/21 16:28:58, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I knew i would remember it eventually:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/12/icons_of_id_equ.html

I'd specify particular worthy quotes, but there were a lot of them in the discussion, along with references to other similar examples of false design detection.

Date: 2006/06/21 16:35:48, Link
Author: Ichthyic
"Evolution. It's what's for dinner."

Date: 2006/06/21 16:42:10, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
..."The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes."


no doubt some creobot somewhere has used this to justify making abortion illegal.

"See! See! Even the founding fathers recognized how good sense leads to abortion!"

In fact, it sounds just like something Ray Mummert would say.

sorry, couldn't resist.


:p

Date: 2006/06/21 16:54:34, Link
Author: Ichthyic
well, the problem is that it's possible that she isn't lying when she says she does in fact have a PhD in physics (which, BTW, she stated just yesterday for the first time in all these months over on PT), which makes her smart like Behe, but just as deluded and wrong about anything else most of the time.

heck, did you see her recent screed about eliminating hyenas because they kill zebras in a "more cruel way" than lions do??

She's been half right with most of her comments about astrophysics, but ALWAYS wrong about her interpretations of the ToE and how science is actually practiced (and whenever she waxes on pretty much anything biological, for that matter)

It's frickin' weird, and she isn't doing any lurkers any favors.

Date: 2006/06/21 17:10:01, Link
Author: Ichthyic
right you are Richard.

unfortunately, many of us don't have institutional access and can't see past the abstract.

the link i posted shows the formula used, so folks can use it to calculate their own conversions, should they so wish.

Date: 2006/06/21 17:54:19, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Cale-

even using the adjusted equation with mean and std from the 2003 data, it looks like you are correct.

maxes out a little over 130.

maybe somebody else can figure out what's wrong?

here's the formula supposedly extracted from the paper (ignore the stuff at the top of the post)

(IQ - 100)/15 = .82 * (SAT - mean)/std

utilizing the 2003 data, the mean and std are:

1025 and 209, respectively.

assuming a max combined SAT score of 1600, I get 134 as the max IQ.

doesn't seem to translate well to the familar IQ table.

Date: 2006/06/21 18:12:12, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I knew, for instance, a grad student who was sure the moon landings were faked.


that must have made for some interesting conversations...

Date: 2006/06/21 18:47:39, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
dying certainly isn't 'handling things',


well, OTOH, one might consider it the "ultimate" of ways to handle things.

maybe god just gets tired of our bs after a while, and just snuffs us out so he can stop listening to our whining?  He just makes it look like an accident.

fits with the idea that snuffing onesself out is a good way to stop having to listen to one's own bs and whining.

:p

Indeed; how bout the Heat.  looks like Wade has achieved true superstar status!  he even gets non-existent foul calls in the last 2 seconds of a finals game.  Only superstars get those calls.

;)

Yeah, I watched the last 4 games.  I hate Mark Cuban, but I did want to see Dirk Nowitzki do well.

in the end, I was kind of "meh", as I'm just a Laker's fan anyway.  I hope the fact that Wade scored 43 points in game 5, and was voted the MVP alleviates the pressure that's likely on Shaq's mind, as surely otherwise he would be calling Kobe on the phone every 10 minutes saying, "I told you so!"

Date: 2006/06/21 19:52:27, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
So, my question to this board is: why do you persist? Why do you think creos like Dave will change? Why do you spend so much time & energy trying to show him the errors of his ways? Isn't there something better you could be doing than trying to point out errors in thinking to the likes of Afdave?


not a day goes by I don't wonder why myself.  The answer seems to be:

1.  Yourself.  There are always lurkers popping in and out that occasionally de-lurk and express appreciation for the effort.

2.  simple fun.  lot's of folks like poking a dead body with a stick.  (put this one under the humor category)

3.  training.  just testing argumentation techniques.

4.  research (lax).  some (myself for example) like to see if there is ANY argument that can penetrate the bullet-headed creobot, and document their reactions to specific arguments.  AFD has given me lots to think about, nothing relating to the content of his posts, but in how he reacts to information.

5.  "the MacGuffin" factor.  You might have noticed several interesting sub topics that have started as a result of something idiotic that AFD said.

that about covers it, AFAICT.

Date: 2006/06/21 19:57:52, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Put me at the top of the key, with a few minutes to go, and the shot clock ticking away, and my involuntary twitching would have been mistaken for a grand mal seizure.


heck, my back and knees start to hurt if I even THINK about playing a real game of b-ball these days.

:p

Date: 2006/06/21 20:08:28, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
but my point is that reading gilgamesh and learning about the flint trade at Uruk ought to be enough to show them that neither they nor anyone else has a fuckin clue about god


they might even try reading the book of Job in their own KJV sometime.

what's really funny is I can imagine Kent Hovind in the role of Job, and essentially god saying to him:

"WERE YOU THERE, IDIOT?"

amazing bunch of hypocrites these creobots are.

Date: 2006/06/21 20:15:22, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Sometimes the federal govt can come in, and sometimes organizations that represent the general opinion of the field of study need to come in.


how quickly Skeptic seems to forget the lessons and implications for school districts of what happened in Dover.

In fact, I can't think of anything skeptic would be better off spending some time reading than the transcripts from the trial, and the posts on PT leading up to the trial for context.

Maybe that will give him some clue as to the actual reality of the situation, rather than the moronic vision he seems to have of it at this point in time.

Date: 2006/06/21 20:45:32, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Good spot.


kudos to Cale, who spotted it before i even tried to run a calculation.

meh, I've never actually thought that the Spingerbot's general intelligence was the big issue anyway; it's his psychology that's so fubar.
You can see very similar psychology demonstrated by AFDave in his threads (though with AFD, the issue of general intelligence is actually far more relevant than with the Springerbot).

Date: 2006/06/21 21:02:34, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
or discussing the minutiae of Gilbert and Sullivan


phht.  Rodgers and Hammestein all the way, baby!

;)

Date: 2006/06/21 21:45:30, Link
Author: Ichthyic
woah, dude.

great minds think alike, eh?

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=2270

Date: 2006/06/22 13:14:46, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Hey, it's all good!

... now gimme a fix before i pop a cap in your a**!

;)

Date: 2006/06/22 13:17:38, Link
Author: Ichthyic
lol.

yeah, so much so one wonders if the author of the comic doesn't know a few creobots himself.

Date: 2006/06/22 13:24:44, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
But when they start listening to the siren call of the Internet, things get out of control.”


ahhh, so that's what happened to poor WD40.

he followed the sirens to his own doom.

now you can really only hear the sirens song.

Date: 2006/06/22 13:41:38, Link
Author: Ichthyic
As expected from the opening salvo, all that has happened is continual correction of skeptic's ignorance.

Nothing resembling a "reinvention" of the ToE.

surprise, surprise.

Date: 2006/06/22 14:07:31, Link
Author: Ichthyic
naw, we didn't need someone with a negative IQ to tell us you were already a genius, there PZ.

;)

Date: 2006/06/22 14:11:25, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Kicking the Sacred Cow???

more like kicking the sacred BS around, and getting it all over themselves.

Date: 2006/06/22 14:37:09, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
If what you're saying is true, how do you explain my arguments in the fish debate with Brazeau?


see, more evidence to support my position that gawp's trollish nature is secondary to his ignorance.

and... Just like AFDave, whenever gawp poots on the subject of cladistics, he always assumes himself more knowledgeable than the actual practitioners, and always assumes he wins those "debates" (read as: "gawp gets torn a new one").

if gawp were honest with himself, he would see he has much more in common with AFD in the way he presents and processes arguments than he would care to admit.

I'm sticking with my vote.

Date: 2006/06/22 16:36:31, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Step out of the closet and breathe the fresh, clean air of unashamed masochism, pookie.


woo hoo! break out the chains and rubber suits!

Date: 2006/06/22 16:39:53, Link
Author: Ichthyic
... and in the immortal words of those Fabulous Furry Freak Bros.:

"Dope gets you through times of no money,
better than money gets you through times of no dope."

Date: 2006/06/22 16:44:08, Link
Author: Ichthyic
ahh, i see you found the BW, where you said your posts didn't exist.

I'm not terribly interested in your rants, but one thing caught my eye:

Quote
stupid EO Wilson say the best thing evolution has done is refute god.


that's an interesting tidbit.  with all the things Wilson has said, I don't recall that one specifically.  Can you recall where you mined that quote from?

Date: 2006/06/22 16:47:44, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
given a stationary earth. I think you're getting a bit ahead of yourself, Bill.


I must have missed this again. Is a geostationary earth also part of his geocentric "model"?

Date: 2006/06/22 17:10:29, Link
Author: Ichthyic
that's not good enough.  If you could track down the exact abridged version you mean, that would be a bit more helpful.  I spent a half hour searching, and can't find any abridged versions of Origins, for example, that have introductions by EO Wilson.  Several versions with introductions by other biologists, but not Ed.

bottom line, I doubt he really said what you seem to think he said.  It's possible, but I'd like to see it for myself.  I bet he said something more along the lines of evolutionary theory being a good example of where god is not needed to explain what we observe.

...and stop your idiotic ranting for a little while.  maybe when you turn off that part of your brain that feels the need to rant, something actually useful will come out of your keyboard.

Date: 2006/06/22 17:22:04, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Take for instance the post concerning the parasitic nature of non-coding genes, now that gives me something to chew on.


this is basic stuff; maybe you should have chewed your food a bit more thoroughly before starting, eh?

I hear swallowing food without chewing can lead to serious digestive problems.

Date: 2006/06/22 17:26:33, Link
Author: Ichthyic
you're just full of bad habits, aren't ya?

"How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?"

Date: 2006/06/22 17:30:40, Link
Author: Ichthyic
yeah, well, the model is pretty vague on specifics so far, to put it mildly.

maybe I'M the one jumping the gun thinking that he could specify a piddling detail like whether his earth is geostationary or not, eh?

Date: 2006/06/22 18:27:57, Link
Author: Ichthyic
*blush*

Yes, the trade in monkey brains is thought provoking business.

all the moreso because, well, er, there really IS a trade in monkey brains!

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010309.html

Date: 2006/06/22 18:51:50, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Is this the introduction you apparently find so offensive:

http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/110518.html

I could not find where Wilson said that "the best thing evolution has done is refute god."

maybe you can find it.

I did find this passage relevant, however:

Quote
So, will science and religion find common ground, or at least agree to divide the fundamentals into mutually exclusive domains? A great many well-meaning scholars believe that such rapprochement is both possible and desirable. A few disagree, and I am one of them. I think Darwin would have held to the same position. The battle line is, as it has ever been, in biology. The inexorable growth of this science continues to widen, not to close, the tectonic gap between science and faith-based religion.

Rapprochement may be neither possible nor desirable. There is something deep in religious belief that divides people and amplifies societal conflict. In the early part of this century, the toxic mix of religion and tribalism has become so dangerous as to justify taking seriously the alternative view, that humanism based on science is the effective antidote, the light and the way at last placed before us.

In any case, the dilemma to be solved is truly profound. On the one side the input of religion on human history has been beneficent in many ways. It has generated much of which is best in culture, including the ideals of altruism and public service. From the beginning of history it has inspired the arts. Creation myths were in a sense the beginning of science itself. Fabricating them was the best the early scribes could do to explain the universe and human existence.

Yet the high risk is the ease with which alliances between religions and tribalism are made. Then comes bigotry and the dehumanization of infidels. Our gods, the true believer asserts, stand against your false idols, our spiritual purity against your corruption, our divinely sanctioned knowledge against your errancy. In past ages the posture provided an advantage. It united each tribe during life-and-death struggles with other tribes. It buoyed the devotees with a sense of superiority. It sacralized tribal laws and mores, and encouraged altruistic behaviors. Through sacred rites it lent solemnity to the passages of life. And it comforted the anxious and afflicted. For all this and more it gave people an identity and purpose, and vouchsafed tribal fitness — yet, unfortunately, at the expense of less united or otherwise less fortunate tribes.

Religions continue both to render their special services and to exact their heavy costs. Can scientific humanism do as well or better, at a lower cost? Surely that ranks as one of the great unanswered questions of philosophy. It is the noble yet troubling legacy that Charles Darwin left us.



like dawkins, he sees the problems arising from religious fundametnalism, but unlike him, I think Ed doesn't want to completely abandon the good things that religion has provided throughout history:

Quote
...the input of religion on human history has been beneficent in many ways. It has generated much of which is best in culture, including the ideals of altruism and public service.


does that sound to you like someone who thinks that the best thing science has done is to refute god?

again, stop your ranting and see the real issues involved here.

see what happens when pure religious fervor is the norm:  take Al qaeda, for example.  would they even exist at all if it wasn't for the very negative aspects of religion Ed himself describes above?

Date: 2006/06/22 19:06:40, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote (Antipasto @ June 22 2006,23:20)
Of course god is not NEEDED to explain organisms or anything else we see.  Thats not a very impressive thought to me. You may add or take god, it won't do much of a difference to a properly scientific understanding of what we see. I don't need a pile of evolution data to know that, nor will anyone who understands the true spirit of science.
As poet Nicanor Parra humorously put it in his "Ultimatum":
Either god is in everything, or he is in nothing.

hmm, if god is not needed to explain something, and god is in everything or he is in nothing....

you've given us only one choice.

he's in nothing.

I don't see a problem with that for people of faith, who don't try to prove god exists by looking for him in the gaps of existence, but the very thing that PZ and Dawkins, and Wilson, and myself, and 99.9% of all scientists see is that there is a large proportion of those who call themselves 'xian' or 'muslim' who apparently have no faith, and feel they must find god revealed in nature, or accept that he IS nothing.  With such a strawman for a worldview, it's no surprise to see apologists like Dembski invent a ass-backwards idea like NFL, or Behe create the idea of "irreducible complexity".

Yes, these folks in not accepting the tenants of their professed faith, do damage not only to science and education, but to the larger religions they claim to belong to as well.

At some point, one does have to ask the question:

are these IDiots going to be reigned in by those of the religions they claim?  or not?

many have, based on an apparent unwillingness of those who say they do have faith to correct those who apparently don't (specifically the afore mentioned IDiots and creationists), come to the logical conclusion that perhaps the overaching failure is with religion itself.

I for one, don't blame them.

Date: 2006/06/22 19:58:31, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Those bad habits are long gone relics of my youth.


the evidence in this thread says different.

I still say you could approach this whole thing from a much better perspective if you actually read some basic genetics, biology, and evolutionary biology texts, THEN you could form realistic, sensible questions you could come back and ask.

scrap this effort and go read some, come back and start a new thread where you ask actual questions, rather than dictate what is and isn't when you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

You'll find a far different attitudue ensues.

Date: 2006/06/22 20:09:03, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
intellectual mediocrity of Wilson


LOL.  yeah.  he was so mediocre he published more than 50 books, won dozens of awards for his work, started an entire subfield of evolutionary biology, and published hundreds of important papers on evolutionary theory and entomology.

I should be so mediocre.

You sir, are an idiot.

Moreover, You are a liar.  You were NOT able to find the quote you attributed to Wilson in the introduction to the compliation you cited, cause it ain't in there.

you probably got the idea from a second hand source of idiocy like the Salon article you decided to quote instead.

Quote
Take Nazism for example


oops. I invoke Godwin's law.  You lose, defacto.

it works especially well in this case, as the reference to naziism is particularly irrelevant to the point i was making.

Why do I think that PZ has seen you before?  I can see why he just flung your crap onto the BW.

oh well, Godwin says you're done.  Why should i disagree?

bye bye.

Date: 2006/06/22 20:21:37, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
You earned your respect by producing a product they wanted.


this brings up a point.  on the very first page, Davey intimates that he ain't doing this for us.

He's doing it to detail his representation of a product that somebody ELSE would buy.

namely, the apologist sites and educational facilities he wants to get paid to add his creationist "arguments" to.

What of it, DaveDrone?  Who is your real target audience?

I'm dying to see if they think you're selling your product well here.

You haven't linked this thread on your blog yet, have you?

why not?

Date: 2006/06/22 20:27:01, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
pissed off their gods to the point of being inundated with Gods love.


lol.  exactly.

I wonder if we could calculate the size of God's bladder from the historical records that do indicate a largish flood occured, that might have covered a certain amount of area around the Mediterranean.

Let's see, if the bulk of an area the size of Mesopotamia was completely covered in God's love...

hmm...

carry the one...

ahh, got it.

and before you ask what the answer is...

heck no, I ain't gonna tell you!  Read about it in the book I'm gonna publish:

"The Explanatory Power of the Excretions of Godlike Entities:  A Historical and Analytical Perspective."

Date: 2006/06/22 20:35:00, Link
Author: Ichthyic
hey, maybe this technique of brain cell injections is exactly what those two need to STOP?

I'm willing to give it the 'ol college try and see.

I hope their brains are compatible with monkey cells.

Date: 2006/06/23 11:30:15, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Has anyone considered the possibility that AFDave is really a disguise for PZ Myers?

wait!  hear me out...

What better way to make an argument FOR secularism than showing 85 pages of AFDave?

It's genius, I tells ya!

Date: 2006/06/23 11:49:55, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 23 2006,16:34)
Actually, Ich, the thought had crossed my mind once or twice, but NOBODY could fake this kind of breathtaking inanity, if I may borrow a phrase.

Yeah, I know, I was both kidding and making a point about how Dave discredits his own profered religion at the same time.

Date: 2006/06/23 12:53:09, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
 Why didn't you tell me that in the first place and I would have saved my breath.


well, at first we all told you to save your breath anyway, unless you wish to actually provide hard evidence to support your positions.

now, You've become a great source of humorous insipiration, and a great example of what the fundy worldview does to folks minds and ability to process information in a rational fashion.

so go ahead and keep on spoutin' there, Davey.  You appear to have almost as many fans here as the other Dave over on UD.

oh, and have you posted a link to this thread on your blog yet?

why not?

Date: 2006/06/23 15:29:08, Link
Author: Ichthyic
meh, don't worry about it; bragging about the number of visits only works to sell space to advertisers, which there are none on PT.

hence:

pandasthumb.org

vs.

uncommondescent.com

UD is an entirely commercial venture; though I doubt that most of the participants even notice this.

Date: 2006/06/23 15:35:24, Link
Author: Ichthyic
[quote][quote]Eric: Try to attribute all quotes to the person who wrote them (for example, by c&p "        
Quote (afdave @ June 23 2006,17:22)
" instead of just "        
Quote
", in the beginning of all dave's quotes).


I think that's the only way you can get quotes within quotes... If that's the problem.


let's see if that's correct...

hmm, i think i might see the problem.  as suspected, it doesn't have to do with attribution; standard nested quotes are working fine;  I think the system may be picking up on code that is embedded within the quotes themselves, that it shouldn't be.

example, you see the mess above?  the nesting worked, but as you can see the results were not exactly as predicted; it looks like the system picked out the code you put in "quotes" when I tried to enclose it in a nested quote.

so it seems probable that the system is dealing with code inside of quotes differently when it is embedded inside of another quote.

er, if that makes sense.

let's see what happens if i remove the "quoted" bit out...

   
Quote
   
Quote
Eric: Try to attribute all quotes to the person who wrote them (for example, by afdave,June 23 2006,17:22 instead of just, in the beginning of all dave's quotes).


I think that's the only way you can get quotes within quotes... If that's the problem.


yup.

I think the problem is occurring when there are quoted areas in Dave's screeds that somebody tries to put inside of a nested quote; the system picks up "false code" that it should ignore.

as a workaround, I would suggest doublechecking the material you wish to nested quote for possible inclusion of code you think the system would normally ignore in a normal quote.

playing some more...

 
Quote (afdave @ June 23 2006,17:22)

What!!??  So I go to all this trouble chasing Penrose and Hoyle and whoever else and you say "Don't bother.  I'm already convinced that the universe is fine tuned for life??!!"  Why didn't you tell me that in the first place and I would have saved my breath.


 
Quote
 
Quote (afdave @ June 23 2006,17:22)

What!!??  So I go to all this trouble chasing Penrose and Hoyle and whoever else and you say "Don't bother.  I'm already convinced that the universe is fine tuned for life??!!"
Why didn't you tell me that in the first place and I would have saved my breath.


[quote=afdave,June 23 2006,17:22]
What!!??  So I go to all this trouble chasing Penrose and Hoyle and whoever else and you say "
Quote
"Don't bother.  I'm already convinced that the universe is fine tuned for life??!!"  Why didn't you tell me that in the first place and I would have saved my breath.


bing!  yup, that's what's going on.  you can place code in quotes like this "[quote]" in the body of the post with no problem, but when you try to include it in a nested quote like the last one above, things get messy.

Date: 2006/06/23 15:55:40, Link
Author: Ichthyic
hmm, i think i will add a 6th point to my list as to why this thead continues on and on.

6.  People really like using Dave as a whipping boy, and Dave seems to enjoy it.

like i said:

woo hoo! bring out the chains and rubber suits!

and they say the Davinci Code was worthless....

Quote
The Teacher tells Silas to go to Saint-Suplice immediately and retrieve the keystone. Before obeying, Silas engages in some “corporal mortification,” a masochistic practice of physical self-punishment, as a way of doing penance for sins. Silas tightens the barbed cilice, a punishment belt, around his thigh, and flagellates himself, all the while repeating his mantra: “Pain is good.”


so, Dave:

Is pain good?  You must be bearing an awful lot of sin to take this much whipping.

Date: 2006/06/23 16:02:09, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Maybe if I take all formatting codes out from between codes.


yup.  that will probably fix it.

let's see if it requires nested code, or just a simple "[quote]" to break the code sensing system:

[quote]let's see if it requires nested code, or just a simple "
Quote
" to break the code sensing system:


ahh, nope, the code sensing system breaks on things put into a standard quote as well.

I suppose we should post this issue on the board mechanics thread?

Date: 2006/06/23 16:15:54, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I don't know if this has been noted before, but some code that is normally ignored when placed in the body of a post, isn't when placed inside of a quote.

example:

I don't know if this has been noted before, but some code that is normally ignored when placed in the body of a post, isn't when placed inside of a "[quote]", as this example of the system ignoring the above quote code in the body demonstrates.

take the same thing and put it in a quote:

[quote]I don't know if this has been noted before, but some code that is normally ignored when placed in the body of a post, isn't when placed inside of a "
Quote
", as this example of the system NOT ignoring the above quote code when placed in a quote demonsrates.


just noticed this as sometimes folks will quote parts of others' posts that have code or "pseudocode" in them already, and it ends up looking rather odd.

Date: 2006/06/23 16:22:56, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
the similarities between naked and Damaraland mole rats can be called a form of convergent evolution as well, because it seems that, while the two species have a common ancestor, the Damaralands branch off later and are not descendents of the nakeds (if I read the article correctly). To me, that means that the naked branch developed eusocial behavior when it branched off, then many other branches sprouted, none of which were eusocial, then, much later, environmental pressures "turned on" eusocial behavior again. But who knows if it is the same genes that code for the behavior in both? Worth looking into, I think.


hmm, interestingly, this actually this sounds more like a case of parallel evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_evolution

Quote
In evolutionary biology, parallel evolution refers to the independent evolution of similar traits in closely related lineages of species, while convergent evolution refers to the appearance of striking similarities among lineages of organisms only very distantly related.


so naked mole rats social order resembling that of termites is convergent evolution, but the similarities between nakeds and damarland would be more correctly termed parallel.

This issue has often been a source of confusion (and of course there will be some overlap); but i think the cases you cite here act as very good examples to help clarify.

What do the rest think?

Date: 2006/06/23 16:29:21, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
So you donate time, money and labor for kids?  Tell me more. I want to find out why you are so concerned about these kids that you say I am lying to.


I'll risk stepping on his toes and tell you myself, retard:

Because we don't want them to grow up to be as cognitively challenged and unproductive as you are.

simple enough.

Date: 2006/06/23 19:39:41, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
You keep forgetting who founded modern science -- creationists!


and you keep forgetting where you actually came from!

embrace your inner fish, Dave!

Date: 2006/06/23 22:12:55, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
"Archaeology has always confirmed the Bible." Sure, Dave. In some other universe, perhaps, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.


Come over to the darkside, Luke, er I mean Dave!  We can rule the galaxy together as father and son!

Date: 2006/06/23 22:16:55, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Anyone any suggestions to encourage ID proponents to come out from behind the barriers.


offer free beer?

seriously though, do us all a favor and don't drag that raggedy cat JAD back in here, m'kay?

Date: 2006/06/25 09:29:41, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
On the other hand, given my earlier statements in a similar vein, I'm inclined to view this work favorably.


read as:

"my ignorance allows me to view this work favorably."

ignorance is bliss, eh?

get a clue already.

Date: 2006/06/25 09:35:01, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
The niggle I have harboured is that we cannot claim the moral high ground if it can be argued that we ban people in the same arbitrary way as happens at UD.


I do hope you're not implying that PT or antievolution.org banned these idiots arbitrarily?

If you are, your memory must be horribly bad.

Date: 2006/06/25 09:48:54, Link
Author: Ichthyic
geostationary too, eh?

my oh my, you just added at least another order of magnitude of observations you would have to explain with your model.

yikes.

at the rate your "model" is explaining them, I don't see how you ever expect to come up with something satisfactory in your lifetime, or even your great great great grandkid's lifetimes.


good luck.

Date: 2006/06/25 16:06:17, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Open mouth and insert foot, boys. You can recover by admitting you were wrong and I was right and then KISSING MY BIG WHITE ASS!


"Drunk, fat, and stupid is no way to go through life, son."

-Dean Wormer

Date: 2006/06/25 17:21:44, Link
Author: Ichthyic
nope.  you aren't dreaming it.

He said the stuff you're thinking of right around the time of the "kansas kangaroo court" fiasco.  IIRC, he was a participant on the side of the IDiots at the time.

Date: 2006/06/25 17:45:11, Link
Author: Ichthyic
no, what I'm saying is that not every journal has the best peer review process, nor is every article submitted for publication of the same quality.

but then, again, you would already know how to evaluate the article if you knew any of the basic science behind the issues involved.

Kinda like i keep repeating, over and over and over.

and yet you still don't get it, do you?

boggles the mind.

you said you studied biochemistry?  (doubtfull, but I'll play along)

Surely at some point you started perusing the literature in biochem, yes?

were all the articles you read of equal quality?

Did any of them make any errors in method or conclusion?

If you spent more than an hour, it wouldn't be hard to find at least one paper that, while contributing something of value to the general biochem literature, still had some big errors in it.

general consesus on an issue does NOT mean there are no disagreements on specifics, and some disagreements are more valid than others.

but this should all be basic knowledge to someone claiming to have a serious chemistry background.

I keep asking myself why I should even need to say this?

here it is again, in case the sarcasm was missed:

you're completely ignorant of the basics of the issues you are discussing.

you're making yourself look like a fool by continuing.

You provide insult to anybody who normally would be willing to assist you by coming here with the assumption that you know everything you need to know to overturn 150 years worth and tens of thousands of published studies supporting evolutionary theory.

*whack* *whack*

getting through that thick skull o yours yet?

Date: 2006/06/25 18:27:02, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I'm going to take a guess and say that you don't have an extensive background in metazoan evolution, lipid membrane chemistry and heat shock genes (no slight intended, just playing the odds)


metazoan evolution:  yes.  graduate degree in zoology from UCBerkeley.

lipid membrane chemistry: qualified yes; 2 years of orgnaic chemistry, 1 year biochemistry, 1 year developmental biology, 2 years cell biology.  taught cell biology for 3 years at UC Berkeley.

"heat shock genes":  yes, 2 years of genetics; one molecular and one population.

see how knowledge of basic issues works?

oh, and you challenged i was even a scientist earlier, so i should probably point out that I actually posted an online conversion of my earliest publication on this very board a while back.  you can search for it if you like (look about 2 months ago under my old psuedonym Sir_Toejam).

so overall, I'd say your guesswork is about as good as your general knowledge of the issues at hand.

*whack* *whack*

oh, and if you think AFDave raises issues that are actually worthy of addressing in detail, think again.  nobody there is "debating" Dave on the merits of his arguments.

In fact, I think someone there already asked the question as to why anybody bothers replying to Dave at all.  guess you missed the entire page of responses to that.

I don't respond to Dave with "sciency stuff" (his words), for the same reason i don't bother trying to educate you.

You simply don't have a good enough grasp of the basics to even correct your interpretations.

in short:

"your not even wrong"

really, if you want an intelligent response to your "issues" you best learn what the basics of those issues are first.  You want to play gladiator?  better learn what a sword IS first, let alone how to use it.

Again, I'll say this:

You'll find a far different reponse to your posts if you give up your arrogant ignorance, and come back and start over with the idea that you're here to learn, like the rest of us, instead of preach, which is what you're doing now.

the knowledge level on evolutionary issues you've shown so far is less than many high school students i taught in my freshman  cell biology classes.  yet, you think your vast expertise can show us all how to "reinvent evolutionary theory".

get it yet?

Date: 2006/06/26 09:55:46, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I might not be a good Christian but God has given my life purpose, so it's a win-win situation.


well, if that's true, perhaps you could explain what the f*ck electron orbitals have to do with your faith?

face it, saying that was only an attempt at distraction.

Date: 2006/06/26 09:59:47, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Funny, I've had the same quote bouncing around in my head all weekend. (insert predictable insult here)


will do:

introspection is a good trait; you should work on that more.

more amazing is that both qetzal and Jeannot felt the need to basically repeat the points they already made to you.

a normal person might get a clue from that, but you're pretty dense, so I feel the need to point out that you apparently don't grasp things too quickly.

They did you a favor I'm simply not inclined to bother with, and still you ignored what they said, so they felt a need to repeat themselves.

if anything indicates better why it's a waste of time to converse with you on a substantive basis, I can't think of it.

Date: 2006/06/26 10:12:12, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Do you have the guts to do an honest inquiry like Josh McDowell did?

It just might change your life!!


Is that what you did Dave?  make an honest inquiry of your beliefs?

Is that what you are doing here, now?

making an honest inquiry of your beliefs?

sure doesn't appear that way to anybody here.

wonder why that is?

have you posted a link to this thread on your site yet?

why not?

Date: 2006/06/26 10:21:17, Link
Author: Ichthyic
...and i choose to disagree with you on that one, Jean.

...and a "bit arrogant" is quite an understatement; go back and check out his first post in the thread.

He's a waste of your time, but hey, it's your time.

Date: 2006/06/26 10:53:13, Link
Author: Ichthyic
what, the part about humans being the pets of the gods?

I've gotta admit, that idea is a new one to me.  I have no idea which way it influences the scale, but it certainly is nuts.

funny, if you look at Carol Clouserbot's posting about utilitarianism and how she apparently thinks Albert Schweizer was telling us to "save the zebras", it's almost the exact opposite of Dave's "logic", but just as whacky.

just a general note:

I'm a bit stymied in continuing this thread, as my general knowledge of the core issues involved is dependent on a one year pysch course, and processing the literature provided as reference in this thread and elsewhere, so it will be a couple of weeks or so before I can put another substantive post here that attempts to move the topic along.  I just feel slow is good when approaching such a potentially rancorous topic.

IMT, don't let me slow down anybody else who wanted to contribute to the discussion here.

cheers

Date: 2006/06/26 11:07:48, Link
Author: Ichthyic
chris asked:

Quote
Ok this thread is getting pretty boring. Could someone let me know if Dave actually says something interesting or if he actually moves onto evolution.


the problem is, Dave can't even get past the basics of time and geology.  evolution is still literally a world away from being discussed here.

at the current rate of progess, you should check back around page 300 or so.

Date: 2006/06/26 11:16:08, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
ok to kill women and children if God told you to do it.


oh THAT.

oh, yeah, that's a common part of the creobot mindset too; devaluing human life at the same time they decry abortion.

It gives them the excuse to do any range of behaviors.

IIRC, this is known as "displacement".

Edit:

hmm, actually now that i think about it more, that's not exactly the correct term for it either; but I think it's perhaps because the freudian explanations for the types of behaviors exhibited by creobots just fit so well.  I also seem to recall the term "trasnferance" being loosely used to describe this phenomenon as well, but I still haven't been able to recall what the modern usage is.

/edit


Essentially what it means is that they can displace their own guilt over their actions onto something or someone else.

Also, I seem to recall it being commonly exhibted by sociopaths, but not as sure about that one.

so, yeah, in that sense when someone exhibits extreme displacement that would add to the sense that they would shift farther towards the "dangerous whacky" end of the scale.

Date: 2006/06/26 11:41:32, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Then what are you doing on AFDave's thread?  


about the same thing I'm doing here, but Dave, unlike skeptic, is truly delusional, hence most of my commentary is of the "poking a dead body" type.

skeptic pisses me off because it seems like he could do better, but chooses not to.  He likes to pretend he knows something, but really doesn't.

Last time:

if he came back with a new thread, and an attitude that he really was here to learn, rather than instruct, I'd have no problems with him at all.

as to personal...

Skeptic is the one who started this thread on an entirely offensive tac.

until i see retraction, acknowlegement, contrition, and reapproach, I see no reason to pull any punches.

I've already pointed out basic errors in his knowledge and understanding, but rather than admit he knows shit, he keeps plowing ahead.

sorry, i take that rather personally.

you should too, actually.

Date: 2006/06/26 11:48:54, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I suggest you just search for "speciation" in wikipedia of even google.


see what i mean?

you have to direct him to the MOST basic of references, when he comes off as being the guy who is going to reinvent evolutionary theory.

and the dichotomy doesn't bother you a bit?

more power to ya, i guess.

Date: 2006/06/26 13:18:06, Link
Author: Ichthyic
nawww, gawp just projects his views of things he doesn't like onto something he labels with the term "liberal".

so of course, in his mind, evolutionary theory proceeds from liberalism, and is just a subset thereof.

It's so pathetic it's almost funny.

kind of like Dave.

Date: 2006/06/26 19:46:15, Link
Author: Ichthyic
yeah, I often decried the fact that it's pretty clear that most posters here would rather yell at AFdumbass than actually discuss relevant science and theory.

I often just give in and join in the fun.  I'ts like complaining about people not being interested in playing volleyball when they are playing jungleball.

as to the convergent/parrallel issue; the idea was to seperate evolution of similar traits purely due to environmental influences, vs. there being some component of relatedness involved.

However, again I think your dmaraland mole rats are a perfect case that kind of complicates this:

sure, there was a linneage in common, but the evolution of these traits is also due to completely independent environemental circumstances.

so there is a bit of overlap.

Still, the relatedness issue would pretty much put this squarely in the parallel evo. category, at least from everything I've read and been taught.

yes, wiki is still pretty weak in this area, though it is getting better.  the current version of Futuyma, and the behavioral ecology texts by Krebs and Davies do a pretty good job of showing various illustrative examples too.

there are also some sites on the web that have some good examples of each; just google on parallel vs. convergent evolution and a few will pop up.

hmm. stochastic. not exactly the term i would use, I think, but there are certainly areas that overlap and defy easy categorization.  it's the same when we argue cladisitics.  there is great overlap in what determines a particular species or clade.  categorization is merely meant for us to make it easier to study; it's all a bit artificial when you get right down to it.  One can't argue against the value of it though.  it's very hard to describe something to somebody else, or compare it to other things without somehow being able to consistently categorize it first.


Yeah, i see the appeal of convergent evo explanations too.  However, there is also the danger of it becoming a circular argument.

do you know what I mean?

Quote
In a certain kind of environment, there are a wide variety of solutions to the problem of, say, how to take down prey that's bigger than you, but that number of solutions is limited by the environment itself and by the characteristics of the previous generations.


and time.

Date: 2006/06/26 20:09:13, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Certainly not required; but I would suggest to get the most out of that book, a companion book might be:

Developmental Biology  by Scott Gilbert.

not exactly light reading (as noted by plasma), but it's amazing how much more you will get out of a text on evo-devo if you've boned up on straight developmental biology first.

Of course, if you're really a masochist, a decent treatise on endocrinology might be useful as well.

meh, maybe a bit of biochem thrown in to boot.

They foisted this regime on me and called it "Integrative Biology" at Berkeley.

go figure ;)  (but they were right)

Date: 2006/06/26 22:40:17, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I thought Bruce was larry's brother?

Date: 2006/06/27 11:00:24, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Dave tells us something:

Quote
I’d rather see ...thouands of ads for viagra


why doesn't that surprise me that he would need to be on the hunt for Viagra?

Date: 2006/06/27 11:21:02, Link
Author: Ichthyic
DAVE

have you linked to this thread on your blog yet?

why not?

Date: 2006/06/27 13:25:31, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I'm sorry, but with the two Daves we're used to dealing with here, seeing the name Dave associated with "sensible" is causing my brain too much confusion.

Can't we just call him Bruce instead, Bruce?

What do you think, Bruce?

Date: 2006/06/27 13:35:33, Link
Author: Ichthyic
They say it's "rare", but i can't think of any other snakes that can change color this fast, except IIRC, some species of sea snakes.  Just how rare is it?  anybody here a herpetologist?

http://www.eitb24.com/portal....ioma=en

Date: 2006/06/28 12:22:21, Link
Author: Ichthyic
yeah, I've never really understood why Lenny refuses to spend time around these parts.

well, in his own words:

*shrug*

I tried to recall where I saw the reference to some sea snakes changing color, but I can't even verify that now.  In fact, a general search for snakes that change color in anything but an ontogenetic fashion yielded *zilch*.  This does indeed appear a very rare trait.

When i think about it, there could be a dozen different plausible reasons why this trait is so much more common in lizards than snakes, like differences in hunting techniques or common predators, differences in territorial behavior, etc., but I also wonder if it likely appeared as a trait long after the two lines went their separate ways.  I do wish the little news blip I found went into a bit more detail.  Is the color change in this snake another example of convergent evolution?

Date: 2006/06/29 13:31:52, Link
Author: Ichthyic
well, the BBC version at least said the bucket was "dark".

;)

However, I think the reason a lot of detail is left out is the primary source of the press release:  WWF.

when has the World Wrestling Federation ever been forthcoming with details of animal research?

Yeah, OK, that was bad.

still, the point is that World Wildlife Fund is far more interested in promoting its habitat conservation policy, and was just using the discovery of this snake to do it.

Yes, it does seem readily verifiable in the sense that supposedly whoever collected the specimens would still have them, and it shouldn't be hard to duplicate any color changing trait they exhibit.

Still, Lenny and Flint are right; one does start to wonder how a find important as this one hasn't had parallel press releases.  So far, it looks like just the one initial press release from WWF.

Well, like i said, if accurate, it truly is an important discovery, and there should be followups in the coming weeks.

I'll keep my eye out for anything relevant, and post it back here.

Date: 2006/07/14 13:05:54, Link
Author: Ichthyic
150 years later, the finches on the Galapagos islands are still teaching us the same things they taught Darwin.

http://www.physorg.com/news72100592.html

Date: 2006/07/14 15:26:39, Link
Author: Ichthyic
*quick poke*

cale, you're so far off wrt Lenny it's scary.

Date: 2006/07/16 17:44:19, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I remember having read this a while back, and ran across it again today, but now online.

This is a decent reference article from 2003 summarizing how molecular bio has influenced the ToE (and vice versa).  It's written so that most who have taken at least some advanced bio courses should easily be able to grasp the concepts involved; I found it a good read.

specifically, the author is addressing the "randomness" issue wrt mutation frequencies.  I know this topic has been raised a few times around here, so here's fuel for that fire.

http://darwingenome.net/?gclid=CNvK6pjrl4YCFUVcJAodRDScsg

(click the link provided to the right of the page if it doesn't take you straight to it.)

and for the PDF version:

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi....ekpjJ6X

cheers

Date: 2006/07/17 01:37:54, Link
Author: Ichthyic
lol; nice.

OHHH, i do so wish they would in fact, take that bait.

Date: 2006/07/18 02:04:29, Link
Author: Ichthyic
...and there's no difference between ash sediments and hardened sandstone or granite, right Dave?

have you even been to the grand canyon?  what are the walls made of?

here, try this one:

take a geology pick (or heck, even a regular pick), break off a decent sized chunk of hardened sandstone or granite from any canyon wall you can find, and see how long it takes you to create a mini-canyon in the rock by pouring water on it.

Is it my imagination, or is Dave actually getting dumber the longer he posts here?

quite remarkable.

Date: 2006/07/18 02:22:33, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
We have a tanker of liquid nitrogen out back, and the zoo here has elephants, but I'm not planning to run that experiment.


awwww.  I would have volunteered to assist to see that one.

Date: 2006/07/18 10:35:05, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
No, Dave. Wrong again. I just pointed this out to you last night. Just because two objects look alike doesn't mean they are alike. How many times am I going to have to say this?


one might ask:

"Are a panda's thumb and a human's thumb formed the same way, Dave?"

Date: 2006/07/18 15:04:32, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Here 'tis, in fact:

http://udoj.blogspot.com/2006/07/in-which-janie-gets-banned.html


what's interesting is that ALL of the posters were simply incapable of addressing the topic at hand, which was (I guess) supposed to be a discussion of the evidence in support of aspects of sociobiology theory as relates to psychology.

instead, every single poster without fail fell back to a position of discussing the "morality" of the specific behaviors under discussion.

funny enough, only Davetard himself tried to address the heritability aspect, though unfortunately he was clueless as to the actual science behind the issue (as usual).

not only do i see no reason for banning anybody or gutting that thread, i see nothing inherently different from the standard UD banter.

whatever.

However, let me say that you will find plenty of humor in the fabulous O'leary commentary in the weeks and months to come.  Soon, you won't miss 'ol Davetard one bit.

Predictions:

O'leary will never address any issue from a scientific perspective, and will always steer the issue towards a discussion of morals and general behavior.

Now I'm not just saying that because of that particular thread, nor because of her past writings, but simply because that IS the function of UD:  Steer the discussion away from issues of content and substance (science strongpoints), into issues of relative morality where their religious opinions are as valid as anyones.

Dave wasn't doing a good enough job of that.

At least Dave can look at the bright side.  he now has much more time available to continue his experiments in mushroom growing.

tata.

Date: 2006/07/18 15:10:34, Link
Author: Ichthyic
what the #### does any of this have to do with you going to the movies, anyway?

why is it that you always use any excuse to propound your idiotic political and moral philsophies?

why why why why why?

NOBODY agrees with you.

your "liberal" umbrella is now so large there isn't much room left for even your philosphies.

soon, all will fall under the umbrella except yourself; or is that how you see it already?

you against the world, is it?

sad.

Date: 2006/07/18 15:50:30, Link
Author: Ichthyic
alas, poor Yorick...

Date: 2006/07/18 15:57:14, Link
Author: Ichthyic
read anything by Paul Ehrlich, to get a good overview of the history of the conflict between politics and science.

here's a relatively recent contribution I read a few years back:

"BETRAYAL OF SCIENCE AND REASON
How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future"

http://www.islandpress.org/books....3-483-9

You should also take a gander at the manipulations of G.O. scientific reports undertaken by the current administration, which are documented and believed to be the worst and most excessive of any presidency in the US, ever.

start with the Union of Concerned Scientists webpage; there are some good links there.

Yes, it IS that bad.

Date: 2006/07/18 19:29:32, Link
Author: Ichthyic
er, you mean stand up so long as it's dark in the room?

Date: 2006/07/18 22:03:37, Link
Author: Ichthyic


ummm, so while you selectively gander at your own provided pic, dumbshit, did you happen to notice all the vertical and near vertical faces as well?  Or does your simple little mind block these features out for you?

I marked them for you in easy to see blue, to contrast to your white squiggles.

who has the poor eyesight, again?

ever thought maybe that erosion rates and patterns might differ depending on the composition of the material involved, and the method?  

of course not.  else why would you have referenced the St. Helens incident to begin with.

I swear, this is the dumbest shit you've pulled yet.  It may in fact be the dumbest thing I have seen ANYBODY post so far this year, and that's saying a lot.

er, congratulations if that's what you were going for.

otherwise, might i suggest brain surgery?

btw:

 
Quote
GRAND CANYON PICTURE ANNOTATED TO DENOTE ANGLES >= 45 DEGREES


I think you meant to say LESS than (it's THIS symbol: < )

must be that home schoolin' yer papa gave ya.

or maybe a freudian slip?

Date: 2006/07/18 22:10:37, Link
Author: Ichthyic
not to one up dumbski or nutin, but uh, we banned the 'tard first!

We were smart enough to figure out he wasn't even worth allowing posting privileges, much less moderation.

told ya so, dumbski.

nyah nyah.

:p

Date: 2006/07/18 22:20:30, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
"Yes, pretty much everything he says is wrong."

"Such as…?"

etc.


not a unique mindset to that particular issue, at all.  Unfortunately all too common when the average american is asked to provide evidence in support of any of their opinions.

Heck, my own father has the same mindset.  Ask him why he voted for Chimpy McGrin, and you'll get the same kind of response.  

"the other guy is just all wrong; he would never have made a good president."

why?

"he just IS that's all."

But he spent 30 years in the Senate; what specifically do you find objectionable about him?

*blank*...  

etc.


If you ever take a gander at right wing political attack ads, they pretty much reinforce the "all inclusive but no fact" opinions the majority of folks seem to share in this country.  As does Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, O'Leary, Coulter, etc., etc.

It's just easier to take a position without thinking why, i guess.

sad.

Date: 2006/07/18 22:24:14, Link
Author: Ichthyic
yeah, god forbid they should actually look at the real issues involved, rather than stare with contempt at the strawmen they've created.

but... that's how these folks like it:

simple, uninformed, opinion.

moo.

Ignorance is strength, baby.  Just ask AFDavebot.

Date: 2006/07/19 04:26:56, Link
Author: Ichthyic
hmm, yeah, that sounds about right.

I give O'leary until Dembski manages to regain his popularity with the creationist powers that be (or gets a grant from Ahmanson directly).  He's just using her to try and get a larger audience.  once accomplished, he'll find a reason to boot her and take over his own blog again.

I'm thinking Dembski is taking lessons from Coulter, ever since she asked him for input on her book.

Follow the money is as good a predictor for Dembski's behavior as any.

Date: 2006/07/19 04:35:25, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Does anyone have the answer?  I would like to know this also ...

PREDICTION:  k.e will chime and say "Look at that massive decline in July!!"


check alexa.com for general statistics.

note though, that the only thing that really matters is the number of unique visitors per time period.

Davetard didn't ever get that (not surprising, really).  If you gander at that number, it hasn't changed significantly on UD since the Dover trial impact faded.

IOW, the only folks increasing traffic at UD are right here.

In fact, antievolution.org and pandasthumb.org make up about 40% of the total referals (of those that were tracked), IIRC.

Meantime, if you check alexa, you will see pandasthumb has a far better penetration and unique visitor stat than UD ever did or will.

Davetard was jealous, that's all.  he still doesn't have a clue what the numbers even mean.

nor do you. so don't bother to ask again.

what about my modification to your canyon pic, Dave?

selectively choose to ignore it did you?  too many inconvenient aspects to it?

frackin idjut.

Date: 2006/07/19 10:48:04, Link
Author: Ichthyic
lol.  no irony there, nosir.

Date: 2006/07/19 10:57:04, Link
Author: Ichthyic
no no, Davetard was the lesson in negative science.  Dave often interjected his "qualified" scientific opinion on things, wrong as it was 99.99% of the time.

Densey will simply ignore all science and attempt to redirect issues into the moral arena instead.

think along the lines of the whole stem cell debacle.  that kind of thing is where she excels.  She won't focus on the scientific merits of stem cell research, only the moral implications in her mind.

yes, you will actually see LESS science discussed on UD.

that IS one thing that folks will miss round these parts - Davetard's wacky sciency notions will no longer be seen.

the remaining crew at UD seem to be completely ignorant of science altogether, which is exactly the audience WD40 wants to lubricate.

Date: 2006/07/19 19:03:43, Link
Author: Ichthyic
1.  there is still some legal wrangling going on.

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23342/

one wonders just how many times these idiots have to lose in court before they start getting the slightest clue.

2.  why not look for yourself?  last i checked, no.

Date: 2006/07/20 01:03:56, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
While I agree, it's probably an act, my lingering doubt is--unfortunately--based on an argument from incredulity.  What possible aim could you have that you would do this (in as much detail as has been done--good or bad doesn't matter, just the fact that it was done) for so long?


you might try asking the same question of our resident ghost.  His act has been going on for about a year now, best i can recall.

Date: 2006/07/20 01:09:17, Link
Author: Ichthyic
whose code?

Date: 2006/07/20 12:18:05, Link
Author: Ichthyic
no such thing as indefinetly.

delaying the inevitable is their best strategy, you say?

fine by me.

Date: 2006/07/20 12:21:19, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
amoral ontology


you died when you wrote that.

Date: 2006/07/20 12:27:23, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Which is why I thanked you. It takes a lot of guts to defy the pack.


numbnuts, in case you hadn't noticed in ALL the time you've wasted here, there ain't no "pack".

what we tend to agree on is incidental, and entirely based on evidence.

like the ToE.

get it?

no, of course not.

Date: 2006/07/20 15:36:05, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Oooh, you gyuys must be keeking yurrsyelves. "Vy dyidn't I just valk away vhen I had de chance?"

Poor little libs, you bring your best hitters and I keep planting them on their a$$. You try psy-wars to no avail. How about this new strategy that we conservatives like to call "rational discourse"? It seems to work for us. Ya'll oughta give it a whirl, girly-girls.


spoken just like a tried and true crank.

you should be proud.

all you need do now is set up your own blog, so we can get it registered with crank.net.

btw, your "liberal" umbrella includes 90% of most who would consider themselves "conservative".

you against the world, eh?

Date: 2006/07/20 15:40:13, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Remember my discussion about Star Wars?


lol.  you should go back to the movies, where you apparently derive much of your opinions on all things philosophical.

maybe you could expound on the next "dianetics" based on the psuedo-philisophy of Lucas' star wars movies, eh?

crank.

you fail in your attempts at philosophy, science, and religion.

is there something you're actually good at?

anybody know?

Date: 2006/07/20 17:57:28, Link
Author: Ichthyic
AFdumbass said:

Quote
I try very hard not to ignore DATA


I'm sure you firmly believe this to be so.  The problem is, you obviously haven't the first clue of what actually constitutes data, as opposed to ignorant opinion.

It's of course the main reason why it's a waste of time to attempt a substantive argument with you.  Instead, what we see is a very large game of whack a mole, with you and Gawp playing the role of mole (or perhaps Gawp is simply rooting for the mole?)

Date: 2006/07/20 22:06:43, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
You are all nuts, you know that?


er, not to sound pedantic but...

takes one to know one, eh?

:p

keep on keepin on.

Date: 2006/07/20 22:22:22, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
If the crack does represent the birth of a new ocean (and it may not - it could all just settle down again), it will be about a million years before it is wet enough.

Which should give any local Noahs plenty of time to build their Arks.


phhht.  screw that!  any rational person would build a fishing boat.

er, assuming there are actually any fish left in a million years, or even in a hundred the way things are progressing with our current fish stocks (yeah, it's that bad).

in fact, scuttle the whole fishing boat idea.  set up some aquaculture farms instead.

yeah, that's the ticket.

BTW, did DaveyDumbass ever tell us where all the supposed water for the supposed catastrophic whole-earth flood supposedly went?

I had a notion of how he would answer it, but I missed it if he ever did.

If he doesn't answer it by the end of the week, I might just have to throw out a wild and crazy idea I saw posted a couple of years back that you all will find amusing, and I'm sure Dumbass will find compelling.

Date: 2006/07/20 23:28:33, Link
Author: Ichthyic
geology 101?

heck we haven't left elementary school yet.

Dave is still trying to figure out what it means when things look similar, but really aren't, and vice versa.

I seem to recall those lessons came around 1st or 2nd grade (maybe as early as kindergarten?)

more evidence that he was home-schooled by his missionary papa; he seems to be lacking in some basic skill sets even a pre-teen usually has.

No, this is not an educational adventure for Davey; this is, like i said, a big game of whack-a-mole.

...

I tried to go back to figure out exactly when object similarity lessons are taught.  I'm still pretty sure it's before the second grade.

however, it's readily clear that Davey is missing some serious skillsets that should be readily available to someone of even middle-school age.

How descriptive is this quote:

Quote
Teachers of science for middle-school students should note that students tend to center on evidence that confirms their current beliefs and concepts (i.e., personal explanations), and ignore or fail to perceive evidence that does not agree with their current concepts. It is important for teachers of science to challenge current beliefs and concepts and provide scientific explanations as alternatives.


This is from the National Science Education Standards.

http://newton.nap.edu/html/nses/6d.html

with that in mind, it seems pretty clear to me that poor Dave's education stopped at the elementary school level.

What we are seeing is a middle-aged elementary school dropout who's only education came by way of missionary papa and our vaunted military.

I do hope his kids get somewhat of a better chance at an education than he did, but somehow, based on the bible camps he is sending them too, i rather doubt it.

I wonder if he has taught them that apples and oranges, though both round, are not the same thing?

Date: 2006/07/20 23:58:21, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Gawp doesn't consider himself to be racist, because he has black friends, you see.

also, he wouldn't join the Klan because he thinks the Jews to be productive members of society, and the Klan HATE jews, remember?

http://cjwww.csustan.edu/hatecrimes/00/kkk/KKK%20web%20page

However, it would be good for gawp to detail exactly how his ideology differs point by point with the following relevant Klan objectives (the rest seemed irrelevant):

Quote
1.  The KKK supports the idea of the extinction of blacks, Catholics, and Jews.
1(b).  The KKK felt themselves to be the purest of races.
2.  The Klan believes the only way races can develop their full potential and culture is through racial seperation.
10.  The Klan feels that Democratic and Republican parties promote treasonous policies


so gawp, based on your own pontifications, which of these points do you honestly agree with?

I think we can throw point one right out; i don't recall you ever calling for genocide.  point 1b?  you do seem to equivocate about race superiority from time to time.

and points two and three?

fair game from what I've seen you post over the last year.

sure you're not a racist?

Date: 2006/07/21 00:03:00, Link
Author: Ichthyic
well, they did supposedly happen during the Kennedy administration sooo...

the natural conclusion is that it of course was a big liberal consipiracy.

bloody Kennedys!

we almost got em all, too.

fortunately, the last one's just a drunk, so he's harmless, right gawp?

Date: 2006/07/21 00:17:06, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
but I'm not sure there's any word to describe how desperately clueless one would have to be to try to prove that Hitler was a liberal.



about as desperate as one would have to be to try and create a geocentric model from scratch, and somehow incorporate modern data and analysis as well?

gawp is nothing if not up to the task of creating a meaningless and irrelevant circumlocution of facts to support ridiculous postulates.

I do wish he was a bit more entertaining though.

I was sorely disappointed with his geocentric "model", which turned out to be nothing of the sort.

I'm sorry to see he just isn't clever enough to pull off even a modest bit of punnery like that.

random and irrelevant bits of mathmatica and quantum theory don't even make a thesis, let alone qualify as a "model".

funny enough, AFdumbass actually did a better job with his attack on radioactive dating using the helium diffusion ratio.  

and that's not saying much, really, since none of the ideas he presented were his own anyway.

I guess that's why I'm so down on gawp of late.  I'm just tremendously disappointed that he's so #### boring.  I was kind of expecting something a bit more clever.

oh well.

OTOH, if his intent was to model his geocentric thesis along the lines of how Dembski modeled his NFL ideas, then circumlocution and random irrelevant and misrepresented information is exactly the correct form.

In fact, didn't gawp early on refer to Dembski as "the master" (or was it "the wizard'?).

I guess he was referring to Dembski's use of circumlocution, rather than the actual validity of any of his ideas (there obviously were none, just like in all of gawps, so that fits too).

If that's true, then by all means, say so gawp, and your attempt at modelling will be much clearer as an attempt at mimickry, rather than as an actual attempt at something clever.

Is that what it is?  An attempt to utilize a Dembski-like level of circumlocution in an altogether different arena?

If so, I might be willing to give you some credit in that light, though, as i said, I found Dembski's writings to be just as boring as yours.

Date: 2006/07/21 00:32:50, Link
Author: Ichthyic
*sidebar*

um, what the he11 are "light-skinned whites"?

Is this to distinguish from those of mediterranean heritage?

does it mean "european whites"?

no, that would exclude caucasians of spanish descent.

where does gawp think he fits into his own socio-policital-geographical whiteness?

oh that's right, he's unique.  the umbrella is for everybody else

Date: 2006/07/21 00:39:06, Link
Author: Ichthyic
next gawp will tell us that Leo Strauss was the father of modern liberalism.

bwahahahaha!

oh, wait, it occurs to me that gawp may not have read anything about Strauss in the library he spends his time at, and so might not get the sarcasm.

here:

http://www.straussian.net/

as a side note, anybody who wants to understand what the term "neocon" means, who they are, and where a lot of the ideology involved came from, should read some of strauss' writings, or check out some of the references on the above link.

Date: 2006/07/21 01:11:40, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
like the idea of "selfish" genes. This is the sort of charcterization we see regularly in fairly tales and nursery rhymes--"The dish ran away with the spoon", etc.--without the merit of being entertaining.


meh, gawp's just jealous he can't figure out how to be as popular or entertaining as Dawkins is.  come out with a few bestsellers yourself, before you judge the entertainment merits of someone else's work.

keep working on your act, gawp.  given another 10 or 20 years, it might evolve from the current "boring and inane" to "mindnumbing", or dare i say even "mildly stimulating" (on a good day).

BTW, has anybody here ever seriously tried to debate against the idea of selfish genes at the graduate level?

I have, and it's #### tough to do, when you get right down to it.

You really have to have a well rounded background in molecular biology, genetics, developmental biology, evolutionary biology, and paleontology to even get started.

It's certainly not as simplistic an idea as gawp lamely attempts to make it out to be.  However, of course anyone who actually read Dawkin's book on the subject would already know that.

I for one would welcome a revisit to that debate; it would be far more interesting than hearing the constant target drone of AFDumbass, and the inanities of "liberalism" as espoused by gawp.

anybody else interested?

Date: 2006/07/21 01:28:41, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Now THIS merits watching to see what results come out:

http://www.physorg.com/news72618868.html

and in case you had the immediate obvious thought...

Quote
They face the complication of working with 40,000-year-old samples, and of filtering out microbial DNA that contaminated them after death.

About 5 percent of the DNA in the samples is actually Neanderthal DNA, Egholm estimated, but he and Rothberg said pilot experiments had convinced them that the decoding was feasible.


eat your heart out, Crichton.

Date: 2006/07/21 11:59:07, Link
Author: Ichthyic
your pictorial essays are getting more and more confusing and idiotic.

a picture might say a thousand words, but if used indiscriminately, just end up increasing the amount of drivel you spew by that much more.

example:

what the he11 does a childhood picture of Ron Howard have to do with a picture of Kurt Russel?

You're losin it, man.

Date: 2006/07/21 12:03:20, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Ann Coulter comes up so often on this site??

let's see....

nope.  only time i ever saw her mentioned in any commonality was right after she released her latest pile of trash.

since then, mention of her has dropped off rapidly, as expected.

Date: 2006/07/21 12:38:12, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
If a gene can increase its replication rate while decreasing the fecundity of its bearer, it will be selected anyway. Nothing can prevent it, that's the definition of selection.


ahhh, but that doesn't mean there still couldn't be genes acting to increase their own reproductive rates, either in conflict or in concert.

think:  "parent-offspring conflict".

no, while you are on the same track I was, it doesn't eliminate the possibility entirely.

besides which, one could easily argue that increasing the fecundity of the host would have a long term benefit to increasing the frequency of whatever gene contributed to it, yes?

Date: 2006/07/21 12:42:31, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I'm still missing it.

where did all the water go again?

Date: 2006/07/21 13:24:15, Link
Author: Ichthyic
playing devils advocate, extend the idea of sex ratio bias beyond what you just mentioned.

If you're a self-interested gene, why have sex at all?

wouldn't asexual cloning be faster and cheaper?

I realize this overlaps with the recombination issue, but since you brought up the idea of ESS and sex ratios, I thought it would be worth approaching from that angle as well.

Date: 2006/07/21 14:00:20, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Far too many people do NOT know, however, that homosexuals were forced to wear pink triangles, and communists, socialists, democrats, trade unionists and other "leftist" political opponents (Hitler made no distinctions between them) were all forced to wear red triangles.


count me among them.  another bit of historical trivia I will have to tuck away somewhere.

Date: 2006/07/21 14:06:41, Link
Author: Ichthyic
oh, i dunno, seems the first commenter missed a rather large point in his own post as well:

Quote
In 1895 Darwinists claimed that there were at least 100 vestigal features on the human body. Now all of them are known to have function.


aside from the fact that it's technically incorrect, the base point is entirely missed by the poster....

it was research by evolutionary biologists that provided the means to deduce functionality.  outside of that reference, all these features are inexplicable.

apply ID, he says?  how? there is no theory to apply.  no predictions to make that would result in something to test.

In essence, the poster makes the case for the utility of the ToE without even consciously realizing it.

but then, all of these psychophants appear to be more or less unconscious anyway.

Date: 2006/07/21 14:10:40, Link
Author: Ichthyic
borfed?

Date: 2006/07/21 15:15:05, Link
Author: Ichthyic
try to manually locate the cookie for that site in your browser temp files folder.

delete it, and then re-enter the site.

that is the function of a "cookie zapper", so manually doing this might solve your problem if his auto-zapper isn't working.

Date: 2006/07/21 15:33:39, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
And this woman's going to help Dumbski topple all of modern biology?


lol.  hardly.

she's just there to help WD40 sell books, and as payment she gets to plug her own from time to time.

Dembski saw more money in pseudoscience than he did in a career in mathematics.  

So do a lot of people.

the funny thing is, to adopt this strategy requires a kind of amorality that the psychophants simply can't even conceive of.
Thus, Dembski et al can continue to bilk the gullible out of their cash.

think about it.  If WD had any real faith in his published ideologies, why make UD a commercial site, instead of a non-profit one (notably like PT)?

only one answer:

He does it all for profit.

i can understand it, really, as even though he managed to get his PhD in mathematics, it takes a lot more than that to make a decent career out of it.

he spun the wheel a different direction, and this is where it led to.

Date: 2006/07/21 15:40:36, Link
Author: Ichthyic
not only honest, but complete.

dunno is where he started, and based on his lack of learning ability, is where he will end.

I can't recall any individual i have ever met who could spend this much time investigating any subject, and proceed to learn absolutely nothing in the end.

like i said, he evidently never progressed in ability beyond middle school.

Date: 2006/07/21 15:54:22, Link
Author: Ichthyic
*snort*

c'mon.  don't be oblivious.  you use the name stevie steve and wonder why WD40 gave you the boot?

lol.

it didn't matter what your comment was, he knew who you were at least representing, if not directly who you were.

Date: 2006/07/21 16:00:54, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Dave believes that science is like debating club. You marshall your claims, and only assert "evidence" that supports your claims. You never even look at evidence that contradicts them, and hope that your opponent never finds them.


yes, which is exactly why earlier i posted the quote on the learning abilities of middle school students from the NSF site.

dave exhibits the social learning abilities of a poorly educated middle school student.

I can't recall having run into someone with that degree of learning disability that wasn't also considered technically retarded before.

Quote
So all he can do is claim victory anyway and hope the lurkers aren't astute enough to see what's really happening.


no worries there.  As you recall, several lurkers have already logged their views on the issues, and none have agreed with poor AFdumbass.  in fact, most registered shock at Dave's inability to see the flaws in his own logic.

I reiterate, this thread has become nothing more than a big game of whack-a-mole.

simple games can still be fun, from time to time.

Date: 2006/07/21 16:08:46, Link
Author: Ichthyic
yep.

but, like i said in the AFD thread, sometimes simple games like whack-a-mole can still be entertaining.

Dembski is always welcome to come here and address in more detail the single lines necessary to debunk his entire thread (unlike the 'tard, he's never been banned here or on PT).

As you say though, he won't, because he knows the answer already.

again, this supports my contention he's only in this for the cash.  Any real supporter would be more than happy to come here and argue his position in more detail.

I often wonder why his psychophants don't egg him on to come here and debate us.  After all, they're convinced were absolutely wrong at a basic level, right?  What's WD got to loose?

heck, AFD has been here for what now?  4 months?

he at least shows dedication to his ideology that WD40 sorely lacks.

maybe WD should put AFD in charge of his blog?

Date: 2006/07/21 16:27:53, Link
Author: Ichthyic
btw, Jason is all over Dembski's latest misappropriation of scientific data.  check the latest post on PT.

Quote
Is he accusing me of being Taciturnus and Ofro? Apparently he can't check the server logs anymore or he'd know better. Anyway, taciturnus, or however it's spelled, is a long time ID supporter, IIRC.


I'd say more like attempting to use you to cover his own tracks.

heck, didn't he notice the post you made that WASN'T disemvoweled?  the one you just made note of Dembski banning you for?

Dave is just trying to avoid being banned altogether from UD, while he wreaks his own brand of vengeance behind the scenes.

I wonder how much damage he will manage to cause before willy dumbass and his pychophantic pals will be able to figure out how to stop him?

Date: 2006/07/21 16:40:18, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I'll drink to me nonetheless!


anyone else detect a note of depression and futility in that statement?

I almost feel sorry for the 'tard.

what will he do with himself now?

so much free time and so little thought to process.

Plenty of time to plot his revenge.

I'd take up heavy drinking if I were him.


Arden-

that pic you're using as a sig looks awfully familiar...

Date: 2006/07/21 16:54:06, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Wes -

could you please at least double the size of the personal mailbox system?

it fills up so fast it's scary at this point.

Date: 2006/07/21 16:57:21, Link
Author: Ichthyic
sorry, try again.  #### box is so small.

Date: 2006/07/21 17:04:55, Link
Author: Ichthyic
well, i guess you could kind of consider the great lakes to be "inland seas" of a sort...

however i personally don't attribute the selection of Densey (spelling intentional) to anything more than collaboration with a fellow author trying to make money from the rubes.

Dembski and OLeary are just modelling themselves after the success of Coulter.

nothing more complicated than that.

Quote
Gas-station attendant? Wal-Mart greeter?


lol.

OTOH, it is a reasonable question I hadn't considered before now.

what DOES de Slaveador do for a living, anyway?

i looked all over the IDEA site, and can't even find his name listed.

http://www.ideacenter.org/about/leadership.php

Date: 2006/07/21 17:36:29, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
and I want everyone to have this ... not a single regular or lurker at ATBC may ever "get it" but that's not my concern ... that's a matter of the human will ... my job is simply to search for the truth, then share it with others.


never has the phrase "ignorance is bliss" been more applicable.

Quote
It doesn't drive me mad because I can see the truth so clearly


it doesn't drive him mad, cause he's already there.

Date: 2006/07/21 18:24:46, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Ok, it took a while, but really, the answer shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Slaveador is....

an engineer!  (so steve wins another prize)

*shock*

:p

http://www.bjcpa.org/news/news/060104_id.htm

 
Quote
Intelligent design clubs at other universities have also been gaining momentum and attention. The first IDEA club meeting at George Mason University, a public school in Fairfax, Va., drew 20 people. At the group's most recent meeting, where a scientist guest speaker offered his criticisms of intelligent design, 90 people attended. So did CBS News, said Salvador Cordova, a 42-year-old engineer and George Mason alumnus who founded the club last year.



of course, that doesn't specifically answer the question as to how he is actually employed, but it's as close as i can get.  Sal doesn't post his personal details anywhere, unlike the rest of the IDiots who seem proud of theirs.

*shrug*

oh, and just for the lurkers:

Quote
The IDEA Center says intelligent design is a scientific concept, not a religious one. But students came to the meetings with their Bibles, Hutchison said.


in case someone had the eroneous notion that IDEA clubs actually had anything to do with science.

Date: 2006/07/21 20:45:34, Link
Author: Ichthyic
yeah, but in the turtle's case, at least those that don't make it usually serve as useful energy snacks for birds.

I think Sal's only usefulness would be as soylent green.

Date: 2006/07/21 21:59:33, Link
Author: Ichthyic
hey crabby!  long time no see.

I guess you got bored of AFdumbass too, eh?

Date: 2006/07/21 23:12:46, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Dave's revenge on UD will be significant, but petty at the same time, I predict.

WD better keep his pants up.

seriously, he should keep an eye open at all times - I'm absolutely sure a disgruntled Springerbot will strike again soon.  he's hinted as much over on Janie's blog.

Go Springerbot! give us all a prank to remember!

Date: 2006/07/22 02:51:18, Link
Author: Ichthyic
who needs asylums when you have public libraries to hang out in, eh gawp?

Date: 2006/07/22 14:28:52, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Whee!

I'm like a kid in a candy store.

thanks Wes.

Date: 2006/07/22 14:37:09, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I can't remember what the details of the US mental health system


trust me when i say you're doing yourself a favor by forgetting.

Moreover, it just keeps getting worse all the time.  They just closed the last public mental health care facility in the entire Coachella Valley (Palm Springs; desert SW CA), and trust me when i say it wasn't for lack of need.

lots of stereotypes of mental illness being somehow more malignable than any other physical ailment; and a lot of that attitude coming from Gawp's brand of "conservative".

yet one more reason I don't want to raise a family here any more; the support networks are beginning to fail completely here in CA, and it's not any better in much of the rest of the US.

but we have a darn fine war to distract us from that, eh?

grrr...

Date: 2006/07/22 14:40:44, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ July 22 2006,14:59)
the truth is there are still real men in the world, and almost all of them are conservative.

OMG - an all time classic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


...but he can't be a man 'cause he doesn't smoke... the same cigarettes as me.

Date: 2006/07/22 14:54:15, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I could be wrong, as the rise of the stones pretter much marks the limits of my personal music history, but didn't the stones actually write that one themselves?

the original and the best.

as a funky sidenote and totally OT, I used to work for the guy who managed them during their heyday (before the ancient rocker tours).

He was about as far from the rock and roll scene as one could possibly imagine when I knew him though.

Date: 2006/07/23 15:12:20, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I guess I simply am disgusted (though unsurprised) at this yet another crude misunderstanding of Dawkins and selfish genes, which is why I have decided to post here.


interestingly enough, we started a bit of a discussion on the selfish gene idea in a thread here last week.

go into the thread titled "selfish methane" here:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=2533

jean and I had been banting about various supports/refutations; check farther on down the thread.

feel free to jump in.

cheers

(and welcome!;)

Date: 2006/07/23 15:16:28, Link
Author: Ichthyic
you mean you have disinformation to spew?

yeah, we saw your interpretations.

goes right along with your "mastery" of cladistics.

*sigh*

man, you are getting soooo boring.  time for you to stop hanging out at the public library, eh?

Date: 2006/07/31 14:59:40, Link
Author: Ichthyic
let's see... "skeptic" first posted this thread on:

Posted: May 23 2006,22:48

It's now the end of July.

Have you reinvented evolutionary theory yet?

no?

There's a simple explanation for that.

You're an idiot.

give up now.

Date: 2006/08/01 22:15:32, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
why do liberals lie so much?


aren't you fond of regaling us with your history as a "liberal"?

were you lying then, or are you lying now?

or are you lying now about lying then?

Date: 2006/08/02 04:26:37, Link
Author: Ichthyic
hey idiot:

for the thousandth time, "not entirely random" does not mean "not random at all".

get it?

just because some segments are more susceptible than others, and some mutations might be more likely than others, does not make it a deterministic process.

stop it already!

It's pathetic how rock hard your brain is that you can't grasp that it's not simply a black and white issue.

Random mutation is still an underlying mechanism of natural selection.  It's been demonstated in the lab thousands of times, and published in thousands of papers.

I'm truly sorry you haven't been able to grasp the "nuance" of this concept, as it has been described to you dozens of times in this very thread.  One does begin to wonder about your learning capacity if after 2 months, you still haven't even been able to grasp the most simple concepts.

Oh well.  I guess there's always that school thing if you really want to learn.

Oh.. wait... you came here to TEACH US, right professor?

bwahahahahahahaha!

what a goober.

Date: 2006/08/02 04:30:33, Link
Author: Ichthyic
er, so it WAS a flood.... of radiation!

Isn't that what led to "Night of the Living Dead"?

So Night of the Living Dead was actually a documentary re-enactment based on your hypothesis of the true nature of the flood and its effects?

fascinating.

tell me more.

Date: 2006/08/02 04:48:57, Link
Author: Ichthyic
see, the problem with 'ol Davey is he thinks the guys who work for AIG are smart.

so he can't comprehend that they aren't, and that they basically get just about everything wrong.

Dave is proud that so many smart folks think just like he does.

and there lies the biggest fallacy of all.

Date: 2006/08/02 08:00:12, Link
Author: Ichthyic
careful, i think Disney might ask you for royalties.

;)

now, let's get back to the "flood of radiation" hypothesis...

do you think that's where zombie mythology originally came from?

some mythology has some kernel of truth to it, so maybe the whole zombie thing was related to the noatic radiation flood?

How long did it take the zombies to finally disintegrate before noah and co. could come out of their bomb shelter/ark?

and how did the radiation flood create the grand canyon?

Date: 2006/08/02 17:26:03, Link
Author: Ichthyic
irrelevancy is Gawp's stock and trade.

it's why he's so #### boring.

Date: 2006/08/02 19:57:58, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Random mutation, shocked aren't you?  


no, like i said, it's not a black/white issue.

perhaps a basic course in probability would open your mind to what 'random' really means.

as to why it's used in evolutionary theory, it's a lot easier to say RM+NS than it is to explain all the the things THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED TO YOU SEVERAL TIMES NOW.

Your absolute refusal to grasp this is beyond comprehension.   that's the shocking part.

I can't beleive anybody is wasting time trying to explain this to you further.

You are, without a doubt, as dumb as AFDave.

shocking, indeed.

Date: 2006/08/02 20:08:26, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Don't get me wrong-I suppose I could still get "feisty" and defend intelligent design with passion if caught in any debate.


nobody has ever successfully done so.  you would be the first, and that I'd like to see.

proceed, professor!

did you want to defend something specific that Dembski invented, or did you have your own "theory" of intelligent design in mind?

I would recommend you make your own thread, and show us please how ID could be made into a productive field of research.

literally, all of us here have tried to figure out how it could proceed, and nobody can come up with anything that generates testable predictions and explains current observations at all.  All we have seen is bad and inapplicable mathematics from Dembski, strange interpretations of observations from Behe that aren't remotely testable, and an awful lot of religious apologetics and hand waving.

disavow us!  show us how a productive field of research could be generated using ID; heck show us an actual hypothesis of ID at all.

if you find it so intriguing, it shouldn't be difficult yes?

Date: 2006/08/03 12:19:56, Link
Author: Ichthyic
exactly.  why bother trying to address this person in a logical fashion?

that's been my point since the second page of this thread, when it became obvious what his motivations and postions were, and that he did NOT come here to learn anything.

He's just like AFDave on that score, though without the "flud".

He may not be a fundy, but he's just as intractable and should be rightly treated so.

not worthy of education, only satire.

but, I repeat myself.

..as to contributions, i stopped that right after the first page for reasons obvious to anybody, even those who decided to keep trying to address you in a logical fashion.

However, I did post this a while back that you must have failed to notice:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=2494

I really thought that would catch your eye, but I forgot your pretty much blind, aren't you?

Date: 2006/08/03 12:32:43, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
The one objection I have to evolutionary biology is not to its common-ancestry or ancient-earth tenets, but rather to it's reliance on strictly random mutations to produce useful fodder for natural selection.  


hmmm.  this sounds suspiciously similar to the recent posts by "skeptic".  It also reflects a similar ignorance of the ToE, as I'm sure several will pile on and point out in detail, as if that would make a difference... or maybe it would?  did you need someone to detail the history of the elucidation of mechanisms within the ToE?  obviously the folks over at UD have done a poor job, and/or you weren't listening when it was done for you previously.

BTW, you didn't address a single one of the questions i posed to you, Apollo.

why is that?

Here, I'll simplify:

How would one even BEGIN to form a research protocol utilizing ID?

note that grant money was offered (by the Templeton Foundation, IIRC) to anybody from the DI or associates who wished to produce a standard research grant application.  

Can you guess what happened?

Date: 2006/08/03 12:49:10, Link
Author: Ichthyic
yeah, but it sure was a cool looking monster though.

When all is said and done, isn't that really the important thing in a monster movie?

:p

DM:

 
Quote
Lissen here, church-burnin' ebola boy -- you're history!...ds


*sigh*  with the demise of the DT show on channel UD, is it time to disband the CBEBs?

Date: 2006/08/03 13:00:48, Link
Author: Ichthyic
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=2494

amazing how this kind of thing keeps being offered up, but gets no comments from those who ignorantly or deliberately mischaracterize the "random" issue wrt the ToE.

why, one might almost think they simply can't grasp the concepts involved, and so prefer to keep spouting their ignorant claptrap instead.

Date: 2006/08/03 13:05:02, Link
Author: Ichthyic
... and of course, avoids answering the question at the heart of any ID "science" to begin with, yet again.

well, there's always tommorrow, Apollo.

Maybe you will decide to give us a passionate defense of ID then, eh?

sure would like to see it, just once.

Date: 2006/08/03 13:13:48, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
It's the sickening aspect in this whole episode.


all the moreso as his target audience is children.

insane and amoral.  that describes a sociopath, does it not?

actually, there are lots of other evidences to suggest that AFD is in fact, a sociopath.

seek treatment Dave, before you destroy more lives while attempting to "save" them.

...and don't come round to my neck of the woods, we like to make life very uncomfortable for snake oil salesmen, especially those who target kids.

Date: 2006/08/03 13:24:32, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Carry the fight Brother!

burn baby, burn!

sorry for doubting; i shall go burn the hair from my face with my flamethrower as punishment.

Date: 2006/08/03 13:31:40, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
It could get boring.


it IS boring.  However, based on the current state of affairs, and how politics, and religion, are all tied up in this, it is also necessary.

...and you made an excellent point about the level where the estate tax makes a difference.

Date: 2006/08/03 14:14:15, Link
Author: Ichthyic
My own father was one who voted for Bush... twice no less.

all the evidence i showed him of Bush's idiocy and incompetence meant nothing.  Moreover, all the things i showed him that would be a detriment to him personally under standard Bush policies were ignored.

however, he saw that story on 60 minutes last sunday about what the administration has done to NASA, and all of a sudden he sees the light, admits he made a mistake, and wishes he could undo it.

go figure.

Date: 2006/08/03 14:59:26, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
teleological hypothesis


contradiction in terminology.  teleology has no place in a proper scientific hypothesis, which the world has yet to see from any ID supporter.  Moreover, what you stated as a hypothesis, was not in fact, a hypothesis, but merely a supposition.  Do you understand what a proper scientific hypothesis entails?  again, we can refer you to basic definitions if you wish.

besides which, your response does not address what I am asking you.

for the third time:

How would one even BEGIN to form a research protocol utilizing ID?

saying that it needs to is merely stating the incredibly obvious.

the question I put to you was HOW would it do the things you mention as obviously necessary for ID as a research protocol to progress.  All of us here already know (and have stated numerous times) what ID needs to do to become a productive avenue of research, but not only has nobody on the ID side stepped up to the plate, logically NOBODY CAN.

until you can demonstrate how it is even possible to address the needs you yourself define for ID, how can it proceed?  It's vacuous in the door.  

Quote
Design inferences, however persuasive they may be, ...


how are design inferences (other than human design inferences, where we have an existing set of independantly verifiable observations to model on, as well as knowledge of the designer), persuasive in any way other than as an argument from incredulity?

please explain.

@Argy:

Prediction:  If Apollo deigns to become involved in discussion on the thread you posted, it will quickly become to look very similar to the thread skeptic started.

There is a basic level of disfunction that literally MUST operate in order to maintain the kinds of positions ID supporters promulgate, and it will become (has already?) readily apparent as soon as Apollo jumps into that thread.

I am hoping that Apollo will prove me wrong, but skeptic was sorely disappointing in that, and i expect Apollo will be as well.

It strains credulity how similar and common the patterns are.

Date: 2006/08/03 15:25:15, Link
Author: Ichthyic
of course, not only do they not understand the contents of the paper, but seem to miss the very first sentence in the intro:

Quote
As this minireview is concerned with the importance of the environment in directing evolution.
.

...and exactly how is that different from saying natural selection?

I guess they get hung up on the word "directing", which agreed is rather poor terminology, and ignore the whole "environment" part.

or am i stepping on your toes here?

if so, give me the high sign and I'll wipe this.

Date: 2006/08/03 20:04:04, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I appreciate the references but I might now be obligated to post on two places with essentially the same material


of course, exactly what i predicted.

do you actually HAVE any unique or innovative material?

haven't seen any so far.

do try to keep up, junior.  You've had MONTHS and have made literally NO progress.

*sigh*

Quote
In a way, this seems contradictory to me.


of course it does.  you can only think in absolutist terms, apparently.

suggest you re-read the paper at least 3 times.  maybe the specifics will start to sink in, or maybe you need to learn more basics before the specifics even make sense at all to you.

I still think you're a complete waste of time, but maybe Apollo can show you up.

we'll see.

Date: 2006/08/03 20:45:18, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I hope that one more attempt to show how your total ignorance of basic issues affects how you attempt to explain the ToE to yourself, and what an utter failure you are at attempting to elucidate anything novel based on your own ignorance.  Maybe you will give up and go back to reading the basic texts we recommended at the beginning of the thread.  Trust me, you would be far more productive in doing so.  right now, your ideas are laughable.

 
Quote
We could compare this to the Butterfly Effect.


huh?  why?  do you even know what "the Butterfly Effect" is?

Assuming you do, why would you invoke a parable of chaos theory in looking at mutation?  Do you understand what a strange attractor is?  Just curious; do you think chaos theory refers to random or deterministic processes?

 
Quote
fine line here between variation and lethal chaos


not really, but this gets back to your binary thought modes.  It doesn't surprise me you would say something like this.

 
Quote
Selection mechanisms exploit variation which produce diversity and conceivably survivability.


this makes no sense.  do you know why?

 
Quote
If the probability of a mutation occuring at a particular loci is increased and this loci potentially has significant impact upon the organism then over time the probability of positive traits emerging increases because selection fixes these traits in the organism.  


no.  this would only work if selection was only and specifically related to the phenotypes arising from the specific trait affected by the mutation.  not a very realistic scenario.  You get lost when you try to define traits as "positve" and "negative" in absolute terms; as these are entirely relative to the range of selective pressures present.

 
Quote
Mutations are unguided.  This statement in itself causes lots of problems which I will try to avoid in the same way I want to avoid the connotations of "directed".  


actually, no it doesn't.  It only causes problems when you, specifically, try to associate the term with your definition of "random", which already didn't work.

 
Quote
In a previous post someone had included a link that lead to a paper comparing major morphologic variation in 28 breeds of dog.  The variations in just two genes accounted for all this diversity.  This indicates that those sites are more susceptable to mutation and this susceptability is conserved throughout the generations.


why would you conclude that?  maybe other loci mutate even more rapidly, but don't have as apparent effect on external morphology.  Maybe those two loci are linked to ones that vary widely.  How would you know?  I know how you could figure it out... do you?  Of course you don't.  Again, you are missing basic knowlege that would allow you to make a more sensible postulate; basic knowledge of molecular genetics would be useful to you in thinking about this issue more realistically.

 
Quote
.  So the cell uses mutation to achieve variation for the sole purpose of generating positive traits to ensure survivability.


wrong, wrong, wrong.  the "cell" uses nothing; this is total teleological thinking on your part, and one of the more laughable things in your statement.  By the way, what ARE the selective pressures on the loci under discussion?  How would those specific selective pressures relate to your idea of how a cell "uses" mutation?

if you can figure that out, you can figure out why it is so idiotic to say what you just said here.

 
Quote
The actual mutation that occurs at that site might be unpredictable, in the same way as the slit choice for the photon but probabilities can calculated and possible outcomes predicted (potentially)The utility of this would be of tremendous importance in many areas but medicine certainly stands out in my mind.


get with the times, junior.  We actually can modify the genes directly in some cases to give us specific phenotypes (*GASP*).  Been able to do that for decades now.  But, you would know this if you ever took a course in molecular genetics.

seeing the pattern yet?

 
Quote
One point to clarify, there is no "intelligence" within the cell.  Its not a mini-processor directing these actions.


one, you need to change your writing style to be less dicatorial, and two, you don't need to clarify this to anybody but yourself, since you raised the issue.

 
Quote
The pathways have developed over time probably in much the same way and this is what works.


nope.  wrong again.  but you would know better if you took a course in cellular biology, or developmental biology.

 
Quote
"intelligence"; "direction"
 

when you put things in quotes like that, you are clearly identifying them as innappropriate terms that you are hackneying into your statement.  Why?  Is it because you don't understand what the underlying real causes are?  

look, you are so far over your head that I'm amazed you haven't realized you drowned ages ago.

you're just a walking zombie on the seafloor at this point.

I'm all for folks learning how this stuff works, but you don't seem to WANT to learn, and that makes you even more pathetic.

The recommendations on the very first page of this thread still stand, even after months of you posting your incorrect assesments and binary thoughts.  You really DO need to go back to reading basic information about genetics, developmental biology, statistics, cellular biology, etc., before you can realistically even process the information you are trying to formulate into a "theory" of some kind.

Note, I'm not being elitist, you are simply overreaching yourself.  If you truly have the desire to address these issues seriously, take the advice ALL here have given you:

go back to basics, and learn what you need to know first.

that's about as nice as i can be about it, really.

Date: 2006/08/03 20:57:10, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Hey Skeptic;

did you know that I used to work with those big suckers that scare the bejesus out of you?

yup.

In fact it's possible that they showed vids of the very sharks i used to work with, and the researchers too.  If they showed any footage from Monterey, or near Santa Cruz, or from the Farallon Islands, that would have been the sharks I worked with.  If they showed Sean Van Sommeran at all (they do about every other shark week), or Bernie Lebouff, or Pete Klimly, or Greg Cailliet, those were the guys I used to work with.  Likely they spent most of the time showing white shark footage from South Africa though.

Now, here's an analogy for you:

based on your thread on evolutionary theory, I expect you will elucidate a theory on white shark migration and hunting behaviors that far exceeds my pathetic level of detail, having only studied the critters for 4 years.  Tell me how it's done, son.

or, if you were actually interested in Carcharadon carcharias, you could actually ask questions; that would be new and unexpected.

and uh, *ugh*, i guess i should apologize to gawp for going so off topic on his tightly woven thread...

Date: 2006/08/03 21:06:01, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Septic said:


yeah, that about describes it.  I think this particular tank is clogged though.  got any liquid plumber?

Date: 2006/08/03 21:29:48, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
dismissal of the concept.


one, nowhere did i dismiss it as a concept.  two, I'm glad you at least use the correct terminology to describe it, you didn't before.  It's not even a hypothesis, let alone a theory.

Quote
 Therefore, are you really interested in what I have to say about the matter?  If I outline a research protocol for detecting a designer, you are probably going to summarily dismiss that, too.


again, there is no summary dismissal, just a factual recognition that nobody here can see how logically one can produce predictions and a testing regimen based on the concept of intelligent design as outlined by Behe and Dembski.

So yes, I am genuinely curious as to how you can see your way clear to do so, and my primary question remains.  don't cop out now.  If you wish to defend ID, this IS the way to do it.  Answer that question, and you will have successfully defended the concept of Intelligent Design.  Not only that, but you will have put yourself ahead of all the rabble that say they like to support the notion of ID, but have failed to actually do so.

IF you want ID to be something more than religious apologetics and a tool in the culture wars, this is your chance to shine.  Otherwise, you best consign it to the realm of wishful thinking.

If you can, you would be the absolute first.  Behe couldn't do it, Dembski couldn't do it, and those are the only ID "luminaries" who even tried, really.  Nelson gave up ages ago, but then he really had no background to even attempt it.

did you see the other question i asked you:

do you know what happened when the Templeton Foundation (sic) offered the DI funding if they would submit a grant application to research any aspect of ID?

I'll go ahead and answer for you:

Nada, zip, zilch.  they didn't produce a single grant application.  You must be asking yourself:  why not?  why wouldn't the DI accept grant money to research intelligent design?

... or do you see where I am going with this already?

Date: 2006/08/04 13:38:39, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
That is the best research program I can honestly come up with to find a designer and hence vindicate intelligent design.  Granted, this does not sound like much of a scientific enterprise


no, it doesn't, sadly.

THAT is your empassioned defense of ID?

Get back to us when you can independently identify and objectively verify the nature of a proposed designer.

like, for instance, if we somehow got proof that extraterrestrials had been visiting the planet for eons and mucking with stuff; say by actual communication with them.

then you could propose a legitimate hypothesis and make predictions as to what we should see biologically and paleontologically based on the obtained knowledge of said aliens.

Otherwise, like i said, best you consign ID to the realm of wishful thinking and move on to more productive areas.

Have you taken a look at the Templeton Foundation's funded researches into the effects of prayer on healing and recovery after surgery?  I bet you would find that interesting.  Let me know and I'll give you the link to the thread where we discuss it.


Quote
Icky,

That's one e-beer to you.  Make it a Hale's Red Menace, straight outta Ballard.


mmmm, mmm.  tasty.  

I'm a bit worried that the predictable nature of these folks is gonna turn me into an alcoholic though.

;)

cheers

Date: 2006/08/04 13:49:57, Link
Author: Ichthyic
gawp mentioned a trivial thing:

Quote
revenues have GONE UP during the Bush administration


GROSS revenues have increased steadily since taxes were first invented.  No surprise there, when you think about it.

easy enough to see for anybody who wants to:

http://www.irs.gov/taxstat....00.html

Net revenues, when you include rebates, gifts, and especially EXPENDITURES, have not.

This administration has literally wasted more money than any administration in this nation's history, even makes Reagan pale by comparison.

look it up.

Date: 2006/08/04 14:12:49, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Creationists: Large variety of costumes, clergy are particularly well known for their exotic plumage.  


gotta love the Norweigan Blue... beautiful plumage.

...and yes, the analogy between the group you are describing and a dead parrot works on many levels.

Date: 2006/08/04 21:42:59, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Mutations do not happen by accident.  In a very real sense, nothing really happens by accident.  I'm not sure if you appreciate the complexity of mutations.  


dam*n, but you are an arrogant, ignorant sob, ain't ya.

You haven't the slightest clue what does or does not happen by accident, and have the temerity to suggest that those of us who have studied molecular genetics for years "don't appreciate the complexity of mutatons".

my god man.  what a complete and utter idiot you are.

if i could reach across the screen and slap you, i would.

I hope you don't have kids.

I also note you completely ignored every correction to your drivel i posted.  

what that tells me, and it should tell everyone else, is that not only have you absolutely no clue what you are talking about, you deliberately will choose to ignore or obfuscate any response to your drivel that is contradictory, even on the surface.

you sir, are entirely as pathetic a waste of space as AFDave.

amazing.

just once, I'd like to see the rest here agree and simply shut you down, rather than dragging your worthless butt on and on, like they did with AFDumbass.

Date: 2006/08/04 21:50:15, Link
Author: Ichthyic
IOW, skeptic says:

"I ain't got no clue what ya all is a spoutin', but I think sharks is the coolest!"

airhead.

Date: 2006/08/05 08:21:01, Link
Author: Ichthyic
no, it came through just fine.

It was indeed satire worthy of an airhead.

I guess you missed why I used the word "analogy" when I asked you for your theory on shark behavior, as well.

Your knowledge of the ToE goes no farther than the discovery channel either, yet you feel more than free to expound ridiculous notions on that front.  why not sharks too?

Date: 2006/08/05 08:36:41, Link
Author: Ichthyic
and you've been nothing but lunatic since you arrived.

Quote
As far as corrections, I haven't seen one yet from you.


actually, not only I, but everybody else has as well.  You simply choose to ignore them completely.

recent example here:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=26819

there were more attempts that you also ignored early on, not only by me, but by Wes, Eric, etc.

Your statements REEK of ignorance, and your repeated misinformation and misnomers belie the fact that folks like Eric have attempted to correct your grievous errors MANY times, pointlessly, evidently.

I can only conclude that you are simply either stupid, or willfully ignorant.  the reason i post this so often is simply that you have given me nothing else to think otherwise.

I enjoy slapping ignorant idiots like yourself, who insist they know something when they obviously don't.

It's why I asked you to produce your theories of white shark behavior and migration, as obviously your viewing of the discovery channel's "shark week" made you an expert, right?

yet, you know as much about the ToE as you do about sharks and are willing to expound as if you are an expert, and we are the ones needing to be taught.

an enigma?  that's entirely projection on your part.

Date: 2006/08/05 08:47:58, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
You know what's funny? Not one single person has accused us of being Ichthyic.

Perhaps we are more clever than you realize,

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!


naww.  It's simply because I don't find sock puppets remotely as entertaining as the rest of you seem to, the twin him/hers included.

Date: 2006/08/05 11:42:23, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I was a bit perturbed to discover that I got all the allusions


welcome to the show that never ends, pop culture USA.

don't feel perturbed, all the rest of us got it too.  i suppose they wouldn't have written it that way without realizing that every american who saw it would basically get the reference.

In fact, you should be more perturbed that you had the commercial in your mind enough to mention it to begin with.

;)

Date: 2006/08/05 11:45:14, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
his obsession with teenage girls' hoohoos?


how much you wanna bet he didn't get laid in high school?

Date: 2006/08/05 11:48:12, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
So far, my favorite thing about Borofsky is that hysterical, melodramatic blog title, plaintively begging the atheist liberals to just, please, stop...lying...to...us....!


which of course is creationist code for:

"Please stop showing us reality and facts, it hurrrrttttsssss usssss..., my precious."

Date: 2006/08/05 14:20:58, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
you're just a moron.


riggghhhttt...

talk about not being able to deal with reality.

at this point, I'd say you need to prove to everyone here that you aren't a complete moron.  You have failed to do so so far.  I on the other hand, have no need to.  I've proved I'm on the level many times, and that I know what I'm talking about.  I know there is no reason to bother detailing this for you, as you would ignore everything I've posted, as you have previously, but feel free to poke around under my current psuedonym, or my previous one (sir_toejam), and see for yourself.  Yes, I actually do know this stuff, and have taught it at the college level for years.

and you?  Yeah, that's what I thought.

perhaps if you actually tried to go and learn something before sticking your foot in your mouth?

that would be novel.

Date: 2006/08/05 14:34:02, Link
Author: Ichthyic
really, in general, I'm terribly dissapointed in the quality of troll we get here at the bar.

I had hopes that Apollo might actually follow through with his boast that he could defend ID and produce a legitimate research protocol, but of course he ran away as soon as he was asked to do so.

AFDave is at least persistent, if a total whack job.

Gawp has taken irrelevancy to an artform, but has little to add of substance (though occassionally even he manages to say something intelligent).

but you skeptic, you're at the same time ignorant, offensive, and boring.

I thought maybe you would begin to show signs of life after more than 2 months, but no, you're just a zombie walking on the seafloor.  What's more, you seem to be walking ever farther out to sea, instead of towards the beach.

Watch out for that trench, I hear the first step is a long one.

Date: 2006/08/05 17:10:25, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Calling evolution "anti-ID hypotheses" boggles the mind. It's like calling physics "anti-TimeCube hypotheses".


I keep telling you you can predict creobots uttering these exact witticisms if you remember one thing:

everything they say is either projection or denial.

in this case, this is a classic bit of projection, based on the fact that ID consists of nothing more than "anti-ToE claims".

They know this, but project the exact opposite as both a conscious and subconscious defense mechanism.

so no, it boggles the mind not; or at least it shouldn't for someone like yourself who has seen basically the same patterns of thought and expression from these IDiots over and over again.

what boggles the mind is how dam*n predictable they ALWAYS are.

Just once, I wish someone who supported the concept of ID who had half a brain would come here and try to defend it.

it will never happen.  those with half-brains (or half-bees) already know the concept is indefensible, otherwise they would come here all the time to "set us straight"; but you don't see Dembski coming here to debate, or Behe, or Johnson, or any other "ID luminaries".

It's only those who appear to be severely disfunctional psychologically (AFDave), or completely ignorant (Skeptic, Apollo), who come here to disavow us of the value of the ToE.  I even note that skeptic and apollo get hung up on the exact same ignorant misnomers, though at least Apollo doesn't have the temerity to think we are all wrong about "how complex mutations are".

It gets rather boring, I must say; to the point where I understand why most would rather discuss the "witticisms" of Davetard or Densey (dumb and dumberer?).

Still, I do hope that someday someone will come here and make an honest and informed attempt to defend the concept of ID.  

OTOH, if they are both honest and informed, they wouldn't be ID supporters in the first place, AFAICT.

nevermind.

seems we're doomed to arguing with the likes of Skeptic and AFDave.

pass me that bottle, Steve.

Date: 2006/08/05 18:06:38, Link
Author: Ichthyic
"Oh Martha, bring me the smelling salts, I’m getting the vapors! "

hmm, why do i feel another movie trivia question coming on...

Quote

My time is worth something.


I'm sure mine is too; now if I can only figure out what that something is.

Date: 2006/08/05 18:16:28, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
"Catastrophism, catastrophism, catastrophism"
.

Ok, any programming geeks should immediately have been prompted to think of Balmer's:

"Developers, Developers, Developers!"

I wonder if Davie was also jumping up and down when he said that?

if you haven't a clue what I'm talking about, even non computer geeks will get a laugh out of it (Steve Balmer is Gates' right hand man):

http://www.ntk.net/media/developers.mpg

I can just picture our own Davie selling his crapola the same way, and it amuses me.

oh, ntk has the well done musical version too:

http://www.ntk.net/ballmer/mirrors.html

check towards  the bottom

Date: 2006/08/05 18:40:08, Link
Author: Ichthyic
great movie too.  a great play on "the greed is bad thing" theme.  It would serve as great entertainment at Bush's ethics training courses for his staff.

I highly recommend it if you haven't seen it.

Date: 2006/08/05 20:43:50, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
let's make it to the present moment?

no bet.

repeat.

NO BET.

I can't afford to lose any more money this month.

;)

Quote
You're forgetting Ghost of Paley!


yes, I am.  Your point being?

Date: 2006/08/05 20:47:56, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Whoever it is, must be chortling 'I kill me sometimes'.


so long as it's not:

'I love it so'

that would literally be the only thing that would make me physically ill.

Date: 2006/08/05 21:02:33, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
butts of the continents


hmm, now THAT Baby gotta big behind.  Sexah.

http://www.lyrics007.com/Sir%20M....cs.html

Date: 2006/08/06 11:02:48, Link
Author: Ichthyic
AFDave appears to be older than we thought, given the ancient-ness of his recent references.

76, 54 (from an ancient eclyclopedia no less), 78 (again from an encyclopedia)...

ya know dave, I have an old collection of wildlife encyclopedias I was given when i was 6 years old.  Even then, they were full of remedial errors, both in classification and in detail.

It's why adults don't rely on enclyclopedias as a primary source of information.

that's for children.  Oh, that's right, that's your target audience anyway.

Do you realize you're a dishonest idiot and just plow ahead anyway?  Or do you honestly think the "references" you posted actually have real world meaning?

I'm genuinely curious.  Are these ancient encyclopedias the primary "textbooks" you use to teach your own kids with?

If so, your kids should sue you.

 
Quote
AFD is losing it.


IS?  He was gone before he ever came here.

Date: 2006/08/06 11:11:45, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I was way off on that one, I don't know why I associated a fern with bacteria.


I do.

Date: 2006/08/07 08:50:33, Link
Author: Ichthyic
why do you keep posting this crap?

It's not worth reading.

Date: 2006/08/07 15:28:07, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Is Uncommonly Dense worth reading?


no, hence I don't.  i only read the comics page you guys make out of it on a regular basis.

Otherwise, I haven't seen anything worth reading on UD since Dembksi first created it.

How often can you see the same drivel posted over and over again and still get entertainment value out of it?

Even the muppet show got boring after several years.

Date: 2006/08/10 09:10:09, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Steve S, get ready to be amazed again.


that was a jaw dropper, alrighty.

the funny thing is, I've met many creationists, but I've never seen any personally express themselves as bass-ackwardly as this.

I keep wondering if these idiots are for real, or do they only make up this shit for the internet.

reading that quote, I keep thinking of that Geico commercial:

"It's so simple even a caveman could understand it."

"Oh, sorry, we didn't know there were any of you guys still around."

Date: 2006/08/10 09:15:47, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Hey Dave.

since you obviously don't know about this meteor or its impact, why don't you tell us if it hit before or after the flood?

Oh, sorry, i mean "flud".

Date: 2006/08/10 13:42:08, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Third, why should they tell me what their username is if they got one?


well, I hope they would, for your sake, as so far EVERY lurker that has uncloaked and left a message in this thread has clearly noted what an utter idiot you are.

If any of these were your "acquaintances", I sure would like to know if I were you.

OTOH, maybe not.  Ignorance is bliss, right?

Date: 2006/08/10 14:35:05, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Example 4 - Central American fish, Xiphoporus maculatus [Endler, J.A. (1977)


actually, this is one of Endler's more "tedious" papers; you should check out his work on selection that he did a little later.

Classic stuff.  He was a prof of mine when I was an undergrad at UCSB.  I still regard his selection experiments some of the best and most interesting to date.

Date: 2006/08/10 14:49:49, Link
Author: Ichthyic
It's pretty accessible stuff, really.  So well done they decided to use it for those PBS evo specials that happened a little while back:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/sex/guppy/low_bandwidth.html

here's Endler's current CV:

http://www.jcu.edu.au/school/tbiol/zoology/staff/endler.htm

I was reminded of this as someone pointed out that the "sexual selection is bogus" meme is currently making the rounds on the creobot sites.

Off the top of my head, I really can't think of any field experiments conclusively demonstrating the mechanism and effects of selection that I would recommend more than Endler's work on Poecilliids.

Funny enough, he is now working in the very area I did my thesis in as a grad student.  It's making me think about getting another degree....

;)

Date: 2006/08/11 20:12:21, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I'm truly sick of your posts, Jason.

why don't you make comments on them yourself?  none of them make any sense, the writers are obviously complete idiots, and none of the articles you have posted recently have any redeeming value whatsoever.

so why do you post them?

Date: 2006/08/11 20:29:11, Link
Author: Ichthyic
nicely done, TM.

in one series of posts, you correctly dissected the entirety of Septic's "arguments".

Now that wasn't hard, was it?

I trust septic can clearly see that even a casual viewer of this thread can quickly pick out his nonsense.

oh, wait... doubtless septic will just say something like "well that wasn't a very productive answer", and troll away as usual.

my mistake.

Date: 2006/08/11 20:38:15, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I SAY THAT THE DATING OF THE LAYERS OF THE GRAND CANYON IS PRIMARILY SMOKE AND MIRRORS -- ARBITRARILY ASSIGNED DATES BASED ON THE HUGE EVO-BOT FANTASY OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION

I'm starting to feel pretty good about that statement.


well, that's pretty much the world according to AFDumbass.

If it feels good, it must be true!

who needs data when you have a gut to rely on?

What on earth is the point of arguing with someone who takes that kind of approach to life?

I keep wondering if that's what he told his kids:

"If you feel good about it, it must be true!"

yikes.

@TM:

Yes, you would entirely be wasting your time arguing with Dave, though many interesting references have popped up from time to time in this thread.

None by Dumbass, of course.

Date: 2006/08/11 20:42:27, Link
Author: Ichthyic
that's as good an explanation as any I can fathom as to why he posts this drivel.

Date: 2006/08/11 20:48:01, Link
Author: Ichthyic
AH! run! Eeeevvvviiillll penguin!

Date: 2006/08/11 21:55:05, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Oh do please tell us professor!  How is the middle east being "Arabized"???

fair warning to those in attendance:

Obrien has nought to offer but a dictionary definition thus far, and I expect he will offer little more than that and rampant racist opines on "muslimania".

Hey I could be wrong.  He says he's gonna hand me my "ass", so let's find out.

here's where he stands currently:

Quote
Quote
Arden Chatfield wrote:

Iranians, Pakistanis, and Afghans aren’t Arabs either…


They have, however, been Arabized.


mmm hmm.  on to you, professor.

Date: 2006/08/12 12:42:12, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I'd rather argue with someone who at least has some data ... like Deadman.  Or JonF once in a while.


I'm sure they would too, but alas you never cease to dissapoint on that front.

Date: 2006/08/12 13:49:25, Link
Author: Ichthyic
gawp's chomping at the bit to stand in for Obrien.

well, i started this thread, and I say: no way.  let Obrien present his own case.  I'm quite tired of your brand of idiocy, as presented from your armchair at the public library.  I'm hoping he will present some new pile of steaming refuse that will at least smell a bit less stale, if stinking all the same.

Date: 2006/08/12 13:53:52, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Indeed I can assume you mean the Jason over on Pharyngula?

I suspected the same.

without anything more than driveby postings, how is one to determine otherwise?

Date: 2006/08/12 17:38:06, Link
Author: Ichthyic
138 pages of nothing but evasions by davey dumbass and now you're tired of them?

Your stamina is noted, and wil go down as being far greater than most I'm acquainted with.

hat's off to ya, or a pint in your direction, whichever you would prefer.

Date: 2006/08/12 21:20:59, Link
Author: Ichthyic
speaking of face-face 'discussion', one bit of over-obvious wisdom I can impart from personal experience:

Never argue with a crack addict.

for any reason.

ever.

er, unless you don't mind immediate physical violence.

Date: 2006/08/12 21:27:17, Link
Author: Ichthyic
even funnier is Andrea stating over and over that he provided the links to the very data on the evolution of the immune system the IDiots asked for, and gave the links even.  yet, they all claim there is no data still, and no papers.

Willfull blindness, indeed.

goes beyond the "blind leading the blind" parable.

I could easily envision the look of shock on Andrea's face, when after he posted a lengthy explanation of current immune system research along with links to more detail and articles, he was met with essentially:

"what articles?  i see no detail here?  really, if you could just provide us with one article that explains how the ToE explains the immune system..."

... and then Barry claiming he "won" because there was no opposition.

yikes, talk about ignoring reality.  How DOES one get to such a state of fubardom?

Date: 2006/08/13 12:16:26, Link
Author: Ichthyic
this was already discussed, in this very forum, a few months back.

there is conclusive evidence the red stuff was algal spore cells, both via standard microscopic and genetic analysis.

I'm sure the thread will pop up if you do a search for it.

Date: 2006/08/13 12:19:13, Link
Author: Ichthyic
gawp, your spin on this is so wrong it deserves a slap:

*slap*

Date: 2006/08/13 12:23:06, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Oh please, don't try baiting the idiot into responding when i specifically asked not to hear his idiocy repeated in this thread.

thanks.

If Obrien responds, that's groovy, but gawp will just inflate the thread with hot air.

give Obrien another day or so, then I could care less.

Date: 2006/08/13 19:09:35, Link
Author: Ichthyic
LOL.

yeah, I hate you too.  Idiot.

Date: 2006/08/13 19:28:42, Link
Author: Ichthyic
the origninal thread i was thinking of was back in early June:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=2135

I can't recall now who mentioned to me that the genetics had been done.  it might have been actually referenced in one of the papers cited in the thread.

like this one:

http://users.erols.com/igoddard/redrain.htm

Date: 2006/08/14 10:35:38, Link
Author: Ichthyic
yeah, but is that from personal experience?

 ;)

Date: 2006/08/14 11:42:03, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I apologize for thinking you in any way related to the "Jason" over on pharyngula.

...and thanks for participating, I was wondering when you might actually comment on your newsposts.

Date: 2006/08/14 11:49:13, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Teeth wear down over time.  Did Methuselah chew his food with his original teeth or did he eat soup for the last 500 hundred years of his life?


how bout this:

Tooth wear was retarded in similar fashion to cellular decay; the same thing that allowed them to live 1000 years made their teeth more resistant to wear as well.

oh, and speaking of retarded...

on to you Dave.

Date: 2006/08/14 16:20:46, Link
Author: Ichthyic
OK, at this point i'll take it Obrien didn't consider the issue important enough to warrant further discussion.

I doubt i do either, but I'm sure gawp can convince me otherwise.

floor's open.

Date: 2006/08/14 18:15:37, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Yikes.  I do wonder if Dembski knows these things, and is just "testing" how really stupid his audience is, or whether he really and truly has fried his brain to the point of not being able to recognize satire when he sees it any more.

He should have been able to figure it out (as could any normal human) from the letter sent to him...

Quote
The vote was due in large part to the ID friendly leanings we are starting to see at the Panda’s Thumb.


yeah, such a bunch of creobots thumbers are.

LOL.

Date: 2006/08/14 19:04:59, Link
Author: Ichthyic
http://www.physorg.com/news74747729.html

Quote
In times of plenty, the uni-cellular slime mold Dictyostelium discoideum leads a solitary life munching on bacteria littering the forest floor. But these simple creatures can perform heroic developmental acts: when the bacterial food supply dries up, Dictyostelium amebas band together with their neighbors and form a multi-cellular tower designed to save the children.


I'm sure the IDiots will try to have fun with this one, based on the summary selling statement used to place it on physorg i quote above.

However, the real interesting thing is this bit:

Quote
Unexpectedly, these deduced genetic blueprints for type III PKSs revealed each Dictyostelium type III PKS to be fused to other enzymatically active protein domains. This never seen before hybrid arrangement works like a very efficient bucket brigade that synthesizes polyketide molecules in slime mold cells.


slime molds.  A true case of the reality being far more bizarre than the fiction (like the slime molds in DnD).

Date: 2006/08/14 19:36:12, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
How do IDiots manage to leave their homes?


hmmm, that spawns the further thought...

do they even leave their homes?

Date: 2006/08/16 01:55:25, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I'm over 40, been a biologist for 20+ years, and you are the first person I've ever heard of who kept a slime mold as a pet.

that's pretty dam*n cool.

What kind of slime mold was it?  did you get it to sporophyte stage?

Date: 2006/08/16 02:10:14, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I think you should sick your pet slime mold on him.

that'll learn 'im.

You did mutate it into the large, man-eating form, yes?

Date: 2006/08/16 18:22:11, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I was doomed from an early age.


I could only wish i had parents like yours, but even mine managed to take my early interest in marine bio seriously enough to drag me to the beach on a regular basis, which of course eventually turned into night raids on the tidepools at low tide...

doomed.

yes, that's a pretty good one word description alrighty.

;)

I'd say the most interesting pet I ever had was a tidepool kelpfish that i had trained to swim into my hand and eat from my fingers.  Always freaked the visitors.

ever miss 'ol Sammy?

Date: 2006/08/16 18:31:02, Link
Author: Ichthyic
http://www.physorg.com/news74970678.html

Quote
Scientists have discovered a gene that has undergone accelerated evolutionary change in humans and is active during a critical stage in brain development. Although researchers have yet to determine the precise function of the gene, the evidence suggests that it may play a role in the development of the cerebral cortex and may even help explain the dramatic expansion of this part of the brain during human evolution.


somehow, I think AFDave's entire linneage is lacking that gene; or maybe he's simply homozygous recessive?

on a more serious note, has anybody played with the genomics methods used for this study?

Quote
Pollard, as a postdoctoral researcher at UCSC, was part of the international team that performed the initial analysis of the chimpanzee genome. She and Haussler then devised a computational strategy for using the chimp genome and comparative genomics to identify regions of the human genome that had evolved rapidly.

"When we developed this computational method, we weren't sure what we would find. It was very rewarding to find that this region that came out at the top of our list is potentially relevant to human evolution in an interesting way," Pollard said.

Date: 2006/08/16 21:29:51, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Flushing your mind is something you should do more often DDTTD.


ack!  don't you think he's been brainwashed enough?

heck, his brain makes "acid washed" jeans look crinkly and new.

any more "flushing" and all you will hear is air blowing through the empty space between his ears.

Hey, I think i can hear the ocean...

Date: 2006/08/16 21:36:06, Link
Author: Ichthyic
hmm, define "unjustifiably arrogant", considering what you can learn from the single statement you just commented on, especially taken out of context of the rest of what Glen wrote.

You must be psychic.

does that come with the melding of mathematics and theology?

Your reaction bespeaks of fondness.  Is your defense of Oleary justifiable, I wonder?

Date: 2006/08/16 21:41:50, Link
Author: Ichthyic
lol.  ummm... that would cut this thread in half, methinks.

Date: 2006/08/17 10:45:44, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
No one forced you to come here.


No, Dave.  Nobody forced YOU to come here.  this ain't your forum, remember?

speaking of your own forum/blog....

Have you bothered to post a link to this thread on your blog?

If you are as doin as well as you claim, why not post a link there, eh?

in fact, why not post a link on the front page of kids4truth?

let them see the real truth of the matter, like all the rest of the lurkers here.

face it.  You're a complete loser, in every sense of the word.

Date: 2006/08/17 11:00:33, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
ignore awkward questions and keep repeating yourself, or lay low for a while and then pop back up with the same questions.


Indeed.

DonaldM and FL have been trying to educate us on that point for over a year now.

I guess they figure we're just too dense to get it, since they come back every other week or so on PT to repeat the lesson for us.

Date: 2006/08/17 12:59:05, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Instead of where it says "The intelligent design weblog..." under the "Uncommon Descent" title, it really should say:

"Destroying Ironymeters Since Inception!"

gees, even the title of the very site destroyed an ironymeter of mine when Dembski said in a debate with Ruse a while back that he fully accepts the evidence and conclusions of common descent.

One does wonder why he didn't change the title of the site right there and then.

Oh, that's right, it's just a site to sell books, and that might turn off his target audience.

I wonder... how does one categorize lying?

Debmski lies to sell his books, as has been shown over and over again.

AFDave lies to protect his worldview.

which is worse?

Dave's lies are only fit to bamboozle children.

Dembski's fool adults as well.

hmm.  tough call.

Date: 2006/08/17 13:18:12, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I haven't seen Jean around in a while; I'd bet he would have some comments on the methods used.

anybody know what happened to him?

Date: 2006/08/17 13:32:59, Link
Author: Ichthyic
http://www.physorg.com/news75048395.html

Quote
US boys hooked on gospel, techno and pop are more at risk of HIV infection than devotees of other musical styles, including "bling, bling" hip hop, according to a new study.


I'm sorry, but this is just so amusing on so many levels, including the study itself.

I just had to post it.

(evil grin)

Date: 2006/08/17 13:36:00, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Steve, did you get moderation priviledges and neglect to inform us?

shame on you, if so.

Date: 2006/08/17 13:41:54, Link
Author: Ichthyic
just to add to the obvious...

still getting lots of DNS errors for this and PT.

usually, it seems to worsen in the afternoon (PST).

totally off/on situation.  site will be unreachable for 15 minutes or so, then it will be just fine.  cycles on and off at seemingly random intervals.

I'd take a guess and say a switch is misconfigured somewhere, and is causing interrupted traffic to the DNS.

might even be far up the line from wherever the DNS is currently being hosted; I've seen that before too.

of course the only way to tell is if traffic local to where the DNS is located is affected similarly or not.

anybody out there NOT having any problems reaching PT or antievolution.org in the last week or so?

Date: 2006/08/17 19:27:44, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Coward, liar and fool is a bad combo to be while going through life, boy.


"Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, boy."

classic movie lines that will never die.

Date: 2006/08/17 19:35:08, Link
Author: Ichthyic
love too!  are you buying?

Date: 2006/08/17 19:37:32, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Marc -

check out naturalism.org.

Date: 2006/08/17 21:31:16, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I tried, I really did.

I couldn't make it through the second paragraph of Joel's stream-of-consciousness, crossed-out, running commentary on whatever he was trying to paraphrase Dawkins as having said.

when i had to re-read the second paragraph 3 times, i finally gave up.

He really should try to write a book in that style.  It might appeal to the seriously dyslexic.

I did notice something of a classic bit of projection from JAD in the commentary:

Quote
It will be very interesting to see how he handles the destruction of his tight little self-generated world.


of course the reason this interests JAD is because he wants to see if the reaction would be similar to his own, when back in the mid 80's he literally lost his mind.

unfortunately for JAD, Dawkins isn't suffering from cognitive dissonance, so he's in for an interminable wait, I'm afraid.

so sad.

Date: 2006/08/17 21:42:01, Link
Author: Ichthyic
yeah, but you should warn us so we know you get to play "bad cop" now.

enjoy!

Date: 2006/08/17 21:49:02, Link
Author: Ichthyic
uh, yup.  What you say sounds completely accurate.  Only Davey knows for sure though.

abc

123

Davey the half a ...

Date: 2006/08/17 22:30:47, Link
Author: Ichthyic
well, I'll try to give you more exercise.




(evil grin)

Date: 2006/08/17 22:35:46, Link
Author: Ichthyic
You should put that to music and make it into a pub song, Louis.

classic.

great way to end the posting evening.

OY!

Date: 2006/08/18 08:34:54, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
... the challenge should be for AFD to work as a geologist's assistant for a month then go into a lab where they do Radio metric dating. Like Boy George cleaning up the garbage in NY.


nawww, that's what rational folks do when they want to answer a question for themselves.

Davey has never demonstrated he wants answers.

he HAS demonstrated he wants to GIVE them to us though.

Davey wouldn't consider your offer a challenge, but rather a punishment.

In fact, it would be a worthwhile punishment for all the time and brain cells he has wasted to force him to do pennance in such a fashion as you suggest.

no, I doubt he would learn anything, but it sure would satisfy any rational person's sense of justice.

Date: 2006/08/18 08:46:27, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Once they get past 5 years old they are gone, all they are waiting for is Armageddon and JC or Mohamed returning on a cloud of glory, God help us if they get the bomb.


actually, they have to wait until everything else is in the correct "biblical" position as well.

The jews reside in the correct portion of their ancenstral homelands, etc.

they gotta work on all that stuff first, before they can kickstart armageddon.

then you can start worrying about them trying to create a nuclear holocaust.

That's a question for Dave though:

Dave do you -

a) believe in the Rapture, Armageddon, etc., b) believe that a war in the Middle East is a necessary precondition for biblical prophecy to be fulfilled, and c) think this is a good thing.

just curious.

Date: 2006/08/18 08:50:44, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Oh and the guy in the fire is a "heretic", not a fundamentalist (necessarily). Persecuting people who don't share their religious bullshit.....hmmmm sound familiar.


could be a witch too.

did you check to see if she has a long nose?

Date: 2006/08/18 10:58:10, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I spent time building both large and small server systems for a living.

let me know if i can be of help.

cheers.

Date: 2006/08/18 11:01:01, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I doubt he'd be interested.  Dave has been quite clear in telling us that he is here to argue, not learn.


I told you once, I'm not allowed to argue with you unless you've paid.

Date: 2006/08/18 11:25:57, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Hating people turns your heart black.


then why do you hate us so much, Davey?

all we do is try to educate you to reality, and you spit and curse at us at the top of your voice (all caps).

so why do you prefer your heart to be black, Davey?

If you had no hate for us, why did you come here?  You obviously didn't come here to learn.

you obviously did not come here expecting to teach us anything (we're hopeless, right?).

so that only leaves your inherent hatred of all things natural and rational, your hate of science in general because it utlizes pragmatism, and your hate of all those who would promulgate such a "lie" in your eyes.

there is nothing else.  Then, to cover your own hatred, you lie over and over again;  saying things like "I agree with 95% of science", when you reject the very principles on which all science operates.

YES, Dave.  Your heart is far blacker than anybody elses here.

Now, OTOH, if we started off by making drive bys at your church during sunday services, you could argue we might be doing that out of spite.

but we don't do that, do we.

so where does the black heart lie?  with the accuser, most oft.

think back to the inquisition you so merrily dismissed.

who's heart was black?  the ones who refused to listen to reason and burned "heretics" and "witches" at the stake?  Will you lie to yourself and think that the only ones persecuted were evangelical christians?  did you know that your particular brand of religion DIDN"T EVEN EXIST at the time?  did you know that the inquistion was used as a political tool?  

yup.  You should review the history, you might see some things disturbing to you.  We see the parallels, hence the post.  We see them every day.  In every clinic bombing or car bombing.  In every abortion doctor murder or murder of a woman for being "unfaithful".  We see what your brand of logic results in.

Now you refuse to listen to reason, for your own personal reasons.  Your heart is filled with hatred towards those who promulgate reason in the face of the kind of witch burnings those in your shoes have historically used as a tool in the past.

take a look inside yourself and see the black heart you have cultivated there.

to us, it's clear as a night sky.

"You are a very bad man."

will you peel the scales away from your own eyes and see?

doubtful.

Kids4truth?  apparently you wouldn't understand what truth is if it came and swallowed you whole.

all you are doing is building walls to protect that little black heart of yours... and those walls are built using the people you pretend to care about.  Just like your father did with you.

That's right.  He USED you, Dave, to build up his own walls to protect his little black heart, and now you do the same.  Abuse spreads thusly.

You're part of the problem, Dave, not the solution.

Pity you literally are unable to see that.

Date: 2006/08/18 11:35:05, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse......


in this case, WE picked the wrong room (at least to start with).

Dave was hanging about in the abuse room (heck he created it), hoping for some good old intellectual mortification (cause he's too chicken to accept the corporal kind), and we kept trying to get him into an argument.

he simply wants to be whipped ('cause he knows his little heart is black through and through), and I think eventually the folks here figured that out and began to oblige him.

I do think he should thank us more often for the service though.  It's quite distasteful for most of us to play the role of scourge.

Date: 2006/08/18 11:58:01, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I've never before seen an ID geek declare "biologists are not scientists"


isn't Davetard famous for often quoting the "stamp collectors" analogy of biologists?

correct me if I'm wrong, but it actually seems a quite common attitude.

I even ran into it, dissociated from the creobots, as a grad student at Berzerkeley.

I met chemistry and physics grad students who on occasion would sport the attitude that biology was a "soft science" (I'm sure you've heard that term before, yes?).

being in the zoology dept. (the ultimate 'stamp collectors' i guess), I often heard idiotic statements of a similar nature coming from the mouths of grad students in the molecular and cell bio. dept.

The creobots simply play on pre-existing ignorances and contrivances already present throughout the community as a whole, including some scientists themselves.

not to be outdone, some zoology grad students (and even a prof or two) would knock the paleo dept. using arguments that sounded quite similar, when you get to the grit of it.

mathematicians would knock statisticians...

etc. etc.

such is life.  I often relate these stories to folks outside of academia who have the "Ivory tower" picture in their heads, to show them it's really not that much different in academia than any other field of human endeavor.

Date: 2006/08/18 16:18:22, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Note that I am reciting this all from memory from back during the days when he used to post on PT, so exact dates and whatnot aren't fresh in my mind.

Well, I was curious, so I wrote to the University of Vermont to get a bit more background as to the when/why JAD was given emeritus status in the mid 80's.

they actually hadn't a clue who he even was any more.

However, when I told JAD around that time that I "knew all about what happened to him in the 80's because I wrote UV", he apparently found my bluff persuasive enough to spill the beans and recount how those "bastards" revoked his teaching privileges because of an apparent mental breakdown he suffered right around that time (though of course JAD described it as more of an "epiphany").  The impression i got was that he started trying to teach his PEH as mandatory course material, and during the course of "discussions" with the administration who called him to task on it, was promptly relieved of his teaching duties.

He says he has documented all of this, with his own version of the story, but in reality it is nowhere to be found on his website, at least that I was ever able to discover.

There was also something relating to a family crisis at the time, IIRC, but the details escape me now.

on the surface, you can clearly see the rapid decline in publication quality and output from the 70's to the 80's if you look at his CV, as you note.

from everything i gathered, it seemed the most likely conclusion that he had always struggled with some form of duality (read cognitive dissonance), and some specific event (he hinted at some family crisis, but never detailed it - it still is a very sensitive topic evidently) triggered the collapse of whatever balancing act he was maintaining, which then resulted in the development and attempted incorporation (evidently) of his PEH, and the eventual further decline to the sh*t-flinging monkey we all know and "love" today.

I kept trying to pry details out of him for a while after he was booted from the thumb, but I finally tired of it.

I also realized that whatever I learned from him directly could be entirely BS as well, so you have to keep that in mind too.

the only clear thing is that something triggered a massive collapse of rational thought in the man, somwhere around 1984, and this is pretty easy to document just by looking at the changes in writing style and content, and by simply asking him about it directly and noting the inevitable monkey-screaming response.

the only reason JAD interests me at all is simply because there is such a clear demarcation in his thought processes represented in his publications, and that there is clearly and element of dissonance involved in whatever happened to him.

he could be a poster boy for encouraging those with similar dissonance to seek treatment, but of course he is no longer able to rationally offer himself up as an example of:

"this is what happens when your brain tries to reconcile evangelical Xianity with science and reason"

I guess I don't blame him, really, but boy he sure has completely lost it.

AFDave should be glad, in a sense, that he never tries to actually reconcile science with his faith - he just lies about it all to make it fit.  square pegs fit much better in round holes if you carve the corners off.

Dave has done the only thing he could do to defend his worldview from collapse, essentially.

that's not saying it's healthy, but it works better than constantly trying to reconcile two competing worldviews.

the other extreme is of course entirely dropping the religious worldview part, which I thought was far more common (or at least it used to be).  It surely is more common among practicing scientists who had religious upbringing.

but, I digress.

I wish i could be more specific, but you pretty much have the gist of what I recall from my early discussions with JAD.

I have no idea whether you could provoke him to any more admissions at this point.  I simply no longer care to even try.

Date: 2006/08/18 16:32:17, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
honey...put DOWN the knife..HELP!!


oh, so THAT'S how it is between you two eh?

:p

I bet the makeup sex is great though.

Date: 2006/08/18 16:45:05, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I've also seen the "old" PT site (the text only version) pop up from time to time recently.

Date: 2006/08/18 18:10:01, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
enable Sal to do efficiently what he’s trying to do here with, as he put it, “inelegant cut and paste”).


IOW, give Sal the ability to quotemine with machine-like efficiency.

Date: 2006/08/19 11:25:05, Link
Author: Ichthyic
poor gawp's feeling left out again.

go cry in your geocentrism thread, fraud.

EM:

Quote
And still, after almost 150 pages, you have yet to present a single particle of evidence to support your own hypothesis.


please edit your post and put "hypothesis" with the appropriate quotation marks to highlight the inappropriate usage of the term, as indicated.

thanks.

or, you could substitute a far more accurate term, like:

drivel
irrational concept
ignorant idea
spew

well, you get the idea.

Dave is so far away from forming anything remotely resembling an hypothesis... i can't even think of a good analogy to describe it.

Date: 2006/08/19 11:32:50, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
whippin' youse guys in politics


yes brother! tell it on the mountain.

why do you sound more and more like AFDave every day?

by that i mean irrational claims of victory in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

You're not even funny any more.

*sigh*

Date: 2006/08/19 11:36:55, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
BTW, long post for someone who has lost interest in JAD  


nice try; I'm not biting.

Quote
Anyway, go read the whole thing. It makes the fantastically stupid argument that Darwin must not matter because Michael Shermer wrote a book about why he does.


why does this sound so similar to the "58 articles demonstrating researches on the evolution of the immune system do not matter, cause if they had anything, there would only need to be ONE article".

This mindset puzzles me to no end.

Who was the IDiot that originally came up with this line of reasoning anyway?  It's pretty obvious that all the morons over there just ape (pardon the pun) the idea.

Quote
that when you have to explain why Darwin matters, he doesn’t.


when you have to explain why Densye is irrelevant and ignorant, it no longer really matters.

Here's one for Densye:

If I have to explain why the sky is blue, it isn't.

great line of reasoning you've created for yourself there.

*snicker*

Date: 2006/08/19 12:53:03, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
that Eric is too blind to see


Eric????

Not ONE SINGLE POSTER, not even the de-lurkers, ever had anything supportive to say about any of your drivel in this thread, ever.

not one.

ever.

every individual (and there are dozens) who ever posted in this thread must be just as blind to your evidence then, Dave.

Is that a logical conclusion, you think?

If you do, please feel free to post the link to this thread on your website and on the front page of Kids4Truth, so they can clearly see just how blind every single person who reads your irrational screeds really is.

by your own logic, you would be doing the kids a big favor, yes?

Date: 2006/08/19 13:49:03, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
just assume I was being lazy and read "AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Wild-Ass Guess Based On Dave's Wacky Misreading of Scripture."


your devotion to accuracy in this matter is much appreciated.

;)

Date: 2006/08/19 13:54:37, Link
Author: Ichthyic
they never tire of this, do they?

when's the next special on SLoT coming out?

Quote
Coulter is among the experts who appear in the special


experts??

that's not even worth a chuckle.

Date: 2006/08/19 14:01:09, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I was almost concerned, until i saw it was going to air on the "coral ridge hour".

Isn't that thing already marginalized enough?

Is there a reason why any sane person should care what is aired on the coral ridge hour at this point?

I must be missing something.

Date: 2006/08/19 14:04:21, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
That's not a microscope, Dave.  It's a ViewMaster with a "Bible Stories" disc inside it.


Snaaaap.

Date: 2006/08/19 16:44:31, Link
Author: Ichthyic
ok, now I'm really confused.

A picture of Master Shake from Aquateen Hunger Force, and mention of the Venture Bros.

Is the answer Cartoon Network?

OT:  I think the Venture Bros. is the best toon CN has released in about 5 years now.

never fails to make me laugh.  All scientists should have a "Brock Sampson" working for them.

Isn't there a new episode on tonight?

god, I'm 41 and I watch cartoons....

Date: 2006/08/20 02:48:06, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Jean-

Is this the paper referenced here:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=2780

If so (and it looks like it is), I figured you would have an interest in that one.

Have you gandered at it in detail yet?

Date: 2006/08/20 02:59:17, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I've never seen the sense in deadening brain cells with alcohol.


he simply doesn't have enough to spare.

Date: 2006/08/20 11:18:35, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
They performed a likelihood ratio test (don't ask me) to check the significance of the differences.


sounds like some sort of non-paramentric chi-square test.

ahh, yes, basically that's it:

http://www.molecularevolution.org/resources/lrt.php

I'm a bit confused here though.  It seems they are focusing on genes that produce interactive RNA?  this is something new to me.  do you have any more background on these kinds of genes?

When you get around to reading it in depth, let me know if you think the specific methods warrant the conclusions in this case.

cheers

Date: 2006/08/20 13:15:44, Link
Author: Ichthyic
it doesn't matter, does it?

I can't think of anything she actually is a legitimate expert in.

everything she expounds upon is certainly not based on any expertise in any field.

I suppose you could invent a field for her, and then claim she has expertise in it.

bullshit artist comes to mind.

Date: 2006/08/20 16:55:06, Link
Author: Ichthyic
"Misery loves company"

and ignorance is bliss, right dave?

Date: 2006/08/20 17:35:42, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Oh yes, of course!



uh.  pardons, but that sailed right over my head.

Julius Streicher is?

Date: 2006/08/20 17:39:46, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
We shall take what we learn in this little exercise and apply it to rock layers ...


so you want to take bullshit and apply it to your analysis?

what else is new?

Dave, applying manure only works to grow plants, not intelligence.

Or did your daddy tell you that throwing shi*t on things is always a good idea?

Date: 2006/08/20 18:19:39, Link
Author: Ichthyic
indeed.

now only one parallel would really put the capper on it:

Quote
After the war, he was convicted of crimes against humanity and executed.


I could easily make a case that Coulter commits crimes against humanity every time she speaks.

unfortunately, the US rejected the whole idea of the World Court, so I doubt that after the culture wars end, she will be tried and executed for her role in this idiocy.

Date: 2006/08/20 19:24:29, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
ask him what would would happen to a beautiful parrotfish in salinity of, oh, say 18 ppt. (sorry,. Icthyic)


*shudder*

speaking of "Grand Canyons", I wonder if Dave thinks the "flud" made this canyon too:

Date: 2006/08/20 19:45:31, Link
Author: Ichthyic
ah, a correction to an earlier statement:

the Venture Bros. is on right now on CN (10:30 pm PST), and not yesterday as I previously mentioned.

see Dave?  we can readily admit our mistakes here.

Date: 2006/08/21 11:42:34, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Is there a book you would particularly recommend?


WRT to molecular evolution, alas, no.

my knowledge of what a likelihood ratio test is simply comes from the two years of statistics i took (biometry as an undergrad with Allen Stuart Oaten, and a year of pure probability and statistics at the grad level when I was at Berkeley).

if you ask me for a good statistics reference applicable to parametric and non-parametric analysis in genetics and biology as a whole, I'd have more to share.  for example:

Biometry by Robert R. Sokal (I've yet to see a better treatise on useable non-parametric statistics)

and

Zar, J.H., 1998. Biostatistical Analysis (It may be the case that I've refered to this text - well, an earlier version, anyway - more often than any other in publication - at least when doing my own research).


Molecular genetics was actually one of my worst subjects (grade wise), something one of my advisors constantly chided me on.  

It doesn't keep me from being interested and seeing the relative importance of it to my preferred field (behavioral ecology); but there are far better folks hanging about to ask for a reference than myself.

Most of the texts I have read in the field of molecular biology and evolutionary genetics are hopelessly out of date at this point.  

Quote
Someone of my research team works on the micro-RNAs that are supposed to interact with mRNAs of genes controlling the induction of sexual forms in aphids.


I seemed to recall you mentioning something to this effect at some point a while back; which is why I was asking you about the interactive RNA issue.

I can only guess that the prof who oversees your lab would have a great idea as to a good text to bring us both up to date on the issue.

Please post back here if you get a good suggestion.

Quote
Regarding the methods they used, I am afraid I won't have the time to dig into this paper, but I can send it to you, if you wish.


if you get a moment, please do.  I would very much enjoy reading the whole thing, I think.

cheers

Date: 2006/08/21 13:13:15, Link
Author: Ichthyic
fair warning:

Obrien is the master of the inept one-liner.

watching him argue with Davetard should be amusing if you keep that in mind.

I find neither one of them amusing myself, but that's just me.

Date: 2006/08/21 15:08:07, Link
Author: Ichthyic
spot on.

However, there is little point in trying to get skeptic to see he is wearing a particular set of glasses that distorts his viewpoint.

Even if you showed him his reflection in a mirror, those glasses he wears would shift the reflection and he simply wouldn't understand what all the fuss was about.

Very much like Dave.

Date: 2006/08/21 15:16:31, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Ichthyic has no sense of humor.  


my sense of humor is fine, i just have no sense of patience.

I get bored with lackluster blowhards like davetard and Obrien quickly.

I still have yet to see Obrien say anything interesting, either here or over on pharyngula (and I'm not the only one), and davetard's exposes got boring after the first couple of weeks, when he was still allowed to post on PT (before he violated no less than 3 posting rules, and threatened the site repeatedly).

oh yeah, these folks are assuredly amusing as trolls go, I just don't find trolls that overly amusing to begin with.

*shrug*

Now Stevestory, BWE, Louis, Arden... those guys are funny.

Date: 2006/08/21 18:21:19, Link
Author: Ichthyic
yeah, i guess you mised the part where right after i posted the first response, the second was to note that it was obviously an imposter i was posting to, as the post was almost humorous.

Yours never are witty nor informative, that's how i figured out it was a spoof.

Will you EVER commit anything intelligent to a blog, Robert?

Just asking the same question all the others that are ready to see you banned over at pharyngula are asking.

That's right, RO, you have officially been deemed a troll.

PZ Myers said:
Quote
I'm going to have to start disemvoweling the stuff from Bres Mac Elatha/Robert O'Brien and Jason


why don't you try to argue your case over there?

or are you afraid of immediate disemvowelment?

Hey, most of the trolls we have here on ATBC at least have something of substance to say once in a while.

Even Jason over at Pharyngula has more interesting things (and ridiculous) to say than you do.

here's a challenge for you:

start a thread here on ATBC about anything at all, but you actually have to present some kind of case for it.

see if your thread goes into hundreds of pages like our resident moron's does.

I simply don't think you have much to say, Robert.

Date: 2006/08/21 18:29:23, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
That's my take....do with it as you will.


ahh, good.  I just printed it out.

now I'm using it for what it's worth... hang on a sec...

nnnngggghhh.  *whew* shouldn't have eaten those burritos last night.

there, all clean.

*flush*

thanks, it reminded me i was out of toilet paper.

Your analysis never ceases to be entirely predictable, and entirely wrong, gawp.

Date: 2006/08/22 10:31:34, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
The only really remarkable fact here is that people are still taking AFDave seriously and still indulging him after all these months.


ya know, i feel the same way most times, but I find myself referring to that thread often to show folks the quintessential nature of a true YECreobot:  How rational discourse and evidentiary arguments fail to influence them at all, how they exhibit all the signs of being addicted; including rampant denial and projection, and how even observers of the thread who would normally just lurk have felt compelled to speak up about Dave's irrational and illogical posts.

All of which affects Dave not one whit.

In fact, I just used Dave as an example of why Allen MacNeill's course at Cornell had the exact impact most of us expected: none.  Allen himself posted in that thread that essentially none of the students changed their minds about ID.  the ID student leader (Hanah?), after seeing all of the evidence, still felt free to criticize Dawkins, but had no criticism for Behe or Dembski.

I really think folks like Allen and Pim should spend more time debating folks like Dave Hawkins.

You guys should check that thread out on PT if you haven't done so already.

Allen had some very troubling comments there.

like this:

Quote
It’s people like you folks (PT posters) that make me wonder if I’m really on the right side, here. When Sal Cordova treats me and my students with civility and you folks heap nothing but scorn on them, what am I (and they) supposed to conclude?



I dunno Allen, maybe that false civility shouldn't be favored over accuracy?  maybe that civility is in the eye of the beholder, as Sal is #### near always insulting as he quotemines and lies for Jeebus?  That civility is more than just the lack of using swear words?

I begin to see why many in the field of evolutionary biology are questioning aspects of evolutionary psych, if Allen represents that field accurately with what he says and the papers he cites.

Date: 2006/08/22 10:47:30, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
would you care to enlighten us as to what on earth are you trying to say?


which "us" do you mean, Dave?

on your side of the fence, there is only "you".

remember all those lurkers who de-lurked long enough to point out how ridiculous you are?

It's like the Truman show - it's just you behind the screen, Davey.

Date: 2006/08/22 10:53:49, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
like the fan clubs of two opposing teams: like the Yankees versus the Red Sox,


more like the Yankees vs. a little league team.

Date: 2006/08/22 11:24:17, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I can hardly speak for everybody else here, but thanks.

Date: 2006/08/22 12:51:57, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
there is nothing you could do or say that would make him change his mind; even if you stuck his head up the elephant's arse.


actually I think that's the problem.  Dave has his head so far up his own arse he simply can't see anything but darkness, and smells something really bad.

He MUST project onto reality, as he literally is incapable of seeing it for himself.

We keep telling him to pull his head out, but it's been in there so long i don't think he even knows how to do so any more.

Date: 2006/08/22 12:57:10, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
So, sorry to intrude. But since you're such a stickler for up-to-date research, you'll want to know that 666 is no longer operative when trying to reach the Beast.


ahh, that explains why he hasn't been returning my calls lately.

I thought maybe he thought i was some kind of stalker or something.

Date: 2006/08/22 13:24:21, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Louis said:

Quote
This you have amply demonstrated. By the way, not all "conservatives" in any sense of that word are like this,


indeed not, hence why i refer to him as "gawp" instead of GoP.

as much as i dislike the current bent of the republican party, it's an insult to them to have gawp even use their initials.

Date: 2006/08/22 14:00:55, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
many of the lurkers know you can't.


...and you base this on?

Date: 2006/08/22 16:32:41, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
That would explain why Amway is based there.


I knew I was right to say you were funny over on the UD thread.

Date: 2006/08/22 16:36:29, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Whoa!  Watch for a gang of UDers dog-piling Grumpy, mocking him for saying "Kansas" instead of "Pennsylvania" while ignoring the substance of his comment.


actually, IIRC, didn't Dembski miss out on both Dover AND the Kansas Kangaroo court?  I seem to recall some consternation from his fan club at the time of the Kansas debacle that he didn't "testify".

In fact, here is the list of participants, and I don't see WD40's name there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....cipants

oh, and the inevitable and endless excuses of Dembski as to why he never testified in either were little gems in and of themselves.

didn't the latter set of excuses end up becoming the famed "street theatre" fiasco?

Date: 2006/08/22 16:46:35, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
An assumption of literacy.


*sigh*

it's certainly not based on any evidence in fact.

shocker.

at least Dave can point to all the lurkers that agree with him in the very threads he created.

(psst: that would be NONE).

Date: 2006/08/22 18:39:12, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Egbooth, I think you might have missed an even more elementary bit of insanity from JAD in that quote:

Quote
It is based on the fallacy that effects have tangible causes.


silly us, and here we thought effects actually had causes.

Date: 2006/08/22 18:55:00, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Hey JAD why don't fish swim bacwards


careful now, lots of fish do in fact swim backwards (or at least they can just as easily as forwards).

knifefishes come readily to mind:

http://www.wetwebmedia.com/FWSubWebIndex/knifefishes.htm

another interesting thing about these guys is that most of them use electricity to both communicate and 'sense' their surroundings, much in the way dolphins use sound.

sorry, but it's my job to be pedantic when it comes to fish.

:D

Date: 2006/08/22 19:36:54, Link
Author: Ichthyic
lol.

oh, btw, not that I'm the formal welcome wagon or anything, but er, welcome.

Date: 2006/08/23 10:38:55, Link
Author: Ichthyic
not at all.  the two are unrelated.

laugh away.

er, I should add I'm no philosopher, though.

Date: 2006/08/23 10:46:17, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Thus, over on The New York Times bestseller list is The Language of God, a book by evangelical Christian and genome scientist Francis Collins. He cheers for Darwin, both in his book and in an interview with Beliefnet, while recounting sticky-sweet memories of how he accepted Jesus on a nature hike.


If Collins is now claiming in his book that his "conversion" was due to a nature hike... he is farther gone that I imagined.  He documented some time ago (and there are several sources to corroborate), that he changed his mind about his "faith" after the death of his parents; not some "nature hike".

obviously, he wants to cover up the fact that a traumatic emotional negative experience was at the root of his "faith", rather than a beethovenesque pastoral setting.

I guess he figured his book wouldn't sell as well if he spoke the actual truth about his born-again nature.

more and more troubling as this goes on.

Date: 2006/08/23 10:55:44, Link
Author: Ichthyic
in referring to Dembski, Brayton wrote:

Quote
This is either flagrant dishonesty or pure delusion. There is no other explanation.


actually, the most accurate fit is projection.

I can't figure out why this so often goes unrecognized by so many who have backgrounds in biology, and must have at least take one pysch class along the way.

Date: 2006/08/23 12:01:56, Link
Author: Ichthyic
our bad; we had a poll frenzy week before you arrived, and Wes decided enough was enough.

Date: 2006/08/23 12:05:33, Link
Author: Ichthyic
don't take a lack of response in this thread to be a lack of disagreement with gawp.

It's just that the premise of what he stated is so stupid as to be singularly unworthy of response.

to be blunt, it's simply boring in its inanity.

Date: 2006/08/23 12:10:50, Link
Author: Ichthyic
"creoWiki"??

yikes.

some assuredly strange things coming out of the creobot meme.

I wonder if Dave would consider "CreoWiki" as equivalent to the EB he is so fond of refering to?

Date: 2006/08/23 12:23:55, Link
Author: Ichthyic
well, now that actually would be an interesting question for Dave to answer.

How does our resident creobot view the RCC?

are they true Xians Dave, or have they "lost their way"?

Is your version of faith the original, that the catholics corrupted and now you want to bring back?

Or is your faith of more recent invention?

have you even considered the issues before?

do you have any Catholic acquaintances?  Have you ever been to a Catholic Mass?  Ever taken the sacrament at a Catholic Mass?

Careful with your answers.

Date: 2006/08/23 19:56:23, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
so I can't possibly challenge you on the sciency front.


oh yes you could.

my dog could challenge him on sciency stuff.

Date: 2006/08/23 22:00:19, Link
Author: Ichthyic
oh c'mon the suspense is killing me.

just do it and get it over with already.

Date: 2006/08/24 09:22:23, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
...any actually promulgated as "science", that is, come close to meeting the empirically-based cause/effect form that hypotheses generally take in biology...


well, obviously they have decided to embrace JAD's notion that there are no tangible causes to effects.

who needs emipicism when you can't objectively measure causes to begin with, eh?

did you see that little diddy, Glen?  check back in this thread a couple of pages.

embracing insanity seems to be the ID MO.

oh, but Sal, in embracing insanity, does so in an etirely "civil" manner, right Pim and Allen?

*sigh*

Date: 2006/08/24 09:38:13, Link
Author: Ichthyic
gees, I was all set to make some pithy comments about Dumbass' support of Martin Luther, especially in light of the hitler-darwin crap that Kennedy is repeatedly spewing.

but that was already over 2 pages of posts ago!

I just can't keep up with you guys any more.

Seems I'm two pints behind and continuing to fall farther behind as I write this.

I do know now that I would never challenge Deadman to a drinking contest.

I would end up wearing purple panties and dancing on the table.

....and I really don't look good in panties any more.

Quote
Once again I'll extend my challenge to you: please indicate which posters and/or lurkers you believe you have persuaded with a single argument you've ever made here. Extra points if you can them to agree with you.


you should exclude gawp from that, as every one of his entries was merely an attempt to troll.

on second thought, it's easy enough to see that Dave didn't convince gawp of anything, as nobody can do that anyway.

Date: 2006/08/24 09:52:10, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I don't understand why Dave Scott Springerbot doesn't simply buy the dam*n blog from WD40 at this point?

He says he's a multimillionare, right?

He obviously enjoys pretending to be the head frat boy there.

It's amazing to me he didn't just buy it straight out after his first month of playing der ÜberFührer.

then he could simply pull down WD40's picture and put his own up in his place, and change the byline.

don't you think everybody involved would be happier all the way round?

Dembski would get what he obviously wants, more money, Dave would get the platform he obviously wants, and we would still have all the source of humor anybody could possibly want.

so just DO IT, Dave!

buy UD and make it fully your own.  I bet WD40 would be more than happy to take a personal check.

Date: 2006/08/24 10:42:40, Link
Author: Ichthyic
(psst: Dave):

What you forgot is that you came in to this forum already wearing pink panties and dancing for us, and Deadman is just taking credit for it, since you refused to take credit yourself.

You should take credit for that yourself!  Don't let DM steal your thunder, flyboy!

let those panties fly!

haul 'em up the flagpole and salute!

oh i forgot:

Ling: "You think losing is winning."

Date: 2006/08/24 11:51:04, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
He, along with us commenters in many of our posts, needs to make objective statements without undue prejudice or emotion.


indeed.

I wondered if he was trying to make a backhanded point with the ridiculous histrionics about us "horridly uncivil" PT posters, and whether PT should be shut down.

but no, it became pretty clear it was, in fact,  just a bunch of histrionics.

pot-kettle-black and whatnot.

I do wish the many issues that were raised in that thread could have been explored in some depth, rather than buried under the trainwreck it became.

for example, I would have liked to continue a more detailed discussion about my challenge to the direction evo-psych seems to be taking on innate mechanisms. The paper Allen cited in response to my questioning the emipricism behind the usage of "purpose" (as is apparently currently being defined withing evo-psych), raised some troubling questions in my mind.

... and a completely separate thread on the evidence for heritability of the kinds of behaviors classified as those maintained by creationists (extreme religiosity as defined in a cite from last year, for example).  Let's REALLY explore what the evidence is for these having significant innate components.

...and yet another thread on the actual goals and results of Allen's little experiment.  With commentary on how the experiment could have been better constructed to obtain more objective results.

Too many details were being lost in the crossfire between the various topics being discussed in that thread. It was quite dissapointing, as there are many things worthy of further discussion.

I'm trying to find the original thread here where we first discussed Allen's plans for the course, and see if it's worth resurrecting.

maybe later today.

Date: 2006/08/24 11:55:56, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Dembski may be a crank, but ultimately DT is just someone who hangs off his coattails and worked at Dell.


well, that conflicts with DT's constant prattling about his IQ, and how he can run rings around other programmers, and how he knows more about physics than all of the posters on PT combined...

etc, etc.

perhaps there is some fear there, but it certainly isn't based on any lack of confidence in his own abilities, based on his posts.

What IS DT afraid of?

Date: 2006/08/24 11:59:22, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Is there a qualitative difference between the picture of Dave covering his ears with his hands, and the picture of Dave with his head up his ass?

just wondering.

Date: 2006/08/24 12:02:16, Link
Author: Ichthyic
yeah, it'll be a "fire sale"


:p

Date: 2006/08/24 12:23:19, Link
Author: Ichthyic
ah, thanks for clearing that up incorygible.  makes perfect sense.

Date: 2006/08/24 12:31:27, Link
Author: Ichthyic
well, that's obvious, but that fear certainly wouldn't stop him from purchasing UD, would it?

I'm asking what DT is afraid of that would prohibit him from completely taking over the blog from Dembski.

Date: 2006/08/24 12:36:29, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Ichthyic: I would never try to get you to table-dance! Well, okay, MAYBE. But I wouldn't tell you in the morning :)


yes, I always knew you were a very kind person.

;)

I do look forward to some NZ pub crawls in the relatively near future.

Date: 2006/08/24 12:44:09, Link
Author: Ichthyic
demonstrating his stock in trade, irrelevancy, gawp states:

Quote
and since then evos claim to have made substantial progress in explaining this “tiny mystery”,


one, it wasn't a mystery among the vast majority of geologists, as I'm sure you could find out if your public library has a large enough section of actual peer reviewed literature on the subject.

two, why on earth would evolutionary biologists be wasing time on investigating this?  what does it have to do with "evos"?

oh, that's right, it's that big umbrella, libera-commie-nazi-evo thing you invented.

and you wonder why i think you an idiot.

*sigh*

Date: 2006/08/24 12:59:23, Link
Author: Ichthyic
yeah, but what do they think of dancing on tables?

Date: 2006/08/24 13:11:02, Link
Author: Ichthyic
gawp:

relevancy as in

geologists not equal to "evos"

as in

court cases not equal to primary literature

as in

science not equal to your meandering thoughts

that kind of relevancy.

you forgot to put your own eyes on this morning, Mrs. Potato head.

actually, I'm very surprised given how your peurile brain "categorizes" things, that you didn't take the opportunity to take this and equate it to Behe's testimony on the stand in Kitzmiller.

well, i suppose you still can...

Date: 2006/08/24 13:26:03, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
We just can't invite Dave  


like I have a problem with that?

the lack of "Daves" is a big plus.

I personally only get so much amusement out of yapping terriers.

it wears on one's nerves quickly, as everyone's posts here clearly attest.

In fact, I have a new theory about what keeps this thread afloat.

coffee.

people addressing dave directly are using him as a cheap adrenaline rush.

the things he says are so ungodly stupid that it sparks some center of any thinking person's brain to cause a release of hormones that further causes a release of adrenaline.

kind of like jumping off a cliff with a parachute.

While we appear to be doing Dave a service by entreating his idiocy at all, he does others a service by serving as a cheap source of stimulation.

I notice the same rush of adrenaline whenever i see footage of GW speaking, about almost anything, really.

serves as a late day pick-me-up whenever i see chimpy mcgrin's face on the news these days.

so be proud dave!

you're a better stimulant than coffee for a lot of folks here, panties or not.

You should take up a profession as a motivational speaker and go on tours.

er, just be sure to put yourself in a bullet-proof glass container before you begin to speak anywhere.

Date: 2006/08/24 13:29:24, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
This possibly isnt the best place to say it,


probably not.  I'll try to resurrect that thread later today.

It's worthy of discussion, to be sure.

Date: 2006/08/24 13:46:39, Link
Author: Ichthyic
and behold, he laid his hands upon lazarus, and promptly lost his lunch, for Lazarus was decrepit, and rotting...

I hereby resurrect this thread to continue the discussion about the objectives and results of the ID/evo class experiment conducted by Allen MacNeill at Cornell University.

some extra background:

-this thread started off as an attempt at baiting some of the commenters at UD, so don't mind if the commentary seems a bit odd for most of the first page.

-if you want to get the latest, you might try picking it out of the trainwreck of a thread PvM started over here:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....omments

you do have to read a very large portion of the thread to make sense out of much of Allen's commentary on the course, as his early comments were a bit more cryptic than they should have been.

that said, I think it would be worthwhile to continue discussion on this particular topic.

and, if there's a way (Steve), could we change the topic title to something a bit more descriptive than:

AAAHHHH!!!!

I'll paraphrase much of what i said about the course in that PT thread later tonight.

cheers

edit:

thanks Steve :)

Date: 2006/08/24 13:55:53, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Opus Dei?

oooh, i do hope i will be able to pick up some extra cilices for my collection!

Date: 2006/08/24 15:05:29, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
take it up under another topic


oh, i do hope you take the time to come up with a less trollish premise for your new topic than this thread.

Really.  take the time to think through how you are going to premise your topic so you make some sense this time.

Date: 2006/08/24 17:41:40, Link
Author: Ichthyic
gees, i can just imagine poor davey pounding away on his keyboard when he typed that last loud missive.

did you break your keyboard Dave?

I guess my theory as to what keeps this thread going works for you as well, huh?

did you run out of coffee?

(psst):

Quote
However, the Creation Date of these grains has NOTHING to do with the Deposition Date of these layers.


did you stop to think for even a moment that it doesn't matter to the argument YOU were trying to make originally (Young Earth, remember), regardless as to whether you are correct (or incorrect actually), on this particular point?

of course you didn't.  glad i could point it out for you.

I bet you have to buy the keyboards with the overly large, heavy set keys, right dave?

well, if you broke your current one, here's some replacements for you:

http://www.safecomputing.com/kids_keyboards.html

Date: 2006/08/24 17:59:24, Link
Author: Ichthyic
did anybody ever answer Dave's incredibly important question as to why many of us refer to the noachian flood fairytale as "the flud" or fludde, or what have you?

or did i just essentially answer it without intending to?

Date: 2006/08/24 18:03:24, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
No, that's what the 'Rapture' will be like:

Free stuff EVERYWHERE! ! ! !


####, I must have missed it then.  AFAICT, that happened in the riots in downtown LA a few years back.

everybody got free TVs and boomboxes.

like a thief in the night... indeed.

Date: 2006/08/24 19:11:23, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
He assumes to know everything there is to know about evolution, which is not possible,


No, that's how YOU came in here:  with the assumption that you knew everything about evolution, which is not only not likely, but in your case a complete laugh riot.

Please, please pick something for your next topic you actually DO know at least something about.

you did claim you are/were(?) a biochemist... how bout something in that vein?

Date: 2006/08/24 19:19:09, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
A more confident man would have been secure enough to let Gil have his moment without demanding a share of the spotlight.


I find your analysis quite convincing...

all the more reason DT should want to buy UD from WD, though, yes?

why share the spotlight?

Quote
Anybody else have better luck on that?


?  I'm surprised you even tried.

If DT is exaggerating his claim here, I'm sure he'll let us know, honest guy that he is, or else come up with a copy for us.

right Dave?

heck, I play cribbage too.  could use a worthwhile opponent.

Date: 2006/08/24 19:50:30, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I see.

do you feel crushed?

I know I do.

;)

Date: 2006/08/24 20:51:01, Link
Author: Ichthyic
yup.

You do this thread a great service, Richard.

hat's off to ya.

Date: 2006/08/24 22:05:46, Link
Author: Ichthyic
http://www.tri-city.org/TriCity....lt.aspx

I don't see the position of taxi driver associated with this church.

does dave do this under the table?

shame on you Dave!  I bet you don't even put the income from that on your tax return.

makes me wonder what else dave does for the clergy "under the table"...

ya know since Ron White is on staff there (check the page, and you'll see his name), you'd think the first thing he would have pointed out to our little Davey is:

"You can't fix stupid"

http://www.mp3.com/albums/20086789/summary.html

Who knew Ron was so multitalented: comedian AND ultra right wing clergy.

Too bad Dave doesn't listen to his pastors and decided to test out whether he could fix his own stupidity.

*sigh*

You just have no faith at all, do ya Dave?



@Crabby:



I long suspected you were really Mel Gibson.

now, I have a few bones to pick with you mister....

Date: 2006/08/24 22:20:41, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I cannot see a person's heart.  Only God can do that.


wait....

didn't Dave just ta udder day tell us all our hearts was black as the ace o spades?

all that hatred and all.

consistency isn't one of Dave's strongpoints.

oh wait, did I need to say that?

Date: 2006/08/24 22:26:52, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Plus, UD is probably the first playground in Dembski's life where he sometimes manages to avoid being beaten up by the other kids.


still... I will place good money on the wager that WD would be happy to give the 'Tard the reigns... provided

The Price is Right.

so what about it DT?  this sounds like a golden opportunity for you to show everyone what you are made of, and put WD in his place at the same time.

My offcial recommendation (and that's should be worth something to you, as my registered IQ is higher than yours) is to BUY.

just think of the prestige! the glory!

your very own blog! and you set all the rules!

you might never lose another argument, ever!

c'mon, you know you want to...

what would you REALLY like to do to Denise, eh?

Date: 2006/08/25 09:22:31, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Is it my imagination, or is Dave exhibiting more and more disconnect from reality as we go on?

where will it end, I wonder?

Will he overdo his corporal mortifications?

Will his family finally check him into the looney bin?

any other projections?

Date: 2006/08/25 11:42:33, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Whether or not Dave understands modern science w/r/t these topics in geology, nuclear physics, biology, astrophysics, etc, doesn't affect his life one way or the other


I'm not sure I buy that argument.

Look how desperate he is that his view of these subjects is the correct one.

No, for some reason, these things DO affect his life in quite a meaningful fashion.

I can think of some reasons why, like proving to his masters that he can hold his own (oops),

or making himself look somehow more valuable to "the cause" (oops).

or maybe, just maybe, the doubts in his own mind have been troubling him for a while now, and this is his attempt to have us "scourge" those doubts from him in some "intellectual mortification" type fashion.

lots of possibilities, but the sheer amount of time and effort Dave has put into "debunking" the various aspects of science highly suggests this stuff is at least somewhat important to him.

also there is the gorilla-pounding-on-keyboard aspect to dave's posts that seems to be getting more and more common as time goes by, and he is shown to be oh so wrong over and over again.

DM:

Quote
WHY he regards them as holy warriors, I have no idea, since the scam-artists lied to him directly about the Fenton Hill zircon crap.


I'll go out on a limb and blame his father, just as his kids will blame him.

brainswashing is a terrible thing; maybe someday his kids will point out to Dave just how much like child abuse his attempts at "education", and his fathers, were.

Date: 2006/08/25 11:52:41, Link
Author: Ichthyic
it's not whining, it's pure testimonial.

always nice to hear from the few that have managed to open their eyes and see the difference between obfuscation and evidence.

You might be surprised to learn that folks like you that can clearly see how AIG misrepresents evidence, and makes up "facts" to support their viewpoint (without already knowing all the relevant background to begin with), are quite rare.  We only see maybe a handful a year round these parts.

when the only way to maintain ones ideology is by deceit and delusion, of what value is it really?

Can I ask why you originally thought that AIG et al., had authority on the issues under discussion?

I'm curious as to how folks get the idea to begin with that these guys have it right on just about anything, let alone on evolutionary theory.

coming from a background of actually having graduate degrees in the relevant fields, it was always obvious to me these guys were hucksters at best, but it sure isn't obvious to a lot of people.

Date: 2006/08/25 14:42:41, Link
Author: Ichthyic
There were at least 3 separate topics being discussed simultaneously in that thread, so it's taken me some time to pull out my commentary specific to Allen's course, but without further excuse, here 'tis.

I'm not even going to cover much of what Pim said in that thread, as he must have been on drugs or something; he was all over the board, claiming that ID is a "theoretically valid hypothesis", equating all PT posters to creationists, and wondering why we even maintain PT to begin with.  so... uh, I'm just going to strike that up to a bad day for Pim and move on, as many have seen the regular posts from him previously about the vacuity of ID in all aspects anyone can think of.

much of my responses were based on Allen's first full post discussing the issues, which can be seen here, and I would recommend for context for the rest of the discussion on this thread:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....-121417

Here are some of my comments, based on that and later comments, interspersed with comments from Allen and others.

[quote]
...indeed, while both sides apparently “learned something”, according to Allen, both sides just as equally did not change “her/his mind over the course of the summer”.

What this shows, as most here already could have guessed, is that no matter how much we attempt to “break our intellectual backs”, people given to the ID worldview (the vast majority of that differing little from an essentially creationist mindset), will not be swayed by any argument of reason or evidence.

Heck, if Allen couldn’t do it by carefully walking through all the relevant literature, step by step, I tend to think it simply can’t be done.

In the same way, I can also guess that those who think Francis collins will have better luck with his “approach” will end up being disappointed as well.

I’m tempted to say:

“Can we just get on with the inevitable game of whack-a-mole now, and put aside all attempts at reconciliation?”

but, I suppose there might yet be some way of putting this idiocy to rest that involves some sort of intellectual argument. Anything is possible.

bottom line though, the evidence to me, and others here, seems to point to a potential underlying psychological malady that creates this kind of worldview. This is also suggested by the cites posted in this thread, previous research on heritability of ultra-religious behavior that was posted here last year, and just about every long-term discussion any of us have had with those who purport to be YEC’s or IDers (the denial and projection are obvious and rampant in just about every post they make).
[/quote]

Allen later clarified by informing us that the 2 (yes only 2) ID supporters in the class were actually invited, and not Cornell students, and as to what he meant by "nobody changed their minds", he was really referring to the evolution supporters not being influenced by the ID texts covered in the course.

However, he also pointed out (when asked) that there is no public record of either of the two ID participants recognizing the vacuousness of Behe or Dembski's literature, and seemed to not only have no problems with those students knocking the Dawkin's text covered in the course, but evidently agreed with much of their criticism:

Allen:
[quote]This is why we dismissed Phillip Johnson’s book, The Wedge of Truth and why we spent relatively little time discussing Dawkins’s The Blind Watchmaker, as both were essentially “position statements,” rather than scientific analyses.
[/quote]

After a back and forth with Wheels, I clarified a bit of my thinking on whether there is value in evidentiary argument in addressing the issue of creationism, and whether that a class designed as Allen's was could possibly acheive the goal of rational debate influencing the belief structures of creationists (interspersed comments are from Wheels post):

[quote]
Wheels:
     
Quote
Creating a more informed public that can see through ID bullshit for themselves is the first and probably the most difficult step


actually, this “step” has already been tried, and apparently has failed.

regardless of whether it has to do with inadequate funding for educational institutions, or poor teachers, or poor administrations, the end result is that the proportion of those profession essentially what amounts to creationism has changed little in the last 20 years or so, according to the gallup polls.

without a SERIOUS overhaul of the entire educational system, I can’t see how this will change in the near future.

and even if the money were there to make significant changes, you simply can’t force somebody to learn something their parents don’t want them to learn - they’ll simply put their kids into a “private” school.

     
Quote
A more achievable short-term goal would probably be to defuse much of the tension between religious groups and secular science, because provocation isn’t going to make people suddenly more reasonable, rational, and agreeable.


the problem is, that regardless of what folks within the blogosphere seem to think, it’s the creationists THEMSELVES that are generating just about ALL of the tension; the scientists are simply reacting, and relatively few even are.

The right wing see the issue as a “hotbutton” issue, just like homosexuality, that can easily be exploited for political gain, and they are doing their utmost to rile up the “faithful” to create the very tension we see now.

The only way to “defuse” the situation is to get idiots like robertson, Kennedy, Dobson, and Chimpy McGrin to stop trying to play politics with their basic grassroots powerbase.

that’s like asking a junkie to stop shooting up.

not terribly realistic.

     
Quote
Dr. Pennock’s books on Creationism which don’t ever give the impression of any personal religious beliefs at all but present the cases free of bias, informatively and academically, while still revealing the anti-evolutionist movers to be clownishly inept and hopelessly thickskulled besides being factually wrong.


this is an intellectual argument that will fly over the heads, or be deliberately ignored, by the vast majority of creobots and those placating to them, like Coulter.

again, like the attempt by Allen, it simply will not fly with those “already convinced of the evils of materialism”.

and again, let me stress that the evangelical movement in america has far less to do with religion than it does with politics.

blaming religion for the idiocy these folks exhibit is a totally seperate issue from religion as a whole.

otherwise, we would see creobots more commonly in other countries, which we don’t.

     
Quote
I see it as a problem of personality and psychology rather than religion or areligious beliefs, it’s a fundamental problem with the way some people think (or don’t think) of things, especially in regards to the possibility of themselves being ignorant and wrong, rather than whether or not they choose to believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster.


yes, and this underlying pychology predisposes certain individuals to glom onto the kind of creationism we discuss here.

again, the very reason i refer to it as a “malady”; it shares little in common with much other “religion”.

Note that this is also exactly the reason why i said that Collins will have similarly dismal results in trying to reach those afflicted. We can leave the specifics of whether collins himself is suffering from some of the same issues for another day.

     
Quote
Consider the almost unfailing tendency of Creation proponents to recycle and reguritate decades-old bull despite being irrefutably and demonstrably wrong .


can be quite nicely bottled under “denial”….and the ever oft heard claims of evolutionary theory as “religion” can similarly be put under the category of “projection”.

I can point to a classic case of these very things: our own little AFDave who posts over in ATBC.

He’s just one of the hundreds of creobots that have posted here that exhibit rampant denial and projection, without even realizing it of course.

it’s like I flashback to my psych 101 classes every time i read their posts. hence the reason I prefer the term “creobot”.

     
Quote
But I always argue to the bitter end for the sake of the spectators, the fence-sitters, those who don’t know about this whole “evolution” thing but might be willing to give it a shot if only somebody would teach them about it.


more power to ya. lurkers have popped in from time to time on the thread created by AFDave to thank those refuting him over and over again, and to note how wrong Dave is.

It doesn’t change Dave’s mind though.

[/quote]

In response to Allen accusing those critical of the course of being "uncivil"...

     
Quote

Allen said:      
Quote
the majority of people on both sides of this issue are not interested in rational discussion nor logical arguments supported by evidence.


(Note: does anyone find it odd that this directly contradicts the supposed purpose of the course? - If true, why start a course whose design was supposed to bring "clarity" via rational discussion?)

Allen:

one, I did attempt to address some serious flaws i saw in the analysis used in this paper, and in the published one you cited.

two, you are completely naive to think that rational discourse will solve this issue.

You really need to take a reality check and spend some time speaking with some REAL YECers like Dave over in ATBC.

150 plus pages of attempts to rationally present biology, genetics, and geology to him and he thinks we are all just deluded. The only real value has been to some of the lurkers, all of whome de-lurked and flat out pointed out how we had it right and Dave was being irrational. Which affected Dave not in the slightest.

THAT’S the reality here. your course was a nice bit of exploration, but on the national stage, it means very little, to tell the truth.

Your analysis of the reaction here ignores the fact that many of the people commenting have been dealing directly with creationists for years, and as your own post mentioned, have seen very little in the way of evidentiary argument having any impact.

Both yourself and Pim are overestimating the value of rational debate.

As i said, ever try to rationally talk a junkie out of being a junkie?

It rarely ever works. You have to attack the psychological barriers that these people put up to maintain their delusions.

The quotes from the papers you have posted so far, along with the quotes of how you apparently “graded” mistakes like the crypsis one, suggest that you are more interested in coddling the belief structures that generated the mistakes, than breaking them down to correct it.

Moreover this:

It’s people like you folks that make me wonder if I’m really on the right side, here.

is an especially troubling thing to hear from tenure track professor from Cornell.

Perhaps you are at that.

Perhaps we can discuss the issue of search imagery vs. “innate” imagery at some other time and place more appropriate.

ITMT, i see a tremendous amount of hedging on your part, combined with a tendency to promote factual errors and a very bizarre analysis of how posters here view this whole issue.

I really think you should take a step back from this issue, take a breath, and rethink.

We aren’t the ones who set this up to be a game of “whack a mole”, but try as we would, that does seem to be where it always ends up.



which basically was the last post I made on that specific issue.

now a lot of that is out of context to some of the important posts others made in between, and the posts that Pim and Allen were making about the course and interpretations, so I will double back and simply copy the more relevant of their posts so you can see for yourselves:

Comment #121339 (Allen):

     
Quote


Actually, very early in the summer when things started heating up at the Evolution and Design website, Hannah and I stumbled upon a very equitable system of moderation. She (a self-avowed IDer) was in charge of moderating people clearly identifiable as ID supporters, whereas I (a vehement pro-evolutionist) was in charge of moderating people clearly identifiable as EB (“evolutionary biology”) supporters. After a few difficult cases, it seemed to work out pretty well. Both of us were suitably abashed by the intemperate remarks put forth by people we viewed as being on “our side,” and both of us took care to let nearly all comments through, unless they clearly (indeed, egregiously) violated the clearly stated “rules of engagement.” Within a day or two it became apparent to me that almost everyone had stopped hurling epithets and started providing reasoned support for their arguments (or not, in which case it was blindingly obvious to everyone reading the comments who was playing fast and loose with the truth).

As I pointed out in the latest post at our website, I don’t think anyone changed their mind as a result of the seminar, but I do believe that most of us came away with a much clearer and more comprehensive grasp of the issues and how each side viewed them, and what kinds of evidence each side used to defend their views (or not, as the case may be). Furthermore, there was strong concensus at the end of the course that almost all of what most people think of as evolutionary biology (and quite literally all of what Darwin presented in the Origin of Species) is virtually untouched by ID, which focusses almost exclusively on issues surrounding the origin of life and the genetic code, plus a few selected biochemical pathways (and, of course, the bacterial flagellum). We spent a week deconstructing Michael Behe and William Dembski’s arguments (and their books) and found that the much-vaunted Darwin’s Black Box says virtually nothing about nearly all of evolutionary theory (and that even Behe himself concedes that there is “strong evidence” for common descent), and that Dembski’s “explanatory filter” and “complex specified information,” while mildly interesting from the standpoint of probability theory, has almost no demonstrable application to real-world biological systems.

Therefore, far from undermining evolutionary biology, the works of these two authors (taken at face value) have almost no relevence to the great bulk of evolutionary biology. Furthermore, all of the participants (including the ID supporters) rejected Phillip Johnson’s The Wedge of Truth as pure political polemic, not worthy of our time and attention; indeed, one of the most ardent ID supporters stated “That isn’t ID.” If not, then at least for the participants on the notorious Cornell evolution and design seminar, ID is an entirely theoretical hypothesis restricted to the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, and the origin of a few selected biochemical pathways (and the bacterial flagellum), currently lacking empirical verification and without clearly defined methodologies for verification or falsification.



Comment #121417 (Allen):

     
Quote


Three questions were posed. The following are my answers to these questions, as they did not explicitly come up in this format this summer:

(1) What is the current status of ID research?

As far as I know, there is no empirical research that either validates or falsifies any of the principle claims of the primary authors of ID texts (i.e. Michael Behe and William Dembski, but also including David Berlinski, Guillermo Gonzalez, Stephen Meyer, and Jonathan Wells). Only Behe and Dembski have presented even quasi-empirical applications of ID theory. The remainder fall into the same category that Phillip Johnson did this summer - that is, they write what amount to polemics based on opinion and speculation, nearly all of it negative (that is, they do not present positive hypotheses, they merely attack various aspects of evolutionary theory). As noted earlier, Behe and Dembski’s works were the primary focus of our seminar this summer, and the conclusions most of us arrived at have already been noted.

I believe that the primary reason that there is essentially no empirical research being done to either validate or falsify ID theory is that ID theory in general does not consist of positive hypotheses that can be empirically tested. As many have pointed out, Behe’s concept of “irreducible complexity” is based almost entirely on ignorance and lack of information, rather than on “first principles” (i.e. on theoretical formulations that lead to the conclusion that the evolution of “irreducibly complex” objects or processes are impossible).

Dembski’s mathematical speculations remain precisely that: speculations without the slightest shred of empirical support. After spending many hours working through Dembski’s mathematics, we concluded that it is currently impossible to use his “explanatory filter” (as expressed in mathematical terms) to determine if a given biological entity quallifies as “complex specified information” (CSI). Although Dembski’s mathematics are mildly interesting from a purely intellectual standpoint, they do not lend themselves to making actual calculations, again because there are so many unknown variables that must be quantified before his equation(s) for CSI can acually yield confirmatory or disconfirmitory judgements.

Therefore, unless someone undertakes a program of research tha proposes a series of testable positive hypotheses based on ID theory that can be empirically validated, it appears likely that ID theory will eventually come to the same fate as Bergson and Deleuze’s concept of élan vital; a footnote to the progress of empirical science, of interest only to those interested in failed pseudoscientific “theories.”

(2) With Behe and Dembski essentially marginalized, who are the scientists working on the theory of ID?

As far as I know, there are none. With the possible exception of Guillermo Gonzalez, all of the other authors listed above do not perform empirical research. Rather, they pursue an essentially negative program of attacking evolutionary biology and proposing philosophical speculations (based almost entirely on fundamentalist Christian theology) as a substitute.

(3) What is the role of the Discovery Institute and why are they so keen on influencing Boards of Education?

The Discovery Institute is a purely political entity, not currently engaged in any form of empirical research (nor supporting such research in either monetary or other ways), whose entire function appears to be to promote a political program intended to force a basically fundamentalist Christian viewpoint into the public schools and, eventually into local, state, and national governments and laws. These goals are explicitly stated by the directors of the Discovery Institute in the “wedge document” and have been its primary raison d’etre since its inception.

We did not directly discuss the Discovery Institute, the “wedge document,” the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial and decision, nor the writings of any of the polemicists listed above. This was a deliberate decision on the part of the participants in the seminar, as we all wanted to restrict our analysis and discussion to the scientific claims of the principle ID theorists. This is why we dismissed Phillip Johnson’s book, The Wedge of Truth and why we spent relatively little time discussing Dawkins’s The Blind Watchmaker, as both were essentially “position statements,” rather than scientific analyses. I my opinion, the same can essentially be said for Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, leaving only Dembski’s The Design Inference as the only non-polemical work in all of ID “theory.” And, as noted above, we concluded that Dembski’s mathematical work only suggests a possible way of distinguishing between “natural” and “designed” objects and processes, without presenting an empirically testable way of so distinguishing.

So, was the whole exercise “worth it?” It was indeed, as it helped all of us come to clarity on many of the foregoing points. As I have stated elsewhere, I don’t think anyone changed her/his mind over the course of the summer, but I believe (based on our discussions, especially during the last class) that we did come to some clarity on the issues, on the kinds of arguments made by both sides, and the kinds of evidence that would qualify as confirmative or disconfirmative on either side of the issue. Currently, there is abundant confirmative evidence for most of evolutionary theory (with the exception of the origin of life, the genetic code, and selected biochemical pathways) and virtually no empirical confirmative evidence for ID theory. Unless ID “theorists” take steps to become ID “scientists,” this situation is unlikely to change.



Comment #121422(flint):

     
Quote


Kind of exhausing trying to wade through the meticulously careful political correctness here, which has served only to muddy the semantics almost beyond recognition.

There is no “ID theory.” There is only the irremediable religious position statement. Goddidit. With that as a given, of course nobody is going to change their mind. Blather about the “kinds of evidence” that might undermine ID is fatuous: ID is not based on any evidence, and exists in flat-out defiance of any and all relevant evidence. Furthermore, it cannot possibly be otherwise. Allow evidence’s foot in the door, and ID evaporates like it never existed. Contrast with the politically correct “virtually no emprical comfirmative evidence for ID theory.” When, as is obvious, there is no such thing as ID theory, and evidence is irrelevant to the Believers. Sheesh. Let us not break our intellectual backs bending over to give the benefit of nonexistent doubt.



Comment #121452)Registered User

(Note, RU spent quite a bit of time persuing the discussion forum set up for the class)

     
Quote
Don’t worry, Flint. Allen is extremely flexible in this regard. Civility trumps truth in the land of infinitesimally pointy heads.

Reading Allen’s description of the course “results” here, one might imagine that you could go to the Evolution and Design blog and find all sorts of statements where Allen’s ID peddlin’ buddy Hannah Maxson is criticizing the statements of Behe and Dembski and their inspirational guru, Phil Johnson.

You’ll not find that. And you’ll also discover that as the course blog goes on, you’ll find less questions answered by the “honest” and “passionate” Ms. Maxson. That is because asking certain obvious questions of Allen or Hannah violated their strange creationist-favoring “ground rules” and resulted in the banning of those who dared ask those questions.

All that is left, then, is endless blithering about where the greatest source of Salvador Cordova’s confusion lies. Been there, done that.

As for what actually happened in Allen’s class, it remains something of a mystery since almost all the reporting on the class came from Allen or Hannah, both of whom seem deeply committed to ensuring the appearance of the “success” of the class, according to their own terms. The blog was certainly a success in terms of creationist marketing as it contains commentary by both Allen and Hannah which is sharply critical of at least one prominent evolutionary biologist (Dawkins) and — as far as I can tell — precisely zero statements by Hannah criticizing the well-known lies of her ID heroes.

What’s up with that, Allen? Any thoughts? Does Hannah lack the gene for admitting baloney? Any adaptive advantages in that mutation?



Comment #121702(Allen):

     
Quote

I find it interesting that, rather than discuss the content of E. Broaddus’s paper, most of the commentators at this website feel fully justified in attacking both the motives of the students taking my seminar course and my motives in offering it, and in my enforcing some minimum standards of civility at the course website. That virtually none of the commentators has demonstrated any familiarity with the content of the students papers posted at the website (all but one of which vigorously support the “evolution side”) indicates to me that they have already made up their minds about what happened in the course and don’t want to be confused by the facts. This despite the fact that there is a detailed commentary online available to all at http://evolutionanddesign.blogsome.com/, currently comprising 24 posts (several by the students in the course) and over 1,500 comments from both sides of the issue, plus downloadable copies of most of the final research papers written by the students in the course. What can one conclude from this except:

• the commentators at Panda’s Thumb don’t give a #### about students or their ideas, regardless of whether they agree with them or not

• the commentators at Panda’s Thumb also don’t give a #### about arguments based on evidence (even when those arguments support their own position), but prefer to make definitive statements about courses in which they have not participated and research papers that they have not read

Almost anyone viewing the comments here would be justified in concluding that commentators at the Panda’s Thumb (i hesitate to refer to them as “evolutionary biologists”) are utterly uninterested in what a bright, hard-working, conscientious student is thinking vis-a-vis a topic of much discussion among evolutonary psychologists, and are instead only interested in getting back to playing “whack-a-mole.” This conclusion simply amplifies one that I came to reluctantly after a couple of weeks of moderating the Evolution and Design website: the majority of people on both sides of this issue are not interested in rational discussion nor logical arguments supported by evidence. They are only interested in polemics and character assasination for political reasons that are fundamentally unrelated to questions of scientific investigation or philosophical discussion.



Comment #121708(Allen):

     
Quote

“We’ll just have to take MacNeill’s word for it, while ignoring the censorship Maxson is quite clearly exerting on the blog itself. We must also be careful not to CONCLUDE anything from said censorship…”

Clearly, the poster who wrote this paid no attention to my own description of how the course website was moderated, nor displayed any understanding of why a COURSE website should not be conducted in the same kind of drunk mudwrestling format that goes on here.

It’s people like you folks that make me wonder if I’m really on the right side, here. When Sal Cordova treats me and my students with civility and you folks heap nothing but scorn on them, what am I (and they) supposed to conclude?



Comment #121798(Pim):

     
Quote

If I overestimate the power of scientific discourse on those studying to become a scientist then let that be so. I fully recognize that this is but one of the many prongs necessary.

Your flaw seems to be that you presume that I am considering rationale debate to be the only way to resolve the ID issue. On the contrary. But with the rise of IDEA clubs on campuses, it helps to evaluate the arguments in a rationale manner and in an environment free of detractors.

How many IDers are impressed by arguments that ID is nothing but Christianity in drags? It may make one feel good to make such statements, certainly I have been guilty of such remarks as well. But it is also very ineffective and only serves to strengthen the resolve of IDers.
If rationale arguments or debate are overrated then perhaps it’s time to close PT? Or does PT serve a purpose after all? Even if it is a relatively minor one?…



Comment #121922(Allen):

     
Quote

In Comment #121890 Popper’s ghost wrote:

“It might have been useful if MacNeill had responded to my question in my initial post..: “Since these statements are direct contradictions to fundamental ID dogma, how can it be that there was “strong consensus” and yet no one changed their mind?”

Because all but two of the registered students in the seminar came into it with pretty strong opinions already in favor of evolution and opposed to intelligent design (this is Cornell, after all). None of these students changed their minds and came to accept ID, despite spending six weeks reading Behe, Dembski, Johnson, etc. and listening to Hannah’s impassioned defenses of Dembski’s mathematical speculations. Most of them were non-scientists, however, and they did come to understand and appreciate the value of reasoned argument and support via evidence for their positions, not to mention becoming much better informed about ID (and therefore better able to argue against it).

The remaining two students came into the class as committed IDers (Hannah and Rabia were not registered students, BTW; they were “invited guests” - invited by me). These two students were considerably less convinced of the ID position at the end of the course than they were when they came in, shifting from a blanket rejection of all of evolutionary theory to accepting most of evolutionary theory while maintaining a “wait and see” attitude about the origin of life/genetic code/selected biochemical pathways. One of these two also came to accept common descent (primarily because it became clear that Behe does so as well, and therefore a “good IDer” can accept common descent without giving up ID). The other (a self-described YEC) shifted very significantly over the summer, coming to accept natural selection as the primary “engine” of microevolution, and “having an open mind” about macroevolution. Both of these two IDers came into the course pretty strongly opposed to evolution and supportive of ID, but by the end (and as a result of the process by which we analyzed the various readings assigned for the course) they came to appreciate and apply the technique of critical analysis and argumentation with supportive evidence.

To me, that makes the course very much worthwhile. So much so, in fact, that I’m repeating it as a special section in my good friend and colleague Will Provine’s evolution course this fall (Will is wildly in favor of the idea, BTW). Should make life even more interesting between now and the winter solstice.



Comment #121930(Allen):

     
Quote


“…has either of your pro-ID students made statements, equivalent to those you’ve now made on their behalves, on the blog or elsewhere, that you are in a position to share?”

Nope. The only students in the course who posted or commented on the blog were already staunch evolution supporters (i.e. members of the overwhelming majority in the seminar).



Comment #121938(Pim):

     
Quote

I think the significance of this ‘experiment’ or seminar was that IDers were exposed to viewpoints which showed how teleology in nature is expected (Ayala, Ruse etc) and how analogy is a very weak argument. In other words, how science already deals with concepts of ‘design’ and ‘teleology’ and how ID refuses to address these topics.
The discussion of Dembski’s CSI showed that Dembski’s definition of design as the set theoretic complement of chance and regularity is based on the assumption that the set is non-empty and on the assumption that we can successfully eliminate any and all chance and regularity scenarios. Furthermore, the students reached the conclusion that even if Dembski’s arguments were right, it lacks empirical relevance as any application to a non trivial problem seems impossible.
And finally, I believe that various students came to appreciate the conflations of terminology such as information, design, complexity by ID. They do not really mean what one expect them to mean.

I cannot speak for Allen or the participants of this class as I only participated in the blog discussions. I have found Allen’s approach quite effective when he shows how ID concepts are hardly new to science. Design, analogy, teleology… In other words, Allen managed to undermine much of the foundational relevance of ID by not only showing that ID is vacuous but also how science does deal with these issues all the time, without the need to let our ignorance resort to conclusion not warranted by the evidence.
Perhaps I am naive in my thinking here but I have found Allen’s approach to be quite ingenious (sp).



*whew*

Ok, i think those were the main quotes that were the basis for much of the debate.

bottom line, I was a bit concerned about the following things:

1.) There appeared to be no objective measure of either the goals, or the results, of the course, and the design of it seemed to me to be less than the "ingenious" nature that Pim ascribed to it.

Invited ID participants?  there was an IDEA club on campus - none of them wished to participate, or could suggest any other ID supporting students to participate?

More work needed to be done here to get a better sample of participants.

Moreover, an objective framework needed to presented as to what the actual goals of the course were aside from some ambiguous definition of "clarity".  As an addendum to that, the results were NOT presented with any clarity from either the instructor, or any of the witnesses or participants.  It was horribly confusing trying to piece together from what Allen was saying (see the quotes above!) what the actual results of the course were.

2.) I am concerned that accuracy in the course was given over to some vague feeling of "civility" that allowed much misinformation to not only go unchallenged, but even rewarded in the class.  my concerns are typified in my response to a comment of Pim's:

Comment #121856(Sir_Toejam)

     
Quote

Pim:      
Quote
What if Allen believes that allowing students to discover their own errors on their own terms is far more efficient than telling them that they are wrong, wrong wrong…


and when they don’t “discover their own errors”?

we simply let them slide, right?

seems an odd way to teach.



again, this leads to the question as to what the goals of this course actually were, and whether there should have been any responsibility of those acting as instructors to in the end, attempt to correct the actual factual errors, or even misinterpretations of evidence, that the students presented in the course.

If i teach an algebra course, and reward my students for any random answer to a problem, so long as they "show their work", I'm really leaving the job half done, am I not?

this must be a huge post by now, so I'll leave it here and let whoever catch up.

cheers

Date: 2006/08/25 15:38:06, Link
Author: Ichthyic
actually, Arden, I think what RO did is exactly what i warned against in the post i resurrected this thread with.

I told everybody that the first page of the thread was primarily concerned with a private effort to bait some of the commenters (mostly Sal) into making some dumbass statements over on UD about the course and our reaction to it, which was of limited success.

I warned folks not to take what was on the first page seriously, but I guess RO forgot to read that bit, and missed the sarcasm besides.

In fact, that's a good description of RO; he's always just a bit off target, no matter what he's commenting on.

but then you know this, having seen him quite frequently over on PZ's blog.

In fact, didn't PZ, of all the posters on pharyngula, only identify RO and Jason by name as being trolls?

food for thought...

Date: 2006/08/25 15:44:33, Link
Author: Ichthyic
actually, i'd say it's all the responses to your trolls that cause him any discomfort.

but of course, being proud of being a troll is certainly something to consider in your case.

keep piling up those points, baby.

Date: 2006/08/25 15:51:00, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
It’s like the matrix—do you really want to know the truth?


"Why oh Why didn't I take the blue pill."

welcome to reality, Neo.

;)

I think you'll find that the actual study of biology and evolution is far more interesting than the way the creationists portray life.

for example, here is one of the more interesting tidbits that was posted in the last year:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/the_wisdom_of_p.html


I do immensely appreciate your willingness to share your thoughts on this issue.

we do have a few more here who have also seen the lies and deceit that comprise much of the creationist argumentation.

I haven't seen him post here in a while, but Stephen Elliot would be somebody to swap war stories with.

anybody know whether Stephen is still round and about?

Quote
the vast majority of biologists who are christian accept evolution.


just ask the guy who put this board together, Wesley Elseberry.

There's no pressure to create a new topic on what your interested in.  As you come up with questions, just post them in any old thread, or just make the specific question into a thread itself.

people will either volunteer answers and info, or they won't.  There's just no telling what will spark a long debate round these parts.

Date: 2006/08/25 16:02:24, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
"We want our families to feel safe bringing their children here," Herbster said. "I want to emphasize that none of this (sexual) activity happened on church grounds or during church activities."


I knew Dave was doing something unseemly under the table with those clergy fellas.

Date: 2006/08/25 16:11:09, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Truth is a defense.


and the exact opposite is just as correct.

Ignorance is no defense.

I can't count how many times as a teenager I had some cop say that to me as he was writing me a ticket.

;)

Date: 2006/08/25 16:52:11, Link
Author: Ichthyic
or, might i make the suggestion, should you bring your offal here, either.

If you don't have something of worth and substance to contribute on topic, please leave.

I personally think discussing the possibilities and efficacy of classes like what Allen experimented with to be of far more import than a continuing discussion of your success as a troll.

continue, and I'll make sure to start making a case for your permanent removal here as well.

Date: 2006/08/25 17:08:45, Link
Author: Ichthyic
that's not been his MO on pharyngula, but we'll see.

ITMT, i wouldn't mind one bit if you shoved everything that hasn't currently been on topic since we resurrected this thread to the BW, including this post.

thanks

Date: 2006/08/26 08:25:10, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Quote (keiths @ Aug. 26 2006,10:25)
Not a peep from Denyse since August 20th.

Hmmm, very interesting.


maybe she got stuck in an endless loop when she decided to read "Why Xianity Matters".

"Well, if the book title contains the word "matters", then obviously the idea contained therein, having need to be explained, must not be all that relevant"

"...but I'm a Xian, and what am I doing here on UD is relevant to the cause"

"Well, if the book title contains the word "matters", then obviously the idea contained therein, having need to be explained, must not be all that relelevant"

"...but I'm a Xian, and what am I doing here on UD is relevant to the cause"

"Well, if the book title contains the word "matters", then obviously the idea contained therein, having need to be explained, must not be all that relelelevant"

"...but I'm a Xian, and what am I doing here on UD is relevant to the cause"

relelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelelel.....

(head explodes from endless cycle of irony)

Yeah, I really think that whole "Why Darwin Matters" little diddy she came up with may have forever doomed her, even in the eyes of the lUDittes.

Date: 2006/08/26 10:21:38, Link
Author: Ichthyic
weird, when i went to the post-darwinist site, the last link i saw from dol was dated the 6th.

ahh, maybe it was because of the link i used to get there?

*shrug*

Well, that was 10 minutes wasted. I'm already bored with the effort.  Whatever is going on with her seems not worth investment in further speculation.

on with the 'tard show.

Date: 2006/08/26 12:08:09, Link
Author: Ichthyic
well, that would mean he was a muslim once, right Arden?

It wouldn't actually surprise me to hear him say as much.

Date: 2006/08/26 16:06:55, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
only the evidence should matter


hey! they stole our line again!

bastards.

can't they come up with something original once in a while?

make that "ever"?

soo... let me get this straight.  The lying DI dogs get CSPAN... and PZ gets "infidelguy" on radio.

*sigh*

frickin' doomed.

Date: 2006/08/26 16:13:12, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I second argy's commentary.

mango flavored vodka???

yikes.

bbaaaaaarrrrffffff!

Date: 2006/08/26 16:41:03, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Dave,

Have you ever watched this religious special:

http://video.google.com/videopl....l&hl=en

I think you would find it fascinating.

...and when you do, here's part two:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2439999165547892433&hl=en

Date: 2006/08/26 17:30:16, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
all systems are go for launch


the question is, out of which orifice?

Date: 2006/08/26 17:34:21, Link
Author: Ichthyic
don't tell me you were drinking mango vodka while watching that?

you must have a cast iron stomach.

Date: 2006/08/26 18:12:15, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote

They tried, and they failed.


not exactly, they managed to put chimpy mcgrin into office.

Coulter's book is a bestseller.

We're spending dozens of posts having to tear apart Wells' latest drivel.

Ted Haggerty's megachurch in Colorodo is growing 18% per year.

It's enough to make one drink mango vodka!

thank god for term limits (pun intended).

cheers

Date: 2006/08/26 18:29:38, Link
Author: Ichthyic
*sounds foghorn*

Date: 2006/08/26 21:43:01, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I find copious amounts of alcohol give me all the precision i need.

oh wait... maybe that was bowling.

no... lawn darts?

what sport was i doing at the pub last night then?

whatever it was, I kicked ass.

on a more somber note, I'd like to ask for a moment of silence for Durty Nelly's, the one and only real Irish pub (or any kind of Irish pub, for that matter) in my neck o the woods.  Unfortunately for all fans of real Guiness in my locale, it was closed last week for good.

so long Nelly, we hardly knew ya.

Date: 2006/08/26 22:35:04, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I believe there are no birds either.


*ahem*

let me play Dave for a moment?

"Silly Jean, of course there were no bird fossils!  Birds F L Y!!!!!  duhhhhh!

they simply flew OVER the FLOOD.

gawd, you simpletons with your "science"

phht."

Date: 2006/08/27 10:20:10, Link
Author: Ichthyic
C

and of course i predict that skeptic's "discussion" of the results will ignore the years of discussion already had on this very issue.  Which of course, like every other "issue" he has raised, he probably wouldn't have if he had bothered to actually review why scientists are actually opposed to teaching religion in science class to begin with, or teaching astrology, for that matter, or why teaching comp religion in k-12 is likely to fail miserably.

Hey, maybe he'll prove me wrong, but going on the evidence presented in his first thread, I rather doubt it.

Date: 2006/08/27 19:33:40, Link
Author: Ichthyic
OT:

right now, on CN:

Brock Sampson flashes back to when he met "Sgt." Hunter S. Thompson.

Classic.

Date: 2006/08/27 20:00:03, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I also think that a rational discussion of ID is one of the best ways to combat the politics. Just look at the success of Alan McNeill's class at Cornell.


are you the one masquerading as Pim over on PT?

Date: 2006/08/27 20:04:58, Link
Author: Ichthyic
so... I guess it shouldn't surprise me nobody else has much to say on this, as the results have certainly not been presented in any objective fashion by either Allen or Pim (if that's really Pim over there).

However, I would like to hear any other thoughts on how the class could be better constructed, what people here think the stated goals of such a course should be, and how we could objectively measure the results.

so, uh, *bump*

Date: 2006/08/27 21:35:04, Link
Author: Ichthyic
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2361012

this is the same Katherine Harris that was involved in the vote controversy during the 2000 election.

I'll bet she wins, regardless of what uncle Jeb says.

*sigh*

Date: 2006/08/27 22:10:11, Link
Author: Ichthyic
"Boot to the head"

wait, you mean he wasn't unconscious when he arrived?

Date: 2006/08/28 19:08:59, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Did you not like it?


the fact that both Pim and Allen held this up as a "good" paper was absolutely ridiculous to anybody who has actually studied behavioral ecology or ethology for more than a month.

there is in fact, a great concern that Allen let quite a lot of factual and theoretical error slide by the wayside in favor of some semblance of subjective "clarity" that apparently only exists in his own mind.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, I highly suggest you provide some input in the thread we created on Allen's course in this very forum.

Date: 2006/08/28 19:15:08, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Koranic interpretation of Jihad,


shall we post the Fred "felcher" Phelps interpretation of the bible for comparison?

Date: 2006/08/28 20:09:02, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Dave, you can't "learn" things that ain't true


I'm gonna have to disagree with EM here.

it's amazing what one can be taught with a lot of brainwashing.

Dave is going to teach that very lesson to his own kids, just the way his daddy taught it to him.

It's no wonder dave is so concerned with the flud, it's the only thing that can explain the massive loss of brainmatter from his skull.

Date: 2006/08/28 20:16:45, Link
Author: Ichthyic
well, if you decide to read the whole thread on PT first (which i recommend), best you pull up a comfy chair and nice hot cup of coffee to relax with; it's up to almost 400 posts now.

I tried to sample some of the more relevant posts into the thread here on ATBC, but you still might want to bounce back to the thread on PT for context at least.

enjoy.

Date: 2006/08/29 14:18:15, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Oh yeah --- I vote C, but I think ID should be taught in a required course on threats to modern civilization.


hmm, that would qualify it for subject material in a typical high school social studies course, wouldn't it?

IIRC, that was where we explored issues of economics and extremeism on social structure and political systems.

as to MacNeil's course, I still think the issues wrt it would be better addressed on that thread than this one.

Date: 2006/08/29 14:35:42, Link
Author: Ichthyic
skeptic, since you apparently aren't interested in actually reading much of Dawkin's writings, you might enjoy watching his documentary "The Root of All Evil", to get a good idea of the experiences that have shaped his statements.

here is a link to part 1:

http://video.google.com/videopl....l&hl=en

set yourself down, grab a cup of coffee and a danish, and spend some time seeing the kind of "religion" that has influenced Dawkins thinking, and you might actually begin to see the logic involved.

perhaps you can come back after watching that, and argue that Dawkin's conclusions are overgeneralized, but you certainly can't argue they are illogical.

I do highly recommend you watch that before you continue to expound on Dawkins, as at least you might understand a bit of his prounouncements on religion, and then have something intelligent to say.  

You certainly haven't the slightest clue as to the science behind his writings, so you might as well give up on that.

Date: 2006/08/29 15:03:00, Link
Author: Ichthyic
ya know, Farfromsane is so ubiquitous in his attempts to pollute every blog known to man, it would be helpful to document and sticky the posts by Dave (his brother) and Carter that pointed out that Larry actually DID have documented mental issues.

It would just save soo much time and effort for folks who have not intereracted with "my name is legion" as of yet, and take him seriously.

does anybody have a google-archive of the post where Dave goes into it?

Date: 2006/08/29 15:09:26, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
What are we to make of your denial that he does?


the obvious one.

skeptic is simply ingnorant of the subjects on which he wishes to expound.

what else is new?

Date: 2006/08/29 16:46:27, Link
Author: Ichthyic
oh, I think that thread is just fine.

thanks for digging that up.

In fact, I believe that was actually the thread i was thinking of.

cheers

every time I see Larry post on pharyngula, I'm going to post a link to that thread.

Date: 2006/08/29 18:33:02, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I am certainly amply qualified to teach this subject at the high school level so again its hard to say I am ignorant.


no, you're not.

you made so many erroneous claims in this thread, there is ONLY one conclusion anybody can make.

you are intelligent, but entirely ignorant.

more's the pity.

You wouldn't be able to pass the bio section of the CA teaching exam.

not a chance.

Date: 2006/08/29 18:42:10, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
If Pim is right that we should include logic and reason in our arsenal, then it would be best if he remains silent and leaves it to someone who isn't so confused.


oh, I did get a chuckle out of that one.

please do try to stick to Pim's extension of his specific addressal and definitions of CSI in terms of being applicable to the subject of a course on the ToE and ID.

Is there practical application of attacking ID based on the approach he suggests (check post 124194 for the most complete example I can find)?

I find the intended audience this would impact to be vanishingly small, AFAICT.

Date: 2006/08/29 18:58:58, Link
Author: Ichthyic
If Hovind said this:
Quote
The rest of creation was mature, so starlight was probably mature at creation as well. I would ask the question, How old was Adam when God made him? Obviously he was zero years old. But how old did he look?


the obvious answer (especially to those who know Hovind's children "training camps") is:

"Gee, I don't know Mr. Hovind... WERE YOU THERRRREEEE?"

I am so glad he's behind the judicial 8-ball right now.

Date: 2006/08/29 19:21:04, Link
Author: Ichthyic
if the church is 15M in arrears, and the feds get involved at ANY point...

I give 50/50 that whoever doesn't step down will end up in jail.

Date: 2006/08/29 21:48:17, Link
Author: Ichthyic
In all fairness, if Davey did spend time growing up in those areas, there is a lot of scary shit down there, mostly in the parasitic realm (and there really are some nasty snake species round those parts too).

I'm sure his daddy used to terrorize him with his surroundings on a daily basis, in order to better brainwash him.

what a pity his daddy couldn't show him the real wonder of the place instead.

such are the little differences that end up making a scientist vs. an ideologue.

Your daddy did you a gross disservice, Dave.

How does that make you feel?  Isn't your own anger towards your father the REAL reason you're here; the REAL reason you accused us of having black hearts, when you really want to accuse your own father, and yourself?

Can we talk to your kids and show them this thread?  Show them what a disservice you are doing to them, as your daddy did to you?

show them how, very much like a person who physically abuses their kids, you have/are mentally abusing them?

show them what happens to kids that suffer abuse?  show them that they typically become abusers themselves?

what do you think, Dave?  Do you think your kids should see what happens to children of abusive parents?

Or is that too much reality for you?

Date: 2006/08/30 11:14:38, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Dense OnLine said:

Quote
it’s time the Church recovered its own history and gave them a listen.


It's almost pitiable to see a group so convinced their's was the "original" Jesus religion, when their brand of literal idiocy is an invention of the last century.

I say almost, because it's still more laughable than pitiable.

they have no concept of history, not even of their own "church", let alone the history of the religion their ideology is based on.

sitdown and shutup?

more projection on their part, as that is exactly what they should be doing themselves.

Or did Dense forget her "Shit matters" thesis?

pathetic.

I should add that I suppose it's good that DT is posting along with WD40 and the church lady, as now we can simply group them together as "the three stooges" and simplify things a bit.

Date: 2006/08/30 11:29:25, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Cal State Fullerton is offering a class this Fall, for instance, on " Evolution and Creation" as an upper-division liberal studies/phil. seminar (see: http://nsmserver2.fullerton.edu/departm....web )
I don't view ID as either science or philosophy, but I've seen odder topics in upper-level classes.


perhaps, but note the emphasis (mine).

not appropriate as secondary school material.

remember the context of the original poll question:

Quote
Within the scope of K-12 education which option would you choose:

Date: 2006/08/30 11:50:14, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Your latest "truth search" is my pastor and my church and it reveals a lot of how the human mind will go to great lengths to defend deeply held religious beliefs--in this case, the Religion of Millionsofyearsianism.


no, Dave, it reveals how many of us are dedicated to smoking rats out of holes.

We're not miserable, Dave, we're PISSED OFF.

Tired of lying sacks of shit like yourself trying to impose your delusions on your children and neighbors.

Tired of seeing the horrid level of hypocrisy we ALWAYS find within those who create churches like those you attend.

Tired of repeatedly pointing out that the "clergy" involved with these "megaunification" churches are #### near always involved in criminal activity, and are almost always just using their "flock" in order to fleece them.

Tired of pointing out how the psychology of parents of folks like yourself messed up the thinking of their kids, in many cases permanently, so that they themselves are no longer able to tell fact from fiction, like you.

Tired of seeing the "spreading of Gospel" change to "the spreading of Lies".

Tired of seeing the arguments of the separation of church and state that is at the very basis of this democracy shifted to an imposition of religion ON the state.

Somewhere in that pathetic brain of yours, you know I'm right about all of this.  You simply are too scared to admit it.

terrorized by your father, your government, and irrationality itself, you cower like little mice in your "church" and make up fairy tales to make it all go away.

So yes, Dave, "We're mad as ####, and we're not gonna take it any more."

It ain't misery, it's sheer anger at your cowardice, stupidity, and willfull ignorance.

How much longer do you think rational people will let it slide, you think?

Date: 2006/08/30 12:35:53, Link
Author: Ichthyic
you can't get access to the current one (for obvious reasons), but even if i could get a copy of an older one for you, how on earth could you satisfy the normal requirements for taking the exam without access to cheat notes and the internet, eh?

You've already been tested here on several issues, and failed miserably. You haven't given us any reason to think you could pass such an exam.

If you can figure out how you could possibly take a copy of the exam with witnesses, you might be able to show us something. You sure haven't shown us anything yet.

...or are you denying the total ignorance you showed of the fossil record, for example, in the very first page of your posts?

However, if you want to at least get an idea, you can start here:

http://www.cset.nesinc.com/CS_SMR_opener.asp

it really ISN'T "just a matter of interpretation", you exhibit clear and present ignorance, of biology, of paleontology, of genetics, of evolutionary theory...

did I leave anything out?

No doubt on your other thread, you will proceed to show us the same level of ignorance regarding why scientists reject teaching ID in science courses.

truly, if you gave ANY indication you had the slightest clue what you were talking about, I wouldn't have bothered to make the comment.

but no, you really haven't indicated the level of knowledge of the subject material necessary to even remotely make the claim you could do anything but make an ass of yourself, even at the secondary school level.

If you can think of any way to prove you know more than you have let on so far, please, feel free to share.

I've asked you over and over again to indicate that you have any real clue of what the #### you are talking about, and yet you instead come back with basic error after basic error of identification, terminology, and theory.

...and complete ignorance (willfull or otherwise) of actual evidence is the only reason anybody would say what you did about the fossil record.

so, based on what everybody else here has seen, you simply don't have the cred to claim you could teach this subject material, even at the secondary school level.

...unless you want to teach at a private 'faith' based school, and even then, most wouldn't have ya, as many of them (catholic and ELCA, for two examples), haven't the misunderstanding and gross ignorance of the ToE that you do.

I can prove that too, if you like.  I can show you how Lutheran (ELCA) schools have made public statements about teaching evolutionary theory within their schools that does not ignorantly reject the evidence like you do.

You ARE ignorant.

as i said before, ignorance is not in and of itself, a bad thing, but when you take your ignorance as meaning you are "educated", you are in fact, delusional.

I'm waiting to see just how delusional you really are.

You do remind me very much of students who would interrupt the middle of one of my lecutures in order to spout off some totally irrelevant point they think makes them look "smart", and then wonder why I rip them a new one.

OTOH, I've always welcomed students who come to me after class to actually ASK questions about the things they are confused about, rather than blurting out what they think is "correct" in the middle of a lecture.

Were you that kind of student, I wonder?  so convinced you were right you felt the need to speak up in the middle of class, and then told why you were wrong and to sit down and shut up?

really, I can't figure out why in the world you think you know so much about the subject of the ToE.

well, enough rant.  If you ever figure out a way to actually indicate you are interested in learning instead of trying to teach something you know jack shit about, do try again.

Date: 2006/08/30 12:54:38, Link
Author: Ichthyic
BWE

uh, i think you are under the misaprehension there really IS anything Dave has presented that needs evidence to the contrary.

sure, core samples, RM dating, geology, chemistry, biology, paleontology, shit... the entire history and content of science speaks against Dave without us having to say one goddamn word.

I never got the impression anybody needed to even bother, as Dave was supposed to present positive evidence to support his "hypothesis" and instead presented nothing but fantasy.

I wouldn't take it personally if nobody runs with core samples.  I'm sure as soon as Dave finds anything wrong with core sample data, the rest of the crew will pile on.

maybe you should give Dave some "ammunition" to create a false argument with?

Then watch the sparks fly.

Date: 2006/08/30 14:53:46, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
This is what you're in for: -picture of 50's "mcarthyite" family-


AHHHHHHHHHH!

put that away, you're scaring me!

Date: 2006/08/30 19:08:53, Link
Author: Ichthyic
heh, the thread actually is always appropriate when speaking of creobots like AFD.

I'm slowed by my lack of direct access to the literature, and so am trying to work with a couple of people to process specific articles whenever they have time.

it goes slow, but it goes.  I'm hoping another few weeks will see me at least get a real handle on the underlying psychology involved, and get a nice list of specific supporting articles.

thanks for the inquiry.

Date: 2006/08/30 20:59:34, Link
Author: Ichthyic
no.

what's going on is about every other month, somebody at UD wants to work some idea related to frontloading into an argument of theirs.

so, they invite JAD back "into the fold", tell him how wonderful he is, let him post his PEH drivel.  then they cherry pick what supports whatever argument they want to make from that pile of crap, and summarily dismiss him as soon as he says something belligerant or stupid, which for JAD is a daily event.

this pattern has repeated itself several times now, and likely will be repeated again in another month or so.

I just can't figure out who is more pathetic, the three stooges at UD, or the mad hatter.

Date: 2006/08/30 21:39:08, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Here's the dealio:

Arnold was originally a centrist with a pretty well-reasoned platform; a lot of which made good sense.

Many people suggested he throw his hat in the ring for the next governor's race (which at the time wasn't scheduled for another two years).

after the Enron fiasco, there was a specific rich republican who funded a drive to recall Gray Davis, blaming him for the initial failure to recognize what Enron was doing, and what PG&E was doing with power manipulation and rate manipulation.

as a side note, there is no possible way one person could be blamed for that entire fiasco; many companies and many people were to blame, the governor reacted in the only way possible given the emergent nature of the situation, only to be criticized for paying "too much" for the emergency power reserves in a post hoc fashion.

Ok, with the stage set thusly, a massive ad campaign and signature drive managed to get enough votes to succeed in getting a recall election on the ballot in CA.

Once that happened, the Orange County Republicans ™ managed to convince Arnold to throw his hat in the ring for the recall election, with their "help".

lo and behold, all of a sudden Arnold's platform started to look more and more like a conservative right wing platform, while he still spouted that he would work "with" the democratically controlled congress to "fix" things.  It's my opinion that Arnold, faced with the fact that running for gov. in CA is a very expensive prospect (FAR more than any other state), decided that the only way he could succeed is with the support of the neocons, and so threw his hat in with them.

*sigh*  

After he won the recall election, his promise of "working with" the demos in congress became a defacto neocon referendum on the democratically controlled congress, and MUCH backbiting, threats, and ridiculousness was spouted by Arnold in the press.  

for some reason (my guess is both the persuasive nature of the neocons supporting him, along with the cash), he decided the neocons must be right about everything, and so sponsored several ballot initiatives that he was SURE would show that most of california wanted things done HIS way (read: the neocon way), and would essentially bypass the democratic legislature and let him do what he wanted.

OOOPS.

every ballot initiative, and i do mean EVERY one, went down in flames.  None of them were really even close.

after that little attempt to bypass our system of government via referendum, uh, backfired... his poll numbers were lower than GW's.

I think he finally realized that maybe, just maybe, the Orange County neocons were full of shit.

so he admitted he made a mistake, dumped some folks, and did start trying to actually work with the demos rather than trying to "muscle them under" (pardon the pun).

bottom line, he has little time left to actually accomplish much of anything, having wasted a good portion of his tenure believing what the right wing ideologues told him.

Personally, I have little faith in a man who would so completely abandon the platform that made him think to run to begin with in favor of somebody else's, who then proceeded to make him yet another actor/puppet like Reagan was.

Don't doubt the fact that if Arnold was native, the neocons would be trying to prep him for a run on the presidency.

In fact, IIRC, the same neocon that started the Davis recall initiative spearheaded an attempt to write an ammendment to make it legal for foreign born nationals to run for the presidency.

so here's the summary:

another actor-as-neocon-puppet finally gets shot down in the public eye, as the neocons overreach with an attempt to bypass the very way the state is governed.

this is not to say there aren't some real sticky issues involved with union influence on the democratic congress, but trying to solve them by bypassing the congress via ballot initiative is certainly NOT the way to go.

will arnold get re-elected?

can't say yet, but unless the dems come up with a strong candidate, this state has a phenomenally short memory, and the coup Arnold and co. tried to pull will likely be forgotten come the next vote.

I give it 50/50, even though his current poll numbers are under 30, IIRC.

go figure.

I think most people in this country decide their leaders based on who looks the best in TV campaign ads, which is really the reason Arnold won in the first place.

If your pop knows the current state treasurer, then he knows the man the dems will likely run against Arnold in the next election.

so, i guess to more succinctly answer your questions:

1) is it a case of "once was blind but now I'm starting to see"? That might provide hope in this fundy-infested swamp we call life.

Yes, and no.  It's true he seemed to learn from the utter failure of his ballot initiatives.  However, I suspect at this point he is just trying to salvage what he can of what is left of his current term, in order to say he at least accomplished something while he was gov.

2) What do you think of the guy now that he's done some stuff?

*sigh*

the way he ran in the recall election, and that ballot initiative stunt made me lose just about all respect I ever held for the man.  he was a GOD in the sport of body building, and his views on family and education were actually interesting at one time.  None of that balances against him allowing himself to become a complete puppet of the neocons however.  His public apologies, and admissions of "bad policy decisions" in the media after the ballot initiative fiasco were welcome (and something the Bush administration should consider from time to time), but no apology could really cover his ass on this mess.

I'll regain a modicum of respect for him if he chooses NOT to run in the next election.

...and this is all aside from the allegations of sexual harrasment and abuse that have been filed against him over the years, which don't really impact on whether he makes a good gov. or not, imo.

Date: 2006/08/30 22:06:22, Link
Author: Ichthyic
if he had started out with those things, I would be more impressed.

of course it's still reality, and "better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick" as me pop is fond of saying.

Hard to say just how much Arnie has to do with these things himself, as i haven't examined those specific issues wrt to who influenced who to finally get passage.
However, I do know these things had been bandied about for a while, even during the Davis adminstration.  It's likely the pressure from the power issue so overhwelmed most of Davis' adminstration that there simply wasn't time to deal with these specific issues (no, don't point out the irony to me), and the first half of Arnie's tenure was filled with him trying to muscle under the legislature, so again, hard to say what might have happened otherwise.  I suppose I can credit Arnie with finally being the one who managed to sign them into law, for whatever it's worth.

everything is timing around these parts.

Date: 2006/08/30 22:45:19, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."


uh, is that from a certain special droid we all know and love from KOTOR?

ahh, yes, now that i take a closer look at your avatar, I see it is.

I suspect I saw you on one of the Kotor forums at one point or another?

Date: 2006/08/31 09:53:03, Link
Author: Ichthyic
wow, I had no idea so many of us regulars here were actually from CA.

Ok, so raising my hand...

Palm Springs.

(no fish out of water jokes, please)

Quote
Now if we could only shut down the military-industrial complex's control over both.


funny thing, that.  In the 70's and 80's the defense industry in CA was second only to agriculture in revenue generation for the state.  With the end of the cold war, a lot of that money went away, and CA never has really recovered a replacement consistent revenue source.

technology (think Silicon Valley), worked as a suitable replacement for a good portion of the 90's, and we saw a rapid surplus start to build, which was then quickly wiped out with a combination of natural disasters, the power crisis, and the internet investment implosion.

CA is in very dire straights.  the most populous state in the US, and still has a consistently large growth rate.  Poor public transportation for most of the state, poor growth plans, horrible problems with water resources (this is becoming the largest issue of all), a critical shortage of power resources, and no consistent source of income aside from agriculture and tourism.  Even the agriculture is threatened in many areas because of the lack of water resources, and we are seeing salt intrusion in many areas because of overusage of groundwater.  The massive fires in So. Cal. are mostly due to a combination of drought and a massive invasion of a species of bark beetle that has been literally wiping out entire forests up and down the state.

The issues mentioned that arnold signed are really merely "hotbutton" issues.  The real issues for this state are far to onerous to deal with in a single bill.  Arnold, being an actor, got a quick education in the fact that he was grossly ignorant of the real problems, both political and resourcewise, that exist in this state.  Truly, it WILL have to be a massive team effort to even begin to tackle the problems this state faces, and Arnold wasted two years listening to the neocons that he really didn't have to waste.  

I wonder if he still drives his favorite Hummer everywhere?

the job of gov. in this state has always been a critical one, both from a political standpoint (as a launching platform for the presidency, for example), and as being the leader for the 13th largest GNP in the world (last i checked, if you made CA an "independent" country- might even be in the top ten now).  It was a daunting position BEFORE the recall.  Now... who in their right mind is going to WANT to be governor of a state with so many huge issues facing it?

You may think me a pessimist, but I truly see a dismal future for CA, with the water issue being the the biggest problem of all.  Remember what I said about CA's biggest source of income being agriculture?  So. Cal. used to get a large portion of water for agricultural, industrial and residental use from the Colorado River.

Not anymore; for a while now, the amount of water allocated to CA from the Colorado river has steadily declined (drought, rising pops in other states, etc.).  about 2 years ago, the issue came to a head, and many places (where i live being one) are no longer allocated a tenth of the river water they used to be.  er, except this place, for example, has grown 180% since the first time I lived here in 1991.  Which means, of course, ever heavier draws on the underground aquifers (which are rapidly being used beyond replacement).  If anybody recalls what happened when Vegas overrused their own underground aquifer... you might get some idea of what is happening here too.  Of course, this isn't unique; it's happening all over the state.

for years now (decades, even), many agricultural areas in CA have had problems with salt invasion as they overuse their underground aquifers.

I do wonder what will happen as:

-less and less new water resources become available
-more and more salt intrusion ruins agricultural land
-more and more good ag land is rezoned for commercial and residential use
-the population of the state keeps growing at a phenomenal pace

If someone sees the silver lining in all this, do let me know.

I'd end with "cheers", but after a rant like that, I guess it would be hypocritical.

;)

Date: 2006/08/31 10:24:43, Link
Author: Ichthyic
lol.  ever met Dave's bro?

I spent 4 years living in the East Bay, and 9 years living in Santa Cruz (Monterey Bay area).  I loved SC.  I'd still be living there now, but it's gotten far too expensive.

too many dotcommers from SJ moved there and basically ruined it, from an economic standpoint.  Real estate values jumped about 200% over a 6 year span, with corresponding increases in rents, but no corresponding increase in local wages.

ahh, such a familiar pattern for anybody who has spent much time moving about this glorious state.

Date: 2006/08/31 10:29:57, Link
Author: Ichthyic
[creation science] -  [illegal bits] * (irrational CSI) / (subjective irreducibility) + redefine science= ID

...

Date: 2006/08/31 10:33:16, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
deadman, that picture brings up a question that has been bugging me.  Aren't the devils in he11 to be punished?  It looks like they are having a grand time torturing the humans!


maybe they were hippies in their former lives?

Quote
Well, I guess we'll know when we get there!


well, looking at the picture, I'm gonna get in the line to be the devil instead of the whipped.  I'm closer to being a hippie anyway.

What about you, target drone Dave (yeah, I miss Rilke too)?  I'm pretty sure you would pick the scourged, since that's what seems to turn you on from what we can see here.

Date: 2006/08/31 10:42:40, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
2) Do you really have to do the whole accepting christ thing or can you just put one of those little fish thingies on your car?


from the sequel:

"The Hitchhikers Guide to God"

Date: 2006/08/31 10:50:55, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
And so ends another edition of Diogenes' Bible Stories for Atheists.


exapted from the book:

The Idiots Guide to Creationism

thanks uncle Diogenes, for such a rambling and misinformed missive on what all of us here think of all of creationism.

do feel free to come back next week and tell us the story of how people like Dave get their heads wedged up their asses so often.

that one always manages to put me to sleep better than a cup of hot cocoa.

 
Quote
I also just watched Dawkins' "The root of all evil" and I'm a little jaded at the moment. It'll fade I suppopse.


I sure hope not, actually.

I personally think Dawkins conflates the religion and the psychology, but different terminology doesn't mean the problem isn't just as real, as our very own Davey aptly demonstrates.

I would highly suggest that the moment you think the images in that documentary are fading, you watch the sequence with Ted Haggerty again.

Date: 2006/08/31 11:03:45, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he's made a substantive post in two days.


no corrections that I can see.

but then, I could just be going on the fact that AFAICT, he has never made a substantive post to begin with.

Date: 2006/08/31 11:10:51, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
One upside to the dotcom boom crashing is that traffic actually dropped a lot on several freeways. And rents in a lot of places cooled WAY off...


rents have cooled off you say?

hmm.

tempting, but I think I'm gonna stick with my plan to bail on the whole thing and go back about 20 years to NZ.

I'm hoping in another 20 years, I'll be able to say things like your aquaintances in the Bay area.

"Yeah, I moved here in '06, and now I only have to pay 200/yr in taxes".

In fact, I've heard several folks who have migrated there say how similar it looks economically to Orange County about 30 years ago.

Date: 2006/08/31 11:18:53, Link
Author: Ichthyic
ah yes, poor you ;)

what's the world coming to?

that sounds like a good subject for another story, uncle Diogenes.

please do feel free to educate us poor, ignorant atheists in what the world is coming to.

I'm all ears.

doubtless it will at the very least be more entertaining than Dave's story.

Date: 2006/08/31 11:33:51, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Tardfight!


i tried to read that thread, and was quickly beginning to feel stupider by the second.

Is there some pill you guys take to keep you from losing brain cells when you read such tripe?

I simply get physically ill and have to look away; like trying to read in a moving car.

Date: 2006/08/31 11:39:52, Link
Author: Ichthyic
you're right.

I apologize.

my reaction was a combination of too much coffee, thinking about what's happening in CA, and a knee-jerk hatred of condescension.

you offered info, in your first paragraph, but gross assumption in your second as to how we view creationists, and a poor suggestion that it be limited to YEC's only, followed by a nice little bit of condescension implying that we are just ignorant atheists.

get it now?

Date: 2006/08/31 12:34:22, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
when a friend of mine got $700 a month shaved off her SF apartment rent merely by threatening to move.


yikes.

In 2001, my rent in SC (Capitola, to be more precise)jumped from 1250 to 1650 for a two bedroom in a worn out duplex infested with termites (and I had a deal, as the landlord was a friend of mine), AFAIK, it's even higher now, the guy who moved there after me was paying 1750 IIRC, and that was in 2002.

buying a home there?  I just shake my head and laugh.

The year before i left I was making short of 80K (before taxes and student loans), and couldn't even afford the downpayment on a small two bedroom house.

Date: 2006/08/31 12:41:16, Link
Author: Ichthyic
that was YOUR job, hence the:

...

so get to it!

;)

I'm kinda curious to see just how overblown we can make this equation.

Date: 2006/08/31 12:46:35, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Does the shoe fit, Ichthy?


which of your shoes are you offering me, dumbass?

your false condescension one?

your blatant ignorance one?

your false analogy one?

You have more shoes than Emelda Marcos did.

I'm sure they all fit you perfectly, but your feet are obviously far larger than mine.

Date: 2006/08/31 13:02:07, Link
Author: Ichthyic
any vodka, or is mango vodka especially useful in this endeavor?

;)

I think I'll try gin and tonics, a few of those always make me feel more civilized.

Date: 2006/08/31 13:11:48, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Stevestory is just demonstrating the principle of Naskh for the lurker's benefit.


huh?

do you mean that in the technical sense of "abrogation", or the more philosophical/historical sense.

if the latter, how do you figure it applies here?

or would the answer be better placed within your thread on muslim integration?

Date: 2006/08/31 13:39:32, Link
Author: Ichthyic
so, it seems that the general agreement is that alcohol is required to deaden the nerves before one can successfully navigate a complete thread on UD?

would that be the consesus opinion?

Date: 2006/08/31 17:43:43, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I do believe the actor that did the voice for HK47 has in fact been in several movies, though I'd have to look up which ones.

yes, that character would be a good one for a flick.

Date: 2006/08/31 17:49:35, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Well, hello, 7P ... glad you are still here drinking from the Fount of Creationist Wisdom :-)


uh, be careful, if you drink that water, I hear you get Montezuma's revenge.

Date: 2006/08/31 17:53:12, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
"It's like staring directly at the sun, if the sun were made of stupid."


"Ahhh, the stupid!  It burns!"

Date: 2006/08/31 20:32:59, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I really can't fathom how a current student entering grad school at UCB can even survive!

the fees have tripled since i graduated there in 91 (ask me about John Wells sometime, Wes).

and so have the rents, for the most part.

with teaching half time while i was there, combined with grants for research, I still had to take out ~10k per year in student loans just to get by for the whole year.

my god, it must be at somewhere near double that amount for most grad students now.

economics are going to radically alter the face of science even more than the current wave of xian fundie nutbars.

*sigh*

Date: 2006/09/03 19:43:44, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Steve Irwin was killed by a stingray barb that actually pierced his heart today.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/04/australia.irwin/

Whatever you might think of the guy, ya gotta admit he went out with style.

Who else could possibly have managed to get themselves knocked off by a stingray barb to the heart?

Fond farewell to the croc hunter.  

cheers, mate.

Date: 2006/09/03 20:04:01, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Darrell Issa was the "rich republican." (Sorry to rain on your conspiracy theory parade, Lenny.)


other than the name, Lenny is right about the conspiracy.

thanks for the name though, i do notice that i tend to block Issa's name from my mind most days.

did you see him on Bill Maher the other night?

*shudder*

Date: 2006/09/03 20:22:07, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I can not imagine the level of insecurity you must feel that you are in competition with your students.  Your job is to educate not to demonstrate your superiority.  It should be assumed that you know more than they when they walk in the door so why do you feel the need to "show off".  I'm not sure you display the temperment to be an effective educator, but I mean that in the nicest way.



boy you sure turned what i said on it's head, didn't ya?

still haven't taken off those dark glasses of yours yet?

note, it's the STUDENT who made the assumption of arrogance and attempted to show their "superiority" in class, just like you tried to do here, and with similar faulty premises and inferences.  I ripped him a new one, and the rest of the students thanked me.  It's not a matter of arrogance on my part, but inappropriate behavior on the part of the student to do this during the middle of a lecture.  If a student challenges me after class, and I find I am incorrect on a matter of information, I always make sure to credit the student the next day in class, and make sure the correction is recorded.  If a student challenges me after class and is incorrect, nothing more need be said.  However, if a student chooses to challenge information during my own lecture, and is grossly misinformed on the substance of the issue to boot, #### straight they're going to get an object lesson.

Uh, that's why I was reminded of the student incidents when I see you post here, cause that's exactly what you do here.  espouse your ignorance as if you could teach us anything, and when folks attempt to correct you on basic issues of theory and fact you seem to have "missed", you say it's just difference of interpretation.  

ridiculous.

In your case, I could easily imagine a secondary level student raising his hand in your class to correct something you said, and actually being right, and that happening quite often.

no wonder you no longer teach.

It's simply a matter of your pervasive ignorance, as has been demonstrated time and time again, in this very thread.  You simply refuse to abandon your low level ignorance of the subject material, and think you can still synthesize higher level information.

It's like somebody who never studied algebra and geometry thinking they can espouse on theoretical calculus.

Am i getting through yet?

You seem to be missing some basic elements that contribute to an understanding of evolutionary biology and genetics, and it shows up readily in the comments you make and the mis-hit inferences.

If you don't want to go back and fill in the holes, you will find yourself being roundly ripped upon wherever you espouse your nonsense.

Not saying you couldn't be a productive teacher, but you might want to stick to teaching elementary school courses, if you are still interested.

Date: 2006/09/03 20:39:10, Link
Author: Ichthyic
yes, something strikes me that when the news article said "they say", they really meant:

"we paraphrased for dramatic interest".

Date: 2006/09/04 09:54:47, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Lenny, Issa is the one that pushed the recall of Schwarzenegger.  I was there.

He used it as a platform to help launch his own political career.

I'm sure some of Howard's money found its way into the mix, and doubtless he acted with the backing of the OC neocons, but it was still his baby.

Date: 2006/09/04 10:11:10, Link
Author: Ichthyic
well, since you brought it up, and you think it worthy of analysis, please do!

I'm sure it will be just as wrong and amusing as your attempts at evolutionary theory.

or maybe it's just based on a "hunch", eh?

You just don't get it do ya?  

you are attacking theory based on "hunches and intuitions" rather than evidence and knowledge.

If science ever worked like that, we'd still be stuck with a flat, geocentric earth.  maybe you should check out AFDave's ramblings; they are entirely suited to the way you analyze things, especially his elucidation of the formation of the grand canyon.

again, good thing you don't teach any more.

Date: 2006/09/04 10:35:43, Link
Author: Ichthyic
N.Wells:

wrt "altruism", you have to be carefull how one defines the term.

even as you define it, there are some examples that fit the definition.

Have you ever examined reciprocal blood sharing in vampire bats? It's not kin selection, and not mutualism (like the cleaner wrasse example).

It's an interesting case, but of course the issue goes beyond the simplistic (what else?) way in which the 'tard and Densye try to portray altruism and the ToE.

If the 'tard wanted to have more fun with words, he would be better suited to examine the phrase "The exception proves the rule", rather than "A theory that explains everything, explains nothing".

but I'm sure such subtleties are far beyond him or any UD forumite.

Date: 2006/09/04 12:56:12, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
At first glance it certainly looks like altruism, but I think the key is in the oxymoronic name "reciprocal altruism".  If  reciprocity is enforced and stands a good chance of being crucial to the survival of the original donor, then it's not really altruism.  
 


exactly my point, it really depends on the exact defiinition of "altruism" one uses to measure the behavior.  

When extended to UD forumites, it often becomes the case that they do not argue evidence against a hypothesis, but rather definitions.

kind of like how they want to remake the very definition of what constitutes science itself, like they managed to do in Kansas.

back to the example of the vampire bats (it's become a classic case to discuss the very issues you mention at the graduate level in behavioral ecology - it's included in most BE graduate level text these days).

You mentioned the crux of the interesting parts of this system:

" However, it also isn't true altruism, because each bat has every expectation of being repaid in a time of need. "

but:

" Bats apparently recognize and avoid non-sharers "

thus avoiding the obvious destabilizing effect cheaters would have on this system.

so the interesting question becomes, how did this system evolve to avoid cheating becoming a destabilizing influence on the behavior to begin with?

and of course, the next question becomes:

if a system like this can evolve in one species, why isn't it more common?

real science is WAY more fun than anything the IDiots could ever grasp, eh?

This being a thread about UD, I'd love to play a bit more in looking at the current field studies (and past) examing the evolution of apparent altruism in various species, but would rather continue the discussion in a different thread.

If you would like to continue, feel free to make a new thread where we could enjoy examining some of this stuff in a bit more detail.

I haven't examined any new studies on the Vamps for some time now, and expect there might be some new stuff out there.

Date: 2006/09/04 13:19:53, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I recall seeing an interview with an ichthyologist who specializes in rays saying that there was only one other case on record where someone had been stung directly in the heart by a stingray, and that person survived.

all other deaths I can recall were related to severe allergic reactions to the venom, or from complications resulting from infections of the wound site.

so that makes Irwin the only person in recorded history to have been killed in such fashion, AFAICT.

Moreover, stingrays are not usually aggressive in any way.  Even the person who was working with Irwin on this project, and had spent a lot of time diving with this particular species mentioned he had only once seen an aggresive response from this species.

as to how one could even get a sting to the heart to begin with, the stingers on some rays are quite large (up to 10 inches), and the rays are able to flex their tails a fair bit, so I can imagine a stike upwards of the tail hitting the chest and driving the stinger in quite a ways.  Steve was snorkeling at the time, so it probably was pretty shallow water, and if Steve was directly over the ray and it felt threatened...

still, it truly is the definition of "freak accident".

I think there is legitimate debate about the interest generated by his "hands on" cowboy-style stage personality he exhibited in his many TV shows (a bit too much "Marlin Perkins", at the expense of talking about the actual science involved), but nobody I can find anywhere ever challenged his dedication to increasing awareness of the conservation needs of many "uncuddly" critters.

Date: 2006/09/04 15:21:33, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Gray Davis's problem wasn't that somebody paid for a recall petition, his problem was that he was a horrible governor and nobody liked him.


put simply, prove it.

Pick a specific issue you think was a critical one that you also think Davis performed poorly on, and provide the evidence to actually support that Davis was primarily responsible for the perceived failure.

I'm not saying Davis was mana from heaven, but he is also not the horrid slacktard the reps made him out to be in their gigantic ad campaign (and you might want to examine just how much money was spent on that ad campaign).

after you pick an issue to examine how Davis' team handled it, pick a similar issue from Schwarzenegger's term so far and compare.  Who was the worse governor, based on the circumstances?  Were Arnold's shockingly low poll numbers due to spins on his performance put on by the dems, or due to the diretions he himself was taking the governorship?  Why wasn't there a recall effort for Arnie, since his poll numbers reached a low that would suggest even more people hated him than hated Davis?

public perception of failure is often primarily based on TV ads paid for by political opponents, AFAICT, rather than on actual experience or performance.

be sure that your assesment of Davis is based on actual decisions he made, rather than the right's spin on those decisions.

Date: 2006/09/04 17:26:53, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
He lost.


not proof.

Quote
Also, if I'm not mistaken, even before the recall campaign began, his approval ratings were somewhere in the 30s and had been there since 2001.


and so were Arnie's after the 'referendum on the legislature'.  should we start a recall election for him too?  I could sure make a good case that the attempt to bypass the legislature via ballot initiative is thing worthy of a recall initiative.

Do you really think popularity dictates the quality of a candidate for office?

Then you support my earlier argument that most voters in CA apparently don't care for the issues one bit, so long as the candidate looks good on TV and has charisma.

My ears are still open though, if you would actually care to investigate the issues and see for yourself, instead of relying on poll data and attack ads to form your opinions.

I could be wrong, hey, maybe Davis screwed the pooch on the power issue.  You could spend a bit of time to find out.

just saying he lost is no evidence though.

Date: 2006/09/04 19:36:38, Link
Author: Ichthyic
...and you're still avoiding the issues I raised.

here, I'll simplify for you:

why do YOU think Davis was doing such a poor job?

so far your answer is:

his poll ratings were bad,

and

he lost the recall election.

can't you think of any other reason poll data goes up and down?

can you really tie poll data to his actual job performance, rather than his perceived job performance?

I don't have a problem if you answer that you can't, or you aren't really interested in doing so, but right now all you are doing is sidestepping.

Is the journalist commentary in the link you sent me based on more than perception, you think?

It certainly not an in depth analysis of the qualifications of both candidates for the position, is it.

you said:

Quote
In the meantime, it looks like in the actual election, Schwarzenegger is set to win rather dramatically. And it looks like it isn't based on "star power", it's based on a (possibly superficial, i have no idea) embrace of left-wing issues by Schwarzenegger at the last minute and a Democratic candidate who apparently doesn't know how to campaign


and yet if you look at the quoted commentary by someone who actually studies the politics, you read the following:

Quote
But others say it is convenient for the Democratic-dominated legislature to have a governor with Schwarzenegger’s star power. If anyone can sell something to voters, they reason, Schwarzenegger can. "The legislators understand they can get more out of Arnold than Angelides because Arnold has to bargain," said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political analyst at the University of Southern California.


so how would you interpret that?

Date: 2006/09/04 19:50:13, Link
Author: Ichthyic
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1554

the responses went like this in my mind as i read through them:

"ignorance"

"Jocularity!"

"incredulity"

"jealousy, ignorance (guess who)"

"jocularity"

"incredulity"

"ignorant speculation"

"sales pitch"

uh, did i miss anything?

Date: 2006/09/04 19:58:05, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote  
18) You have been shown that the sedimentary layers of the Grand Staircase have been dated by fossils, not radiometrically as we are led to believe


uh, didn't dunderhead at one point (several, actually), agree that 2, no 5, no 3 (yeah, that's the ticket) layers had actually been radiometrically dated, and try to claim that since only "3" layers had been dated, this somehow supported his suppostions in some illogical fashion?

so hasn't he already countered 18 all by himself?

not that he hasn't spent lots of time contradicting himself all over the place, but that was the first to jump to mind.

Date: 2006/09/04 20:11:21, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
A new cocktail should be named after El 'Tardo..

"The flaming dipshit"

Ahem...


does that come with a little burning cross and a shot of Ebola?

Date: 2006/09/04 20:37:16, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Yeah, I'm gonna have to be honest here. It just doesn't strike me as interesting enough to going to the bother of informing myself enough about the subject to have a meaningful discussion  I've forgotten pretty much all details about what was happening in politics in 2003.


fair enough.

just don't let a subjective memory color your future voting preferences; that's all I'm sayin'.

I can't figure out, personally, any reason to vote for somebody without investigating their actual positions on issues, and hopefully any plans they have to deal with said issues, or how they have actually dealt with related issues previously.  At least whether they are qualified by experience or education to be likely to be able to address the issues in a reasonable fashion.

all too rare these days, I know.


as to the second issue, the logical conclusion seems to be that there is no reason to run any candidate that doesn't already have "draw power" coming into an election in CA.

am I interpreting what you are saying correctly?

Quote
the actual political analyst offered is, where I bolded, talking about something entirely separate from celebrity (though I assume the "star power" bit is a paraphrase of something the analyst actually said).


*smile*

I'm glad you caught that.  it's not the journalist paraphrasing at all, it's actually the journalist spinning the interpretation himself, into something not supported by the very person he quotes, as you rightly noted.

so my question is:

who is correct, the journalist who interprets the issue as the dems pushing for "star power", or the analyst who sees the dems using an encumbent who is now apparently willing to work with them rather than attempt to bypass them entirely?

I think the whole thing is an issue of relative pragmatism.

devil you know...

many have forgotten the vicious battles Davis fought with the legislature himself.

angelides represents an unknown on at least 2 levels.

makes sense the legislature might actually back Arnold under the circumstances; he was so powerless after the referendum failure that I'm sure the legislature feels he will rubber stamp their agenda for at least the near future.

hows that go again...

politics makes strange bedfellows.

Date: 2006/09/04 21:31:14, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I'm not sure-- which second issue are you referring to exactly?


the Arnold issue and the article you linked.

the section of your post that begins after the claim of disinterest in the Davis issue, and starts with this:

Quote
Well, this is discussion of why the democratic legislature is pushing for Schwarzenegger, not why the voters are; that particular article brings up "star power" only in that one paragraph, and only as one of two differing interpretations analysts offer as to why state Democrats are half-endorsing Schwarzenegger.



...and you kind of answered it with this:

Quote
and yeah like you said, part of that is ensuring the candidate has "draw power".


so how does one get "draw power", in your opinion?

Date: 2006/09/05 11:08:35, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Steve-

my prediction is that When Dunderhead sees your amusing picture, he will say:

"...and a child shall lead them"

and assume the picture means he is leading us all to "truth" kicking and screaming.

watch and see.

Date: 2006/09/05 12:57:59, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I've always found the comparison between echolocation and electrolocation to be of interest, myself.

Studies with various species of knifefishes indicate a relatively complex system (for fish) of communication utilizing electrical fields, and similar ability to negotiate underwater terrain utilizing electric fields.

http://nelson.beckman.uiuc.edu/electrolocation.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A735004

rather than compare dolphin comunication to that of a terrestrial mammal, the circumstances suggest a better comparison might be with an aquatic organism that has similar environmental constraints to deal with in navigation and communication.

Walter Heiligenberg at Scripps worked on this system for years (he died back in the mid 90's, unfortunately).  I visited his lab back in the mid 80's and he showed me a great many remarkable things these fish are able to do by manipulating electrical fields.

http://www.cnl.salk.edu/~kt/Heiligenberg_Lab.html

another lab that focuses more on the communication aspects of weakly electric fishes:

http://www.utexas.edu/neurosc....ns.html

...and a general bibliography:

http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/refs/202/10/1365

meh, dolphins ain't so special.

;)

Date: 2006/09/05 14:02:45, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Rather confirms the appraisal of ID as fundamentally parasitic.


a long, long time ago on PT, I once compared creationists to Giardia.  don't know if it's still there or not, but you can do the comparison yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giardia_lamblia

ahh, nevermind, it wasn't that hard to find:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....t-28640

Quote
warning, the following should be considered extremely insensitive. Don’t continue if you have a sensitive dispostion.

I would add “intestinal” before the parasitical part, and think it a good area to select from.

How about Giardia?

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20040301/1161.html

“G. lamblia is a pear-shaped, flagellated protozoan (Figure 2) that causes a wide variety of gastrointestinal complaints. “

this fits; creationists often give me ulcers.

“Giardia is arguably the most common parasite infection of humans worldwide, and the second most common in the United States after pinworm.8,9 Between 1992 and 1997, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that more than 2.5 million cases of giardiasis occur annually.”

this fits; creationists are also arguably the most common parasite infecting rational thought worldwide.

“Because giardiasis is spread by fecal-oral contamination, the prevalence is higher in populations with poor sanitation, close contact, and oral-anal sexual practices.”

this fits; creationists usually only speak from the position of having their head up their own *ss, or someone else’s.

“The disease is commonly water-borne because Giardia is resistant to the chlorine levels in normal tap water and survives well in cold mountain streams.”

this fits; no matter how much bleach we use to try to wash the taint of their lies away, it just keeps coming back. Moreover, if we consider ignorance to be a lack of knowledge, creationism seems to survive quite well under extreme oligotrophic conditions.

so my conclusion based purely on correlation, is that the two are equivalent.

Date: 2006/09/05 15:39:38, Link
Author: Ichthyic
... I feel my very brains walkin' away...

Date: 2006/09/05 15:45:45, Link
Author: Ichthyic
seriously, it's so easy to make fun of o'l target drone dave, but... uh...

where was i going with that now?

Date: 2006/09/05 15:50:15, Link
Author: Ichthyic
oh, I dunno.  have you checked out skeptic's misunderstanding and misusage of the term "random" in his "overthrow of all things evolution" thread?

that's gotta be at least a close second.

Date: 2006/09/05 15:56:39, Link
Author: Ichthyic
pim tosses HIMSELF to the BW.

interesting.

egalitarian, i suppose.  I can't ever recall any PT contributor tossing themselves to the BW before.

Date: 2006/09/05 16:31:31, Link
Author: Ichthyic
ok, i'll bite.

can you show me a picture of what a big, flaming IDiot should look like?

I keep thinking Elton in his "pinball wizard" days.

something tells me you have an even better image in mind...

Date: 2006/09/05 17:03:37, Link
Author: Ichthyic
uh, my right or your right?

'cause that is one horrid red sweater, dahling.

Is that a picture of our very own Davey in the blue suit?

Date: 2006/09/05 17:47:23, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
The kid in the red sweater is the one that's going to walk up to AirHead in about 17-18 years and take a chunk out of his a$$ for lying to him. That's my prediction.


or at least for forcing him to wear that sweater for the picture.

Date: 2006/09/05 18:04:54, Link
Author: Ichthyic
It looks like Harris won the primary quite easily, garnering about 50% of the total vote.

it wasn't even close.

http://enight.dos.state.fl.us/

I do wonder how she will do in the general election.

could we be looking at a female version of Bill Frist?

*sigh*

Date: 2006/09/05 18:11:06, Link
Author: Ichthyic
bah!  worthless unless someone managed to figure out how to change the dewclaw into an opposable thumb.

Date: 2006/09/05 19:41:52, Link
Author: Ichthyic
should we take bets on the outcome?

I'll take Harris plus 15%.

any takers?

Date: 2006/09/05 19:44:53, Link
Author: Ichthyic
i was thinking more mundane practicality, like having the pooch grab a beer from the fridge and open it for me.

that's likely to impress the ladies too.

Date: 2006/09/05 20:45:25, Link
Author: Ichthyic
plus 15% means that to win against that bet, she would have to lose by more than 15%.

Quote
Stanger things have happeneds, but this one looks not even close.


do remember that this is Florida we're talking about here; strange things in politics have been de rigeur there for decades.

I still think this race will end up being closer than anybody would like.

I'd be happy to be wrong about that.

Quote
The state party asked her multiple times to step down for the sake of the party and she has refused.  Every time she opens her mouth she says something idiotic.  


...and yet she still won the primary handily.

scary, huh?

Date: 2006/09/05 20:48:55, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I'm surprised Lenny hasn't weighed in on the Harris fiasco yet.

Date: 2006/09/05 20:57:46, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
we have a situation in the Golden State in which a form of paganism has become the de facto official religion of the state.


"The Golden State Pagans"

great football team.

Date: 2006/09/05 21:34:32, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I thought that was the Texas Infidels?

Date: 2006/09/06 10:44:00, Link
Author: Ichthyic
sorry, but I think there has just been too much heard from the philosophers round about the science blogs recently.

there might not be much interest in pursuing something that looks quite superficial and ridiculous on the surface.

I'll offer my own opinions based on the paragraph you quoted, for what it's worth.

PZ Myers actually IS a developmental biologist, so you might want to visit Pharyngula.

The philosopher appears to assume that the reason evolutionary biologists have incorporated developmental biology is because of some ancient thesis that there is an "essential nature" to the organism, rather than what it really is, which is interaction between genes and environment.  His thesis is contrary to the simple observation of diversity we actually find out there.

 
Quote
Developmental biology shows that one must appeal to the capacities of organisms to explain what makes adaptive evolution adaptive.


This is just an appeal to teleology, AFAICT. Developmental biology simply studies the complex intereactions between gene expression and environment, to put it simplistically.  Local environments within cells, external environmental input, etc.  No "essentialism" observed or implied.  In fact, this philosopher's argument begins to resemble some things that Jonathan Wells has written is his idiotic "guide".

again, you should go check out the section on developmental biology that PZ addresses:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/the_politically_3.html

that might give you some further insight into the actual practice of developmental biology.

as a side note:

Things like what you posted here are the reason most scientists typically reject the ramblings of most philosophers, IMO.  The philosophers, while expounding interesting ideas (sometimes), are often completely disconnected from what actually is observed in science.

Rather than checking their thoughts with an actual developmental biologist, they proceed to detail an idea that has no real-world connection.

As a human being, I say that's fine and dandy, and can lead to creative insights, at times.  However, when a philosopher with the level of disconnect evidenced here attempts to expound upon the actual practice of science, as a scientist i see no more relevance than I would to a street-corner preacher doing the same.

cheers

Date: 2006/09/06 10:50:02, Link
Author: Ichthyic
makes sense, in general.

I rather wonder if about 550 of the more than 600 posts in Pim's thread should have gone here.

I still say that thread was a trainwreck.

Date: 2006/09/06 10:55:46, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
On a wishful note: If AirHead is exploring a cave...where are the Mole People when you *need* them?


signs all point to them being eaten by crab people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_races_in_South_Park

Date: 2006/09/06 11:00:27, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Should we be concerned if come this November, Harris wins with exactly 70% of the vote, including exactly 90% in several heavily Democratic/black counties?


yeah, I would find that concerning, if not entirely surprising.

Date: 2006/09/06 11:05:19, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
That is very likely the first time in history that 'Bakersfield' and 'Bodhisattva' have ever been used in the same sentence.


don't be so sure...

Wat Buddha Bakersfield
309 East Fairview Road
Bakersfield, CA 93307
Phone: 661-836-9940

Date: 2006/09/06 11:31:08, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Is it incomprehensible that the human penchant for music and the arts was programmed into us


Gil does a fantastic job of showing how his support for ID is entirely based on a personal level of incredulity.

thumbs up, Gil!

you do great work shooting your side in the foot every time you poot forth.

We should make awards for these idiots for the favors they do us in revealing their utter ignorance.

Hey Gil:

i saw the most remarkable sunset the other day; it was so magnificent it couldn't have POSSIBLY been due to interactions of light and chemistry.

...and the next day the sky was soooo blue...

Must've been intelligently designed.

*snicker*

Date: 2006/09/06 16:07:41, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Uh, maybe because Tony Snow is not a complete idiot?


nope, just ignorant and toadish. DOL is both ignorant AND a complete idiot.

anybody who starts off a poot on "the debate that doesn't exist" with:

Quote
Scientific inquiry and ID provide useful angles of approach to ultimate questions.


likes sound bites far better than accurate statements.

(that's the toady part).

and this:

Quote
Also, let students know that a sizeable number of scientists believe in a Designer, since science involves a quest to discover and decode universal design.


is the ignorance part.

did Snow say something intelligent in there?

I must have missed it.

and Densye's response:

Quote
I like Snow's approach insofar as he intuits that the controversy originated with the attempt to force Darwinism as the creation story of materialism on the school system.


is the complete idiot part.

Date: 2006/09/06 16:22:18, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
strikes me as a pretty typical way intelligent conservatives ...


if so, i weep for those that claim to be "intelligent" conservatives, though really, as I earlier contended, he reveals more of his ignorance of what science is and does, than his actual intelligence level per se.  (unlike the church lady, who makes quite clear just how much intelligence she is lacking)

I actually wish that Bush made his science advisor the press secretary.

now THAT would have been interesting.

Date: 2006/09/06 16:28:39, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
'tard says:

Better to say it is preprogrammed to learn music. We are preprogrammed to experience certain kinds of conscious modes when certain kinds of waveform relationships are heard.


word for the day, spingerbot:

predisposed.

I think you will find this far more ammenable to the argument you are so futilely trying to make.  (Hint: substitute for where you use "preprogrammed").

It's still not accurate, but at least you might get yourself a little closer to understanding what might really be going on.

Date: 2006/09/07 10:20:18, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I'm surprised nobody mentioned the recent Bush revelation that the CIA has been holding a dozen or so suspects in the 9/11 event incognito, and is just now deciding to reveal them to the public and move them to Guantanamo.

Fact is stranger than fiction.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/07/bush.europe.ap/

On a positive note, I hear Blair plans to step down.

Now if only there was some parallel event on our side...

Date: 2006/09/09 23:58:18, Link
Author: Ichthyic
"Dinosaurs, Bible meet in Pensacola"

...in what promises to be a smackdown of biblical proportions!

Will teeth render pages into confetti?  Or will the good book thump the giant lizard into yesteryear?

find out...

SUNDAY! SUNDAY! SUNDAY!

special appearance by The Rock!

tickets available through ticketmaster, or at the arena before the show.

Date: 2006/09/11 10:57:30, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I sort of agree with GoP (but not his "how ot think" part). This confusion is rather embarrassing. Our reactions should be objective.
Anyway, Jason sure looks like a news bot. Is there a real person behind the posts?


Jean, you need to read the responses more carefully.

I thought this Jason was the Jason that trolled Pharyngula, and that the series of drivebys was merely another attempt at trolling.

Arden correctly pointed out to me that he was not the same Jason.

Gawp incorrectly assumed that to be an instance "of thought policing".

Yes, Jason has actually responded to one of his later posts.  He's real, for what it's worth.

clearer now?

Date: 2006/09/11 11:05:54, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Stephen:

I'm curious as to what the general reaction has been to Blair's announcement of his stepping down?

Date: 2006/09/11 11:14:30, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I must be missing where there is something that Coulter doesn't have a profound lack of understanding of?

Oh, wait, that's right, she knows how to write ridiculous drivel and make lots of money doing it.

To be consistent, the only thing she actually should write a book about is something on the order of:

"The Idiot's Guide to Writing Books that Appeal to Idiots".

as a side note, I've certainly met a lot of "armaggedonists" (the correct term escapes me) that have clearly expressed how their views on the certain and near coming of the end times dicatates that they should have no need to care for the environment.

This is simple fact.  I'm sure they would claim that Barry is no true scottsman.

Date: 2006/09/11 11:25:45, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Wait... so this is about the effects of translocation?

Date: 2006/09/11 11:41:06, Link
Author: Ichthyic
gawp, you still don't get it, do you?

Why DO you hang around here if you think the majority around here ignore evidence in favor of pre-existing bias?

You obviously think you present "evidence" in favor of your arguments, yes?

so why do you bother if you think we are all biased?

Your logic fails you, as usual.

Date: 2006/09/11 13:09:13, Link
Author: Ichthyic
i guess the thing that irked me was the painting of translocations as potential mechanisms of speciation being "unpopular", when really, it was simply shelved until the technology caught up with theory.

I don't recall that translocation was ever singled out one way or the other when I studied molecular and population genetics.

Still, it is surprising that it took this long for somebody to document a good example.

Date: 2006/09/11 13:33:09, Link
Author: Ichthyic
ever heard the expression "House of Cards" before, Dave?

Date: 2006/09/11 13:54:47, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
And wins the debate.


..and sounds more and more like AFDumbass all the time...

Date: 2006/09/11 14:00:32, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Do you think the Tardtopians read this thread and grimace?


do you?

based on the substance of their posts, I rather think they just lump it all in some sort of... Black... Box...

Date: 2006/09/11 14:52:22, Link
Author: Ichthyic
you have a point there, but still, specific point mutations were identified as causal mechanisms before this.

I guess it's just a conflux of things that were required that finally came together.

Date: 2006/09/11 16:04:02, Link
Author: Ichthyic
On several occassions over the years (has it been that long?), various commenters have made note of Issac's alchemical leanings.  I thought this new release of some of Issac's unpublished work might be relevant to bookmark for future reference:

http://www.physorg.com/news77206619.html

Quote
“Newton’s extensive work on universal history (which presents human history as a coherent unit governed by certain immutable principles) provides an essential setting for linking his work on alchemy and his work heading England’s mint in the 1690s,”


btw, the reference to Harry Potter in the subject comes from a reply to the news article I found slightly humorous, and the vehement responses to it which i found even MORE humorous.

Date: 2006/09/11 17:27:14, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Joel, beat yourself with a stick, so that you can appreciate not being beaten with a stick later.  


two words:

corporal mortification

Date: 2006/09/11 18:13:04, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Most of the founders of modern science were Creationists and Biblical literalists


i suppose asking you to support this by providing evidence would be another in an endless series of futilities?

come to think of it, there isn't one single, accurate, statement in your entire last post.

for example, marxism not only didn't die with the soviet union, it was never "birthed" there to begin with.

the USSR was no more marxist than the US is a pure democracy.

actually even less so.

humans in general are far too greedy and lazy for a pure democracy, or pure marxism, to ever be pragmatic on a large scale.

Freudian "myth"? why doesn't it surprise me to see someone who essentially embodies half of the terminology freud used to describe cognitive dissonance speak of it as "myth"?

you should investigate the meaning of the term "projection", 'cause buddy, it's all you have workin' for ya in that last post of yours.

sorry, Davey, but you is one crazy motherfucker (doubtless Freud would even say the same thing, if he was still around).

Date: 2006/09/11 20:21:52, Link
Author: Ichthyic
maybe he meant "Kinseyan" as in "sexual revolution"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Kinsey

after all, repressed sexual desires are rampant throughout the fundie sect too.

just ask Joel.

I vote AFD is just completely dishonest, and mostly with himself.

What's more, that's how he likes it.

such is the disease he suffers from.

@BWE:

did Cheney actually say that deficits no longer matter?

I need to record the quote for my archives, if you can remember where you saw that.

it goes a long way towards explaining to old-school conservatives like my pop just how different the neocon way of thinking really is.

edit:

nvm., i found it, Cheney said it about a year ago:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=27156

Date: 2006/09/11 20:33:54, Link
Author: Ichthyic
gargling molasses is fun?

I'll have to try that sometime.

ever try molasses in coffee?

according to this site, the use of "treacle" in a negative context doesn't make a lot of sense...

http://www.sugarindia.com/treacle.htm

Date: 2006/09/11 20:43:12, Link
Author: Ichthyic
well, see, there's your problem, Crabby.

You assumed that the education Dave got had any impact on the previous amount of brainwashing he was subjected to.

Dave was washed and dried long before he attempted to get any kind of degree.

in fact, I think we had this discussion before; getting an engineering degree appears to be one of the few degrees someone with Dave's state of mind can actually obtain, which might explain why there appears to be a preponderance of engineers among the ranks of the creobots.

Date: 2006/09/11 20:54:20, Link
Author: Ichthyic
likely a lot of it already is. do a search at amazon.

a quick google turned up this:

http://libserv.aip.org:81/ipac20....l#focus

and this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/newton/resources.html

I'm sure there are lots out there.

also, the fact this article exists suggests that someone might be getting ready to include these heretofore unpublished works in a new book.

I'd say check the book lists in about 6 months or so.

Date: 2006/09/12 12:01:59, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Back "It's like staring at the sun if the sun was made of stupid".


somewhat later, another over on Pharyngula came up with a shorter version:

"The Stupid... It Burns!"

which i like even better, myself.

Date: 2006/09/12 12:05:38, Link
Author: Ichthyic
whatever, save your preaching, please.  I even apologized to the man in another of his threads.

Date: 2006/09/12 12:20:09, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
The Darwinian Myth is the most important one ... hence the enormous time I'm spending on it.


one, what myth?

two, you haven't spent ANY time addressing evolutionary theory in the last couple of months, all I've seen is your lame-ass attempts to plug your ears to geologic evidence and standard dating techniques.

or did you want to get back to your egregious errors regarding vitamin C gene relationships again?

like i said, you one crazy mofo.

every lurker who has ever spoken up in this thread agrees.

these are random folks that dropped by, saw your "arguments" and could easily see what a crazy mofo you are.

so how do you explain that?

can't be due to OUR bias, now can it.

you really are blind to the fact that your arguments consist of nothing but denials, projections, falsified data, and complete ignorance.

did you know that many of us now use you as a case example of the pinnacle of fundie dissonance?

you're famous, Dave!

Date: 2006/09/12 12:38:09, Link
Author: Ichthyic
and how would you rank McCarthy on your "evil" scale, there skeptic?

what about the people who supported his commission?

what about the people who used it to accuse people of being "communists" just in order to ruin their lives out of spite?

would you prefer we all turn a blind eye to the idiocies commited by our own government because others commit even worse ones?

rant away, but as usual, you aren't really making much sense.

Date: 2006/09/12 14:07:53, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I've gone from being incensed with his dishonesty and ignorance, to angry that he intends to brainwash children into his cult, to indifferent because nothing anybody EVER says to him makes the slightest difference, to realizing he makes for a very valuable tool.

I've used him in several arguments now, and have found that whenever somebody I've refered to this thread reads it, they can't BUT agree that he represents the exact pinnacle of fundie insanity, and can clearly see the danger when he references the Kids4Truth site.

that said, I can't figure how Dave could make himself look any more idiotic than he already has.  

the thread should be closed and stickied for future reference, IMO.

heck, Dave thinks he's won every argument, so there's really nothing left for him to argue anyway, right?

Date: 2006/09/12 14:14:22, Link
Author: Ichthyic
CJ, I like the redefinition of "tard" used in a similar sense to blood and sweat.

It really works here, as a measure of intense but idiotic effort.

"They put their blood, sweat, and tard into it."

yup.

Date: 2006/09/12 14:42:56, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
We're rogues, but we're lovable rogues.


did i miss the meeting again?

*reads minutes from last meeting*

It says here we're still Church Burnin' Ebola Boys.

Date: 2006/09/12 14:46:50, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Do not rob me of my daily entertainment!


I'm sorry, yes i can see it was unfair of me to even suggest it.

Date: 2006/09/12 16:54:37, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I told you being a moderator sucks (if not in so many words).

meh, don't be so hard on yourself.

Date: 2006/09/12 18:11:00, Link
Author: Ichthyic
""There's nary an animal alive that can outrun a greased Scotsman."

Date: 2006/09/12 19:15:56, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Is that page still up on the PNAC site after all this time?

Date: 2006/09/13 08:51:48, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Wrong again, Ardo.


why do i keep feeling like telling RO just to STFU?

argy:

 
Quote
That said, it seems to me he puts more effort into Pharyngula than his research program (completely unverified).


I agree.  It's not uncommon for many professors to decide they prefer teaching to pure research.  If you want to actually spend more time teaching, a small school that doesn't put one under tremendous pressure to bring in grant money is the way to go.

It also tends to leave more time for other extracurricular activities, like blogging, say.

I could be wrong, but based on similar situations I am familiar with, it doesn't surprise me that PZ puts out very few papers at this point.  I've found that professors who take this path typically only involve themvelves in studies that really pique their interest, since there is no pressure to put out new papers all the time.

I bet he teaches a mean dev bio class.

Date: 2006/09/13 09:06:58, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
How could I have not seen it before, bring on the New World Order!!

(has everyone lost their friggin minds?  aren't we supposed to discussing science and combating just this kind of nuttiness that tells us that the Earth is only 6000 years old and the center of the universe?  HELLO!  Are there any sane people left out there?)


uh, skeptic, these words were written by the folks whose names you see appear alongside.

go check out the PNAC site if you don't believe us.

this wasn't a fiction invented by some third party, these are the actual thoughts and beliefs of the signatories themselves.

It was simply posted as an example of how these folks think, what you read into it was entirely of your own making.

Date: 2006/09/13 09:15:19, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Go ahead and revel in the fact that no lurkers here have delurked and become creationists


it's much more specific than that, Dave.

We don't even know if these lurkers might be creationists or not.

We DO know that every single one of them sees straight through your lies, though.

You really do have pyschological issues, Dave.

The evidence to support this is overwhelming, simply based on the level of denial you express daily, and the frequent need to lie to cover yourself.

you one crazy mofo.

Date: 2006/09/13 22:40:33, Link
Author: Ichthyic
so... skeptic, you have NOTHING to say about the page from the PNAC site at all, do you?

other than assuming we are all conspiracy nuts for even posting it?

seems like the knee-jerk reaction is on your part.

You don't want to see these folks are idiots, do you?

don't want to see that when Cheney said that "Reagan proved deficits mean nothing", he was completely talking out of his ass.

don't want to see that one of the reasons YOUR wages aren't as high as Greenspan predicted they would be BEFORE Reagan took office is because of the very deficits he created.

don't want to see that all the signatories of that document firmly believe that their own personal accumulation of wealth is of course good for everyone, regardless of what actual REAL economists have to say about the matter.

don't want to see the MANY times the current administration has quashed or manually altered the results of science done by GO's that conflicts with their own positions.

one wonders just how much harder you can close your eyes before your lids glue themselves shut permanently.

Date: 2006/09/14 09:39:58, Link
Author: Ichthyic
"We should listen to evidence we don't agree with? That makes no sense..."

Sounds a lot like AFDave.

the sad thing is, none of these folks can see just how closed off to reality they really are.

Date: 2006/09/14 09:46:51, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Does anyone think the US government actually believes political spin will alter physical facts? Could it be a group psychological problem?


Yes, they do.  Yes, it's a "group" issue, and they know well from previous experience that media spin can entirely affect the large majority of american's beliefs on any given issue.

so not only do they believe spin works to alter "physical reality", they can provide direct evidence as to its efficacy in doing so.

it's far more pervasive than just NASA.  reports from NOAA, DOI, and several others have been attacked and modified as well.

It caused a large group of nobel laureates to claim the current administration has done more tampering with scientific evidence than any previous US administration.

check out the Union of Concerned Scientists site sometime.  Even though they are biased, the reports can be tracked down there, along with the position statements from the group of scientists i mentioned above.

Date: 2006/09/14 10:01:15, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
u may recall that I was alerted to this logo by Dan Brown in his novel "Angels and Demons"


well, that explains Dave's fascination for being whipped on a daily basis; he reads too much Dan Brown.

do you dream of joining Opus Dei?

I think you would like it, Dave.  I hear they are eager for new members.

Date: 2006/09/14 10:04:41, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I do not doubt you. Did you think that I did?


not at all.  I just thought you might like a bit more detail, and to realize that these folks really DO think that they can spin reality itself, and are often pragmatically successful.

cheers

Date: 2006/09/15 11:48:42, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Having a conversation with skeptic seems more like having a conversation with a 10 year old most times.

He repeatedly comes across as someone who simply hasn't done their homework on any of the issues he proceeds to expound upon.

Maybe he actually thinks republicans are the conservatives they actually were in his grandfather's generation?

(psst: skeptic - they aren't!;)

stephen:

Quote
Guess we should all be worrying.


too late to worry about it now.  It's simply about damage control at this point.

One good thing to come out of this, is that as Bush has been repeatedly and publically called on his attempts to quash global warming research coming out of various GO's, he has been forced to change his position on the subject, or be called out for the lying coward he's been all this time.

So, in a bizarre sense, his overreaching efforts have done a service in that they have backfired and actually increased public consciousness of both the reality of the research, and the administration's attempts to spin it.

If these idiots were just a little more subtle in their manipulations, they could have delayed the inevitable at least until they were out of office.

"subtle" doesn't appear to be a strongsuit of the Bush administration, though.

Date: 2006/09/16 01:43:24, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
O'Leary's a bit like Peggy Hill.


Indeed; just like Peggy when she tries to speak spanish.

yup.

Date: 2006/09/16 13:52:29, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
one guy with a limited amount of bandwidth


THAT'S what we keep telling you Dave!

very limited, indeed.

one might even say straw-like.

Date: 2006/09/19 18:52:56, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Nah, I was seconding his criticism of computer simulations being touted as evidence for speciation.


and who is doing that?

nobody i have seen on PT.

somebody on UD?

Date: 2006/09/19 19:26:27, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I especially found this response by Ed appropriate:

Quote
RO
Quote
Ed responded to my message with all the wit of a schoolyard taunter (I refer interested parties to his blog for the full exchange) complete with schoolyard back up.



I'll take psychological projection for $1000, Alex.


yup.

Date: 2006/09/19 22:10:00, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
I find Ed's frequent Jeopardy! allusions insipid and annoying.


and you should know.

Date: 2006/09/20 02:36:55, Link
Author: Ichthyic
you don't dick about statistics, do you dumbass?

do you know what a linear regression is?

do you even know what a standard deviation is?

Date: 2006/09/21 13:33:11, Link
Author: Ichthyic
housetard?

*snicker*

Date: 2006/09/21 14:36:44, Link
Author: Ichthyic
it's a combination of the overall size of the thread, combined with any particularly large post that might appear on a given page.

it causes a delay until the whole page is filled with posts, then they all appear at once.

I think Wes mentioned this in the mechanics thread.

Date: 2006/09/22 20:21:53, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 23 2006,00:04)
Put a potato in your front pants pocket - go as a dictator.   ;)

heck, put on a flightsuit and go as a dictator.

make sure you keep a shit-eatin' grin on your face at all times, though.

Date: 2006/09/22 20:26:11, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I think the fellow just misunderstood what was meant by "useless".

as examples of honest, rational though, they are completely useless; actually beyond that into the realm of detrimental.

as examples of psychological maladies, they serve as invaluable point sources of evidence.

AIG is a literal font of both humor and insanity.

just like UD.

Date: 2006/09/22 20:30:36, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
he was William Dembski's research assistant


??

what on earth was he researching?  How to make the most inane post possible?

Quote
He seems to have too much time on his hands...


well, you know what they say about idle hands...

Date: 2006/09/23 17:01:15, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
then what would we do with all the churches?


bonfire of the vanities.  (a rather large bonfire)

so sayeth chapter 5, verse 2, in the Church Burning Ebola Boy scout guide.

Date: 2006/09/23 22:41:59, Link
Author: Ichthyic
no, if anything it's locale specific.

in any metropolitan area in california, the exact reverse is the case.

it's all starbucks and Barnes and Noble as far as the eye can see...

Date: 2006/09/24 13:24:07, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
It isn't just me that finds him a useless and unfunny bore, is it?


no, it's not.

Date: 2006/09/25 13:53:13, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Why not wear the uniform of the church-burnin' ebola boys?


damnit! that reminds me.  when am i gonna get mine?

they keep telling me "it's in the mail".

Date: 2006/09/26 13:53:23, Link
Author: Ichthyic
on the front page of the OE site:

Quote
-Score points and earn prizes


sell cookies and earn a merit badge.

*sigh*

Date: 2006/09/26 16:16:22, Link
Author: Ichthyic
steve hasn't been a moderator for very long, and has often asked for input (he even put up a thread).

perhaps you might discuss the issue in private with him?

Date: 2006/09/26 16:25:39, Link
Author: Ichthyic
...and there was, IIRC:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=2901

nothing was decided, per se, but he did ask for open comments there (after he asked for private ones).

Date: 2006/09/26 16:37:33, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
perhaps you should let us know what your definition of a "racist" is.


oh why oh why would you really care?

Date: 2006/09/26 17:00:50, Link
Author: Ichthyic
meh, it just didn't bother me that my own response got pulled.

It's not like I put a lot of thought or effort into it.

rest assured your sentiment ala Dembski was well shared by myself.

Date: 2006/09/26 17:16:34, Link
Author: Ichthyic
I was stumbling around looking for the posting rules, and thought to check the member list, just for fun.

here's the top ten posters on ATBC:

Quote

stevestory 2405    
Ichthyic  1760      
Arden Chatfield 1596      
ericmurphy 1585      
The Ghost of Paley 1156      
afdave  903      
sir_toejam 846  *    
deadman_932 817      
Faid 786      
Wesley R. Elsberry 674


*my previous totals were added to my new handle, so it doesn't count.

Date: 2006/09/26 18:32:08, Link
Author: Ichthyic
'roid rage rising... rising...

and

falling...

fallling...


ahhh.

Date: 2006/09/27 10:45:27, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Maybe it is liberalism that I enjoy.


bingo.

Date: 2006/09/27 21:49:18, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Interesting irony.


it's not irony and it's not selection, but then you never really did understand the theory to begin with, did ya?

catholics are outreproducing protestants by a huge margin in mexico.

is that religious selection, ya think?

you really should spend more time thinking before you post.

Date: 2006/09/27 21:53:06, Link
Author: Ichthyic
wait, *looks at watch*...

did i miss it?

*looks at thread*

nope, just more empty headed promises from gawp.

shocker.

Date: 2006/09/28 12:25:18, Link
Author: Ichthyic
wow richard!

Finland was in the top two in both of the categories you listed in that table.

http://cc.oulu.fi/~thu/personal/Finland.html

http://www.mwscomp.com/sounds/mp3/finland.mp3

everybody sing along!

Date: 2006/09/28 14:01:24, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Is this what it's like arguing with Thordaddy?


funny, whenever I read your posts, that's who I've been thinking of lately.

maybe you should get that self-projection meter checked there, buddy.

Quote
Once again, I don't really care if Jared is racist. I made a smart-a$$ comment to Eric, and didn't expect it to go any further than that.


this is as close as gawp gets to admitting he didn't know didly about the issue when he spouted out on it.

so what else is new?

still looking for that scorched arden gawp promised.

You're such a tease, gawp.

Date: 2006/09/28 14:07:50, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Who wants to wade through that garbage?


now you know why i so rarely make any substantive responses to your posts.

like your post above.

Date: 2006/09/28 14:10:36, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
At least I'm giving straight answers to people's questions.


that's exactly what Tdiddy used to say too.

Date: 2006/09/30 11:25:34, Link
Author: Ichthyic
when Dembski says:

Quote
For the record, it’s working!


what he really means is that he is still making enough money doing so for it to be worth spending his time on.

Date: 2006/10/01 17:31:22, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Robert, you would do real well in these fora if all threads were simply polls.

you could then simply say:

"I voted "X" "

and then your one-line replies might make some sense.

Date: 2006/10/01 17:34:48, Link
Author: Ichthyic
careful, mike, you're a hairbreadth away from calling AFdumbass a liar!

go figure.

Date: 2006/10/01 17:44:50, Link
Author: Ichthyic
*snicker*

I swear, this whole thread feels like throwing balls to dunk the clown.

...and it's gotten to the point where everyone has gotten so practiced at it that it only takes one ball.

everybody gets a prize!

and Dave just gets wetter.

Date: 2006/10/02 10:19:22, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
One doesn't have to like this trend to acknowledge its existence.


yes, but this "trend" has nothing to do with selection or evolution, which is why i mentioned the preponderance of catholics in mexico.

it isn't "knowledge", but is a mere misrepresentation of observation based on ignorance.

something you and skeptic seem to share.

Date: 2006/10/03 22:31:10, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
is there a bottom to the pit of human stupidity? can it be reached?


only when employing extreme force of will.  You can't stumble on the depths of stupidity shown by AFD by accident.

Date: 2006/10/04 11:28:54, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
Bastard ....so that's how you can talk about yourself in the 3rd person and NOT APPEAR like Berlinski.


Bob Dole says Bob Dole was doing that long before any pretenders.

Date: 2006/10/04 12:15:26, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 04 2006,13:15)
David Heddle posted something that made me go, "Wow!".

Before anybody begins to give kudos to Heddle without due diligence, do try to remember where Heddle's mind exists on the status of Dembski and ID as well:

Heddle, from the post referenced:

 
Quote
That is independent of where ID actually falls in the spectrum, from a dishonest and profitable political movement for which Dembski is a guru to a bona fide science for which he is a groundbreaking theoretician.


bona fide science?

Dembski is a groundbreaking theoretician?

uh, righttttttt...

Edit:

It's technically incorrect for me to have postulated Heddle's position from that statement, as Dhogza correctly points out.

it's just that the idea of WD40 and ID being "groundbreaking science" is just so ludicrous as to set all my bells 'aringin at once.

Date: 2006/10/04 12:23:55, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote (Shirley Knott @ Oct. 04 2006,16:37)
True, but he couldn't keep it up.

hugs,
Shirley Knott
:p

youch!

Viagra commercials:

the only time Bob Dole doesn't refer to himself in the third person.

Date: 2006/10/04 12:52:37, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote (guthrie @ Oct. 04 2006,17:46)
Quote (Ichthyic @ Oct. 04 2006,17:15)
Dembski is a groundbreaking theoretician?

uh, righttttttt...

I think its a typo- they actually mean "theologian".

doesn't matter.

it's just as wrong, either way you slice it.

In fact, you can't even say WD40 is a ground-breaking profiteer, or political propagandist.

He's simply an unoriginal hack, working off of old ideas in a "new" medium (the blog).

Date: 2006/10/04 13:17:35, Link
Author: Ichthyic
hmm. you're right.

I retract my statement about Heddle, but not about Dembski and ID.

Date: 2006/10/04 15:20:55, Link
Author: Ichthyic
Quote
My theory is based on what I call "cognitive distance" or CD.


so close...

it's cognitive dissonance

the rest flows easily from there.

Date: 2006/10/04 16:40:19, Link
Author: Ichthyic