AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Inoculated Mind

form_srcid: Inoculated Mind

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.211.27.61

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Inoculated Mind

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 'Inoculated Mind%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/01/22 23:26:40, Link
Author: Inoculated Mind
DaveScot is hilarious, especially when he tries to be scary. He hunts around the internet trying to find dirt on people, with nothing else to do, and then bans them. Mr. Christopher and I both got banned for the same reason. (Mine still logs in, but I tried saying a couple things and they were deleted) Mine was this essay:
Proves my point
After trackbacks lead him to my post, he then proves my point by un-linking the trackbacks on UD to my blog. His reason given was so that I couldn't plug my blog on - read: HIS - , like I would want the 20 people in the world that DaveScot and Bill Dembski haven't banned from their blog commenting on mine anyway!

I think the point made earlier about Dembski wanting to make his whole blog a joke to cover up his mis-statements and "street theater" may fit the bill. No pun intended.

What I think is interesting is the TIME that DaveScot takes to go online with his modem and download these pages bit by bit to see what people are saying about him. And B.Dembski calls evolution proponents obsessive.

Hello Dave, glad to see you are spending so much time on everyone here. Won't you provide another link directing people to places that don't ban people for making truthful statements about you? The fact is, people on "YOUR" own blog notice how you are the embodiment of a flaming troll, and you can't hide it.

While I was still on the blog, I was trying to understand what some of their positions were on apes->humans. Although DaveScot emailed me to warn me that he could *smell* that I was a troll, the only reason why I wanted to try posting on the blog was to get answers to the question above. They kept repeating that ID was compatible with common descent with apes as well as uncommon descent, that was not what I was asking.

One person did attempt to answer me, he said that he believed that humans and apes did not descend from a common ancestor, I asked him what evidence, since ID is compatible with both scenarios, lead him to that conclusion. No biochemical evidence, just a hand wave at the complexities of humans. I made sure to be polite, and thanked him for responding. So the one response I got was an empty box with no evidence.

Which is precisely what I expected.

Date: 2006/01/23 14:56:44, Link
Author: Inoculated Mind
There is quite a lot of dissent amongst ID supporters over at Uncommon Dissent, surprisingly. I think despite all the banning and deleting, with B.Dembski no longer doing the editing, I think it has allowed the contrary opinions amongst ID supporters to come out for all of us to see.

Given DaveScot's waffling on various issues, such as common descent and macroevolution, I would like to offer up that DaveScot really has no position on these things, except that everyone else is somehow wrong. I wouldn't be surprised that after the midnight coop DaveScot starts banning B.Dembski as well. I think DaveScot is starved for attention, obsessive, and does this stuff for emotional reasons, purely. I think he's gone over to the UD blog to try to gain acceptance with someone. Who wants to wager that he has no friends that he's actually met? But now when in control, he's just resumed the vitriol again.

I am very glad that DaveScot has given his position on common descent and macroevolution, it will be nice to see the UD folks grill him. Because then he's going to grill them back, and they will have nothing to stand on themselves. I was trying to figure out their positions, and now that I won't be able to, DaveScot will do it for me!

Date: 2006/01/24 19:42:26, Link
Author: Inoculated Mind
I've got an interesting curiosity question for the ID folks who have bravely come over here to engage in discussion free of DaveScot's ego:

One of the "irreducibly complex" biochemical systems claimed by Behe to be un-evolvable is the immune system. However, many diseases such as HIV and Malaria, etc etc, very cleverly undermine the supposedly-designed immune system, and fit Behe's definition of irreducible complexity as well. My question is, given that these structures that give rise to disease meet the IC criteria as defined by Behe, what cause would you have to reject the conclusion that they were also designed, like the flagellum?
Then again, you may not reject the conclusion that they were designed, so then my question to you would be, how do you then avoid the inescapable conclusion, therefore, that this designer created these diseases and that it is a wicked entity?

It might help to consider what you would think if you had learned that a foreign dictator had created a biowarfare disease (based upon knowledge of the immune system) that subdued our immune systems and "accidentally" released it into the world. ???

Date: 2006/01/25 16:16:53, Link
Author: Inoculated Mind
Flint: Why stop there? All ID has to do is allege that other people have allegedly decided that there could be a hole, if they looked hard enough for it. Can't you see that gOD's existence is herein proven beyond any rational doubt?

Date: 2006/01/26 22:29:18, Link
Author: Inoculated Mind
Quote
I'll do you one better than that: all ID has to do is to find one 'evolutionist' who is a bad person and an atheist, and the whole theory of evolution is disproven, and ID is proven.


Arden Chatfield: I think you have boiled it down simple and well, however I think I have the upper hand with this one: All ID needs to do to provide irrefutable brain-burstingly coherent and logical and merely absolute proof (in the Mathematical sense) that a perfect designer created reality and every little molecular machine in it, except the poorly designed ones, is to find a single proponent of evolution who's just not quite Christian enough. (Ken Miller)

On "physicist", You could try searching for some of their earlier posts. When I was done posting there, published my critical essay, and DaveScot removed the links in my posts, the links on my old posts still worked. You could always register just to post an email address for physicist to email. Maybe they might see it before DS

PLEASE TAKE NOTE you denizens of “Panda’s Pathetic Pollex,” especially those at Wesley Elsberry’s inner sanctum, “After The Bar Closes,” Hi Dave.  :p  you know we love that you are reading this on your slow 56k modem. I imagine it takes a good fifteen minutes each time you switch to the modem to come over here and read. I hope you don't read my blog, because I'm going to have some pretty disparaging things up there real soon. Please don't! :)

Date: 2006/02/04 03:40:44, Link
Author: Inoculated Mind
Haha. They didn't need to let slip the password. That was like, the fifth one I tried. Right after "dembskirules." But there was nothing there anyway except John Davison singing to himself and DaveScot grooming him for lice. I was hoping that they would say some disparaging stuff thinking no one could read it.

No luck on the Author page password thus far... :) I thought combinations that reflected a test of belief like the ATBC page might yield something. Guess they chose one less predictable.

Date: 2006/02/04 14:48:34, Link
Author: Inoculated Mind
Quote
I agree, maybe we should help by coming up with some research ideas for them, at least that might shut them up for a while.


Minds of geniuses....

I'm working on an essay talking about just that, how they could attempt to do some actual research on design in biology. The fact is, design detection does occur in biology, but they have almost no idea how, why, or where. Maybe we could encourage them to contribute to an actual controversy in biology. I'll let you folks know when its done, might be 2 weeks.

Date: 2006/02/04 23:13:57, Link
Author: Inoculated Mind
phishyphred said:
Quote
saying you guess password after I tell is like stock trade chatters claim to buy stock after they know it go up so they look good...after-the-fact trader we call...in future if you want be believed give password before everyone else know it


Phishy, I figured out the password before DaveScot added those two updates to the page, and John Davison had not yet posted. I didn't read your divulging the password on UD, it was here that I heard that the password had been leaked.

You can take my word as a scientist that I am not lying, I did figure out the password, reasoning that DaveScot set it up, and he has a simplistic, caustic style to him. Unfortunately I didn't mail a self-addressed envelope to myself so that I could prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. If I had told everyone I knew the password before it was leaked, that would have spoiled the spying, now wouldn't it?

Oh well, its not like DaveScot and John Davison haven't ruined their reputations already...

Date: 2006/02/06 20:54:16, Link
Author: Inoculated Mind
Phishy, I think nothing will satisfy you, and that doesn't matter to me much. Feel free to think what you like.
And thanks for spoiling my spying fun. :(
***
Back to the conversation.
"You got it exactly....We shouldnt regard the unknown as supernatural.  We should continue to seek "natural" explanations of phenomenon.  We know that the world has to be natural."

I had a thought on this the other day. "Supernatural" seems to be the refuge of the untestable and unobservable. I think it follows that if something "supernatural" could interact with matter, then it could be studied, in principle.

For example, lets assume the whole intelligent design thing. But contrary to what they say, you can indeed infer about the nature of the designer from the design. (They really mean we don't talk about it except in churches or during fundraising.)

In order to conclude that the designer was supreme, perfect, or a "master designer" as Dembski would put it, we would need to have artifacts that would be characteristic of the skills of a perfect designer. Granted, a perfect designer could purposely make bad designs, as a master chess player could make bad moves on purpose, but there would be no reason to conlclude that they are masters of their crafts.
But life as it exists is full of examples of really bad design. So many people have trumpted this that I'm sure you can all name 20 examples off the top of your heads. Anyway, these 'designs' would be characteristic of incompetent, wicked, or designers whose budgets ran out too soon.
I contend that if you can call the designer "intelligent" or "One smart cookie" as Behe once said, then you can conclude that it was questionably intelligent, downright inane, or powerful but evil. Or maybe one of each?

I would charge that the fact that IDists say that intelligent design cannot identify the designer is because they know full well that if they did consider the 'designs' in question as evidence of the level of intelligence of this designer, that they will realize that it no longer points towards the god of their religion, which is supposed to be perfect.

As a final note, Behe said in court that the only thing that could be concluded about the designer was that it intended to create the structures in question. As the cross-examining lawyer pointed out, how can you know that without knowing the identity of the designer? The fact is, it could have been a bumbling idiot of a designer, and meant to create a microscopic drill bit... and with a little miscalculation, they created a flagellum. And then an accident in the alien laboratory in the upper atmosphere allows the butt-propellor-equipped cell to escape and wreak havoc. Oops, says the "designer."

Returning to reality...

Date: 2006/02/07 09:28:14, Link
Author: Inoculated Mind
Interesting that they do not allow the caching... typical. What I'm wondering is, if they are so very afraid of people realizing how stupid they are, why do they bother with a public forum at all? Why can't they throughly vet (sp?) people, and then let them into a pass-word-protected forum that no one else can read?
-OR-
If they want to have the appearance of an open forum, they could just untick a little box that says that "anyone can comment." Thus, they have to manually add people.

My guess is, they are trying their hardest to obsessivly edit, cover up, and exclude things on their blog so that the casual observer sees an illusion of an open forum. If the visitor don't delve into it, check other people's comments on other blogs (trackback deleting gets in the way of that) then they come away with a false impression of a legitimate free exchange of ideas.

Please vote for the socialist leader of your choice:
1. DembScot
Now please turn in your ballot, thank you for participating in our democracy.*

Date: 2006/02/07 22:02:39, Link
Author: Inoculated Mind
Who was it who responded to DaveScot's stuff about the double-helix confusion? I didn't see it.

I don't agree with his statement that it IS lamarckian, but increasing mutation rates (still controversial, BTW, even after its second supporting paper) during times of stress is vaguely neo-lamarckian. However, he is just plain wrong when he says that mutations are totally random. Certain parts of the genome mutate faster than others, and One scientist at UC Davis that I talked to for a story that never got written, (it was fascinating, though) found that the proofreading enzymes Slow down when they get to recombinant hot-spots. Cells seem to be able to encourage and discourage mutations in different areas of their genomes. Adaptation for adapability, I would gather.

Here's another doozie of a thread. This confirms exactly what I thought about Caroline Crocker. The ID folks, ever-interested in PR and not science, is now offering a reward for any teachers that get fired in Wisconsin for teaching Intelligent Design under a new proposed law that would ban it outright. And it seems that one poster, Sax, is being let back in after offering some money to the pot. Maybe we should offer to let DaveScot back in here if he mails the NCSE $100. :))))))

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/790#comments

Gotta Love Madison, Wisconsin. I want to go there for Grad school... a gem of intellectuality at the same longitude as the country's sand dunes of idiocy.

Date: 2006/02/08 05:04:01, Link
Author: Inoculated Mind
I once spent hours and hours responding to cut-and-paste emails from a YEC. At first, when I declared victory over him, I thought I had just wasted a whole slough of my time. Then I realized that I was getting free training and practice in defeating their arguments.
You won't make any headway there at UD, but you will learn stuff about them and their arguments.

Date: 2006/02/08 19:12:46, Link
Author: Inoculated Mind
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/791

Dembski Says:
Quote
I take this as a clear sign that we are winning. ID proponents can afford to take political action to promote ID. Its critics, on the other hand, look foolish when they have to take political action to quash ID. That’s because of a fundamental inequity in public school science education: Materialistic evolution already holds a de facto monopoly over public school science education. ID proponents resort to political measures only to break up that monopoly (think of ID’s political component as trust-busting). Thus, for materialistic evolution to require legislation to preserve its monopoly will in the end be seen as heavy-handed and self-serving. Accordingly, for academics with stellar reputations like Sober and Numbers to be actively supporting such political interference signifies that they are losing not only the war of ideas but also their position of cultural dominance.

Dover certainly wasn’t ID’s Waterloo. Wisconsin may well be evolution’s Waterloo.


bwa ha ha ha ha!
That was a well-deserved laugh from reading so much at uncommon pissant.  What I find interesting is that Dembski is offering money to any teacher who gets fired by teaching ID in Wisconsin after the bill passes into law, and starts a lawsuit over it. Umm, isn't paying someone to break the law illegal in itself?

ID's political component? ID is nothing but a political component. At least he admits that ID points to the supernatural, contrasting with evolution's materialistic nature in this post.

Since WHEN has materialism been culturally dominant? I must have missed it.

Date: 2006/02/19 17:38:42, Link
Author: Inoculated Mind
What I find incredibly fascinating is that DaveScot created a page to debate the origin of the nucleus, and declares that there's no evidence for its natural origin, and within days of declaring this, posts a link to an amazing news story in Discover Magazine that proposes a likely and titillating explanation... That I would have otherwise probably not have read about.

Besides the sad antics of the moderators over there at UD, they are doing me a favor at least, they are picking up on good stories and posting them for us, even though their comments rarely rise above that of a 3rd-grade bully.
:D

Date: 2006/03/08 12:34:59, Link
Author: Inoculated Mind
DenseSnot

hehe.

I've grown somewhat weary of UD, although I check back from time to time. Ironically, they picked up an article written by someone I know (Dr. Geerat Vermeij) and I pulled him on my show for an interview.
Thanks, UD, for helping out scientists from time to time by linking to good science articles, despite the crappy comments you foster. Gary Vermeij and I had a good laugh about you helping us put together a great show!
Thanks for reading, DazedSplotch!

Date: 2006/08/16 18:09:36, Link
Author: Inoculated Mind
The Argument is like a wet noodle indeed... His noodly appendage.

 

 

 

=====