| Quote (Lou FCD @ April 25 2008,13:20) | ||
|
Isnt that the toilet from CBGBs? (Before it was shut...)
form_srcid: Jake
form_cmd: view_author
Your IP address is 38.107.191.97
View Author detected.
view author posts:
Retrieve source record and display it.
form_author:
form_srcid: Jake
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 'Jake%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_err:
DB_result: Resource id #4
| Date: 2006/10/30 12:38:23, Link 131.152.13.36 |
| Author: Jake |
|
Hello, first post from a long-time lurker, I tried to resist, but this was just too much. I looked over the paper the UD crowd are salivating over. Not exactly stellar scientific work. It appears to consist of nothing more than a series of unsupported assertions about 'information', bolstered by a slew of nonsensical buzzwords. I kept flicking back, trying to find some actual evidence for, well, anything, but that doesnt appear to have been a priority. Nor, for that matter, does coherence. I feel sorry for the other poor souls who have published in this online journal - hopefully they will take a look at the peer review standards before they become a laughing stock. |
| Date: 2006/11/07 17:28:11, Link 131.152.13.36 |
| Author: Jake |
|
The level of misunderstanding displayed in the 'Darwinists are Always Surprised' thread is really quite astonishing. These people think they are going to overturn the reigning paradigm in biological science, but almost without exception they betray a profound ignorance of even the most basic principles of evolutionary biology. Someone should tell them that ignorance of a scientific theory is not admissable as evidence against it. At least one poster (Atom) is applying the old 'hurricane in a junkyard' probability calculation to the chances of arriving at the particular mutations reached, clearly without having read the thing. http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1766 |
| Date: 2006/11/29 03:46:48, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||
| Author: Jake | ||
So OK, thats a lot clearer. The default ID position is the one espoused by Behe, a Catholic old-earther, Wells, a Moonie, and Nelson, a YEC... Im confused. |
| Date: 2006/11/29 08:28:29, Link 131.152.13.36 |
| Author: Jake |
|
Its not only the lame level of their science that confuses me, its how 15 years of hammering could result in a position containing at least three mutually inconsistent worldviews. Who do they think they are trying to kid? Oh, thats right; idiots. |
| Date: 2006/12/12 10:41:34, Link 131.152.13.36 |
| Author: Jake |
|
Man, they're still banging on about Kitzmiller versus Dover. How is whining on about a year-old court decision supposed to advance the science of ID? Recently Ive noticed more and more that the ID crowd have basically stopped producing new mathematical models, critiques of evolution etc., and have focussed more and more upon selling the ones they already have. In this respect they remind me very much of the YECs. Once a critique has been written, no matter how bad it is and how quickly is is evicerated, that critique is considered unimpeachable and totally correct in all but perhaps very minor respects. Criticism is all but ignored. I reckon they feel they have all the arguments they need by now, and simply have to keep repeating them until people finally get it. |
| Date: 2006/12/13 11:09:40, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||
| Author: Jake | ||
Very true. Sad, but true. I just wish they would come up with something a bit better than this, you know? Something that actually required conscious thought to rebut. Its just been whinge, whinge, whinge about Judge Jones and Richard Dawkins for weeks and weeks. To paraphrase Family Guy - 'What the #### is this? Somebody throw a pie!' |
| Date: 2007/01/05 02:56:21, Link 131.152.13.36 |
| Author: Jake |
|
Arghh, that infinite monkeys conversation is so stupid! What I especially cant stand is the way they so smugly congratulate themselves on seeing through this Darwinian obfuscation, without acknowledging for one second that it may be their understanding of the concepts involved that is incorrect. Ill try and explain, for the benefit of any UD lurkers here, using slightly different language. 1. The phase space of 'all possible books' contains the complete works of Shakespeare (and all other books, by definition). 2. If we randomly sample this phase space for an infinite period of time, all possible results will emerge. 3. Ergo, any system (in this case monkeys typing) that randomly samples the phase space over the period of infinity will eventually produce all possible books. For a group of people so concerned with where we are all going for infinity they sure have a shaky understanding of the concept. |
| Date: 2007/01/05 09:41:21, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||
| Author: Jake | ||
That sounds rather fun, Ill see if I can dig it up. It rather reminds me of the third 'Science of Discworld' book, with the librarian knuckling about in L space and getting different versions of the Origin of Species where Darwin is an ID'er. |
| Date: 2007/01/26 06:13:01, Link 131.152.13.36 |
| Author: Jake |
| Man, there are so many fakers on that site. I think Ive just spotted another (Im not going to say who, Ill let them play as long as they can get away with it). Without exaggeration, I would guess between 10 and 15 percent of their membership is taking the ****. |
| Date: 2007/02/09 06:13:22, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||
| Author: Jake | ||
Mentok says...
Arghh! Seriously, what sort of dullard writes a sentence like this? And why do they keep on and on with the monkeys and the typewriters? It reminds me of Ricky Gervais interviewing Karl Pilkington - for those who havent seen it, its not a flattering comparison, (although a very accurate one.) |
| Date: 2007/02/09 11:19:40, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||
| Author: Jake | ||
Thats the one! I love the bit where he asks what shift pattern the monkeys are on. |
| Date: 2007/02/28 08:03:17, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||
| Author: Jake | ||
Jason Rennie:
Umm, last time I looked, the molecular biologists were pretty much all on our side... |
| Date: 2007/03/03 06:07:25, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||
| Author: Jake | ||
Thats amazing! How many genuine posters do people reckon there are? Id say about 15 at UD and perhaps 5 at OE? More? less? Im actually feeling guilty laughing at it. If they were more competent at what they do I wouldn't feel guilty at all; after all, their aims are pretty nasty stuff. Its just that they are so laughably inept. Its like mocking at a child's attempts to build a rocket out of cardboard to travel to the moon. |
| Date: 2007/03/05 08:28:32, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||
| Author: Jake | ||
Stevestory:
I dont think he is, although I agree this post is a little hard to understand. From what I can see, he has been posting fairly decent stuff, but avoiding conflict for quite a while. AFAICT Great_Ape is one of the handful of pro-science people who have not ended up banned. Of course, if he has gone off the deep end since I last read one of his posts then I retract this... (I don't go to UD much anymore, it seems to have degenerated a lot recently). |
| Date: 2007/03/05 11:23:29, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||
| Author: Jake | ||
Oh, Im sure it can, but its just that its getting boring. Ive been following the whole C/E debate for about 6-7 years now, and Ive seen way more interesting creationist arguments than UD is currently offering. They are just sulking, throwing up insulting articles about 'Darwinists' (whatever they are), Richard Dawkins and the US legal system, and occasionally misinterpreting a paper they havent read and don't intend to. I just wish they would come up with something new. I accept of course that UD does not exist solely for my amusement, but even they must realise that their current ridiculous position is getting them no-where. |
| Date: 2007/03/05 13:24:51, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||||||
| Author: Jake | ||||||
Where UD is concerned, thats a reasonable inference to make even if you don't know who the poster is...
Good points :) I just can't help feeling a bit frustrated by the whole sorry spectacle, though. |
| Date: 2007/03/06 03:03:18, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||||||
| Author: Jake | ||||||
####, what can I say, im an optimist :) |
| Date: 2007/03/08 02:38:59, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||||
| Author: Jake | ||||
Jerry:
Jerry, a mere two posts later:
Jerry, we don't think your confusion is down to a lack of understanding of biochemistry, we know it is. Your math isnt 'a little off', it is completely inappropriate to the situation in hand. Anti-evolutionists from Hoyle to Dembski have made this same fallacious calculation, and repeating it isnt going to make it any less incorrect. |
| Date: 2007/03/08 09:55:16, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||
| Author: Jake | ||
If you can infer design, you must be able to say something about the designer. Otherwise how would you be able to tell 'purposeful design' from, say, 'anything else'? And why is it that an actual scientist, talking about actual science, and asking actual questions about ID gets banned after 5 or so posts, while the pro-ID regulars get to wibble on about theology for multiple fifty post threads without a hint of moderator input? (Rhetorical question, I know the answer...) |
| Date: 2007/03/18 06:04:32, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||||
| Author: Jake | ||||
To be fair, this could also be read this as 'if you do not participate actively in class discussions, you will lose marks', which is fair enough. The course outline PDF has this written as 'full class participation', next to 'punctual attendance' - surely people arent going to lose marks for being on time! |
| Date: 2007/03/19 10:21:01, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||||||||
| Author: Jake | ||||||||
Why on earth would you assume he's consistent? :) |
| Date: 2007/03/26 12:41:13, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||||
| Author: Jake | ||||
Huh. Average human lifespan has hugely increased in the modern west compared with ancient times, due mainly to the grossly artificial environment in which we live (medicine, diet, no predation and little violence etc.). We still die eventually, though, often of diseases that would have been rare in ancient people (Alzheimers, heart disease etc.). It seems to me that this study provides a striking parallel with changing human mortality. Dave appears to be trying to argue that because some animals live longer in artificially comfortable environs they are designed. Animals generally live longer in captivity than in the wild, as well - so what? Actually, thats not even the worst thing with his post - where does he propose all the bacteria and viruses came from, if the world was originally 'germ free'? |
| Date: 2007/03/26 13:06:58, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||||
| Author: Jake | ||||
(Snaps fingers, shakes head) Of course! How stupid of me to have forgotten to factor in such a central scientific theory as the Biblical fall of man! |
| Date: 2007/04/06 11:12:11, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||||||||||
| Author: Jake | ||||||||||
Agreed. The article is a review of current protein-engineering processes, arguing out that while a rational, directed approach to protein engineering would be most efficient, at present we do not know enough to do this effectively and hence iterative searches of random peptides (referred to here as 'Darwinian' methods) are currently used (we have a program of this type running on my department's screensavers, apparently). The review states a number of drawbacks with this sort of method and argues that such methods are impractical in the long term. In addition, they argue that over-reliance on random search methods should not be allowed to impede progress towards a better understanding how to rationally design proteins. No-where does this paper support the idea that evolution is flawed, although it does highlight some current areas of uncertainty, notably the question of how novel protein folds arise. No-one is pretending that uncertainties like this do not exist, and productive careers are currently being employed investigating these very problems. To suggest that this is a weakness is to misunderstand the very nature of science. The review cites both Axe (2004) and Behe and Snoke (2004), which is probably why Dembski noticed it in the first place. I can see why he posted it; the abstract can be read in a pro-ID way (if you squint) and I would guess, oh, 0% of the pro-ID readers over there will actually take the time and effort to read the whole thing. |
| Date: 2007/05/08 09:00:05, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||
| Author: Jake | ||
Oh yeah, definitely. I reckon the Loki trolls currently outnumber the actual posters by a considerable margin. Im not going to name names, but there is just too much irony in some posts there for them to be from genuine posters. |
| Date: 2007/05/28 14:35:02, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||
| Author: Jake | ||
It is an excellent response, but I wonder, what is the point of responding there any more? For days after the echo chamber had been informed of the vacuity of their initial claims, they continued to blindly repeat them, as if nothing had happened. These are people who genuinely do not listen to contradictory information. Whilst I fully support the idea of educating people who are honestly ignorant, I am increasingly of the opinion that UD has no more of them left. All thats left at that site are bitter losers, trolls and fantasists. |
| Date: 2007/06/21 04:26:01, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||||
| Author: Jake | ||||
This is what annoys me so much about UD and its posters. They spout off triumphantly about some well understood aspect of biology (well understood by biologists, not by them) and then essentially go 'ha! how do the Darwinists explain that, then, eh?'. Gil, a little advice: the fact that you are ignorant about a subject does not mean that everyone else is. |
| Date: 2007/06/25 02:48:28, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||||
| Author: Jake | ||||
Borne has to be a troll. There can be no other possible explanation. No-one is that dumb in real life, surely? surely...? |
| Date: 2007/07/24 09:46:18, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||
| Author: Jake | ||
I saw that film, it was class! "No bones? hwhatsoever?" |
| Date: 2007/07/24 12:24:38, Link 217.162.118.5 |
| Author: Jake |
|
Acquiesce needs to understand the concept of a niche "...how can NS direct for higher complexity whilst simultaneously selecting for lower fitness?", asked about five thousand times whilst ignoring Bob OH's answers. The answer, Acquiesce, is that the environment is not uniform and 'fitness' is not a static variable. Variation may select for higher complexity (or lower complexity) if this allows an organism to colonise an available niche. So long as high complexity niches are available, high complexity organisms will evolve to fill them. Low complexity organisms will be less fit in these niches. |
| Date: 2007/07/25 12:12:41, Link 217.162.118.21 |
| Author: Jake |
|
Its sad in a way, watching Acquiesce et al. smugly demolish strawmen while Bob tries in vain to educate them. How can you begin to educate someone who is so ignorant of science as to think five minutes on the internet is enough to find gaping holes in a scientific theory that has stood 150 years of scrutiny? What does he think biologists do all day? We all see why he is wrong, but he doesnt, and just won't accept correction. Where do you go from there? |
| Date: 2007/07/30 16:49:25, Link 80.218.143.244 |
| Author: Jake |
|
If this isnt a deep cover troll then Im absolutely gobsmacked. "The content-free “me too” comments posted on the blog show how uninformed the blog writer/posters are. Compare those comments with the comments in just about any UD thread (like the “Prominent NAS member trashes neo-Darwinism” thread) and the difference between blogs couldn’t be clearer." |
| Date: 2007/10/01 16:18:01, Link 217.162.118.151 |
| Author: Jake |
|
Ive said it before, and Ill say it again. Borne must be one of you guys. No-one can be that stupid. No-one. I daresay many (although probably not most) UD posters are sincere, if misguided people, but that guy? No way. |
| Date: 2007/10/12 05:10:07, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||
| Author: Jake | ||
b-fast
Hmm, perhaps its because you aren't in the top 1%? |
| Date: 2007/10/16 07:37:45, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||
| Author: Jake | ||
Hah hah hah! Does anyone actually read BA77's stuff, or, like me, do you all just derive amusement from the length of his posts? |
| Date: 2007/10/16 16:41:19, Link 217.162.119.54 | ||||
| Author: Jake | ||||
I tend to just scroll down for about two seconds with the mouse wheel, read a sentence or two, and leave it at that. Too much BA77 is not good. Im kind of hoping Ill look at a section of one of his comments one day and find the moon dust argument, but maybe Im expecting too much? |
| Date: 2007/12/10 08:38:24, Link 131.152.13.36 |
| Author: Jake |
|
Heads up! Getawitness is a goner |
| Date: 2007/12/11 07:30:48, Link 131.152.13.36 |
| Author: Jake |
| I wonder what happened in May 2007? |
| Date: 2007/12/11 11:50:28, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||||
| Author: Jake | ||||
Thanks! I kept coming back to Terminator 2 in my mind... |
| Date: 2007/12/11 14:48:14, Link 80.218.143.121 |
| Author: Jake |
| I had been feeling a bit sorry for the crowd over at UD - its like teasing a bunch of toddlers. This latest thread ends all the pity, however. What a contemptible shower! |
| Date: 2008/03/14 17:46:10, Link 80.218.142.242 |
| Author: Jake |
|
Edinburgh is a lovely place, although it is rather expensive and has lots of tourists. Edinburgh Uni. has an very good reputation as well. I stayed in one of the halls of residence last year when I went there for a wedding and they were fairly good (better than I got as a student, anyway...) I dont know much about Swansea. Most of South Wales is old ex-coal and industry country, maybe not as nice as Edinburgh. Although the Uni isnt one of the top ones I think its OK. On the plus side Wales is really the place to go for the rugby. Whatever she chooses, Britain is a cool place (although as a Brit Im biased) and Im sure she will enjoy it. |
| Date: 2008/03/22 06:21:04, Link 80.218.142.182 | ||||||
| Author: Jake | ||||||
Pity, 'cos I have a comment. AIG have been pushing this exact same argument, using the F-type ATP synthase, since at least 2005. I thought ID was supposed to be different from creationism? |
| Date: 2008/04/18 18:33:16, Link 217.162.118.194 |
| Author: Jake |
|
I really should stop reading the long threads at UD. Either of two things is bound to happen. 1. Kairosfocus joins in, or 2. The real sick scum ooze out of the woodwork. I long ago stopped reading threads with KF in due to the fact that they dont make any sense, but for some reason I still read the occasional long KF free thread. One example just now was the Darwin and Nazis thread. What a disgrace to humanity. Hats off to Allan McNeill for lasting as long as he did; Im sure I couldnt have remained so civil in the face of all the ignorant hatred, bigotry and sneering self rightousness displayed by the mouth breathers over there. As Ive asked before: do these people really think they are going to overturn the scientific consensus? WTF? |
| Date: 2008/04/26 02:41:53, Link 217.162.118.161 | ||||
| Author: Jake | ||||
Isnt that the toilet from CBGBs? (Before it was shut...) |
| Date: 2008/07/15 13:36:56, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||
| Author: Jake | ||
Expelled Wait, Im confused, I thought ID wasn't about squeezing Jesus into science? |
| Date: 2008/07/17 15:52:22, Link 80.218.143.138 |
| Author: Jake |
| Aww, 1000 pages... I stated reading this thread just before 100, and thought that was a crazy number to reach. Still, the tard will out. |
| Date: 2008/08/02 15:24:35, Link 80.218.141.48 | ||||
| Author: Jake | ||||
This is so true. I remember once spending days vainly trying to point out to one guy (Jerry Don Bauer, I think his name was) that while there were no mathematical errors in his model of the evolution of a flagellum (which, predictably, "proved" that it couldn't happen), it was not in any way applicable to the real world, due to a host of inappropriate assumptions. His only response was to smugly point out that I couldn't find any errors in his math, therefore he was correct... Edited to add: Actually, this mode of thinking (whilst antithetical to most sciency types) is probably very easy to maintain for many people. Its the sort of mindset that routinely rationalises away evidence that contradicts one interpretation of the Bible - pick a philosophy, then hold onto it in the face of all else. Its a lot more certain and easier than messy old reality. No doubt when you do it your whole life it becomes pretty natural. |
| Date: 2008/08/15 17:40:45, Link 217.162.119.80 | ||
| Author: Jake | ||
I think a Cubs cap is a good idea. The Cubs are pretty famous due to flms and TV, but thats not the sort of thing that you can pick up easily in the UK. Baseball isnt really popular (soccer, rugby and cricket, mainly), but everyone wears caps :-) |
| Date: 2008/09/16 17:42:30, Link 80.218.136.12 | ||||
| Author: Jake | ||||
I think its more likely they are just idiots. Maybe they are evil idiots, Ill grant that... |
| Date: 2010/05/01 07:53:05, Link 131.152.13.36 | ||
| Author: Jake | ||
Actually, it is fairly common. Most editors aren't going to know all the relevant experts for everything they get sent to review, and the feeling from most journals is that the best person to tell them who would be a good expert reviewer is the person who wrote the paper, and who presumably knows what's what in the field. You can also send lists of people you don't want to review your paper... |
=====