AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Jim_Wynne

form_srcid: Jim_Wynne

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.198.244.0

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Jim_Wynne

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2006/07/01 05:26:43, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
After much lurking here, I decided to join in the fun. This morning I posted some observations regarding Davetard's massive intellect that y'all might find interesting.

Date: 2006/07/02 07:36:55, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
There's a new member of the UD commenting flock named Janie Bell, and she's started her own little blog.  She waxes confused over the whole jury nullification issue and here she appeals to a "legal expert" for clarification:

Quote
That whole legal fees thing is really getting to me. I was wondering to myself about whether it could be considered extortion. Since I have no legal background whatsoever, and since I had been meaning to join up over at Uncommon Descent anyway, I figured "why not go ask someone?" So I did. Nobody has answered yet, but I guess not everyone is on vacation for the whole summer.

I'll update this if Larry or some other legal expert over there ever answers.


We all know which "Larry" she's referring to.

Date: 2006/07/03 09:36:25, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I hold the honor of being the first person Janie's banned, and all I did was call Davey an idiot.  Janie can't stop talking about it now. Look here and here, for example.

Date: 2006/07/07 05:18:38, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Now I'm starting to wonder.  Does anyone else think it odd that a 17-year-old would use the phrase Danger Will Robinson?

Date: 2006/07/07 09:18:32, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Wrt the Cordova post at UD which references this bit of luskinism, it appears that Luskin is (probably deliberately) conflating editions (i.e., revisions) of the Miller/Levine text with printings of it.  Books may be reprinted without being revised, thus when Miller said in his Dover testimony that the language that Luskin is whining about was removed in the xth edition, he was apparently telling the truth.

Date: 2006/07/13 08:49:20, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
The DS Valentine comment:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1304#comment-47346

Date: 2006/09/09 04:55:43, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I was one of the ones who was taken in early on, and I posted about it here.  I backed off, thinking there might be something up, because there were clues, such as "Janie" referring to Larry Fafarman as a "legal expert," and the general tone of her erudition. I must say that it was wonderfully executed, though. I guess Davetard's phenomenal polymath, autodidactic information-processing capabilities were temporarily disconnected.  Now that the plug's back in, let the spinning begin!

Date: 2006/09/09 06:59:36, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
'"Due" might have been a slip-- the alpha dog acknowledging the submissive pack member's groveling, while reminding him who the alpha dog is.

Date: 2006/09/21 09:55:00, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Well, what constitutes intellectual property is a matter of some dispute. In general, intellectual property applies to ideas. The difference between an actual tangible thing and its design marks the fuzzy line.  The disclaimer on UD could have dispensed with the "intellectual" qualifier and thus might avoid the murky waters. Just saying "Comments become the property of..." is sufficient, so long as the entity receiving the rights is an actual entity.

Date: 2006/09/22 04:51:06, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Now back to our regularly scheduled program...

leebowman, with an uncommonly dense comment under this post:
 
Quote
Hmmmm, one wonders why it’s [NDE] still flying, but it seems to be losing altitude. Simplification is not the answer. While it’s true that we look for theory unifications and simplications, and despite Occam’s Inane Razor, you simply cannot unobstruct to facilitate. I sincerely doubt that a ‘one piece’ Unified Field Theory will ever be found.

Just as a biologic cell is incredibly complex, I look at the Embryo as a Biologic Production Facility. I equate the chicken / egg question to be restatable as “which came first, the Lincoln Navigator or the GM assembly plant.

Comment by leebowman — September 21, 2006 @ 2:53 pm



He unwittingly argues against himself, because Lincoln Navigators are made in Ford assembly plants.
I love it so!

Date: 2006/09/23 05:01:48, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote
Take it away, Dave!


Yes, Dave, please do take it away. It's starting to stink.

Date: 2006/09/23 05:10:59, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (REC @ Sep. 22 2006,10:36)
I also find generational-strawmen as 'evidence' silly. Especially when those strawmen were essentially correct-and were laying the foundations of cellular biology and biochemistry in 'protoplasm theory'. Read the 1911 definition of protoplasm, and tell me it is quaint: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Protoplasm The stuff of life, engaging in chemistry, with undefined 'granuals'.

I took a quote from REC's link and commented under BarryA's post, observing that it appeared to directly contradict his contention that Haeckel regarded cells as unsophisticated blobs of goo:
Quote
The importance of protoplasm, as the physical and material basis of life, has caused it to be the subject in recent years of much minute and laborious research. It seems obvious that matter so peculiarly endowed must possess a complexity of structure and organization far exceeding that which at first sight meets the eye.


The comment never appeared. I thought it might have a chance, as my earlier post making fun of DT's legal acumen and suggesting that he get help from Larry is still up.

Date: 2006/09/23 05:20:24, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Mike PSS @ Sep. 23 2006,08:36)
I think this is supposed to give an air of respectability to the paper to show that the author is well read and done full research into the subject (that they are butcherring).

It reminds me of this, from George Orwell:
Quote
Political language...is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

Just substitute "Religious" for "Political."

Date: 2006/09/23 06:12:37, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Gee, GOP accusing someone else of trollery. You said that Dave will show us "why the West is fundamentally Christian, and should remain so." And you want us to describe the necessary evidence?  Look--we all know exactly what's coming.  There will be no original thinking, a lot of David Barton/D. James Kennedy revisionism and bloviation, and no matter what anyone else says to the contrary, Dave will never admit that he's wrong.  That's why I said it's starting to stink.

Date: 2006/09/25 03:34:19, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (pzmyers @ Sep. 24 2006,09:45)
Ah, reminds me of my little town of Morris, Minnesota.

5000 people.

0 bookstores.

2 bars.

14 "restaurants" (using the term very loosely, to include McDonald's and Taco John's and such cheap grease factories. We really only have one place we can take visitors to without making apologies).

18 churches.

What a waste.

I live in a growing city on Lake Michigan, midway between Chicago and Milwaukee.  Population is expected to reach 100,000 by the 2010 census, and the number of churches is in three digits, and the number of bookstores, save for one tiny purveyor of used books, is zero.

On a related note, I recently saw a real estate agency's ad for a church property for sale.  One of the features of the building touted in the ad, apparently without a bit of irony, was "cathedral ceilings."

Date: 2006/09/25 05:26:54, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Sep. 25 2006,09:44)
Before I start, one question: does anyone deny that Judeo-Christian culture has contributed more to human knowledge than any other culture?

And so it begins, predictably, with a logical fallacy: post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

The fact that "B" follows "A" is not, in and of itself, evidence that "A" caused "B."

Date: 2006/09/27 06:21:17, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (argystokes @ Sep. 26 2006,19:56)
From OE:
 
Quote
My name is Samuel Chen and I am a student at the Honors College at Baylor University in Waco, Texas (though I am from Pennsylvania). I direct the Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center (www.idurc.org) and am a representative of the Access Research Network (www.arn.org) and a member of the Intelligent Design Evolution Awareness Center (www.ideacenter.org).


They have a research center?  Full of undergraduates?  I wonder who the head PI is?

I queried Brother Chen about the nature of his "Research Center" here a while back. The inimitable Joe G's ("Joseph" when posting at UD) comments under the post are also tardilicious.

Date: 2006/09/27 08:58:27, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 27 2006,13:12)
Quote
Where is the evidence hinted at by the site title...?

Never mind where the evidence is. It's overwhelming. I'm pretty sure Behe knows where it is. But we don't need your pathetic level of detail. Understand?

Date: 2006/10/04 08:18:09, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I think Mark might really be Anne Elk.

Date: 2006/10/08 05:52:56, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 07 2006,17:47)
Quote
Quote
Oh goody, the dopey little contributors at ATBC now proclaim that SAT scores don’t measure IQ. How can computer literate people make bogus claims like that when it’s so easy to do a little fact checking and they can be shown to be idiots making things up out of thin air so easily? It boggles my 99.97th percentile mind.

Almost all the High IQ societies accept SAT scores to meet entrance requirements. My SAT score was 1480 in 1978. I took it during my last few months in the Marine Corps after having been away from school for 4 years (except for a few business classes at Pepperdine). I can’t quite make it into the best of the best as my test score is only in the 99.97th percentile while societies like Prometheus and a few others require 99.99


There's only one thing one needs to say about this: In real life, what kind of person feels the need to brag about how intelligent they are based on absolutely nothing but 28 year old SAT scores?

Um, yes, I think Thank Dog has answered that question.

Bet he's thinking of buying a hummer.  :p

Dave's constant reminders of his prodigious intellect remind me of that early Steely Dan song:
Quote
You've been telling me you're a genius since you were seventeen
In all the time I've known you I still don't know what you mean.

Date: 2006/10/12 03:26:33, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Dumbski Dembski said:
Quote
Anybody who is willing and able to upgrade the look, feel, and functionality of this site (Uncommon Descent) to match that of the Dawkins site will receive three of my books autographed.


Second prize: 4 books.

Date: 2006/10/14 09:41:01, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 13 2006,13:02)
Quote (jujuquisp @ Oct. 13 2006,12:35)
I've only got one of these:
http://www.fender.com/products/search.php?partno=0116000700

Also very nice.

I bet you tune to Eb

Is this who you're referring to?


Oh, wait, that's E flat. Never mind.

Date: 2006/10/18 04:54:29, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 18 2006,09:35)
Deadman...  
Quote
Here's another one to add to your list, Dave: you ripping off and quotemining again. This is what pissed you off so much that you had to create another thread, knowing you were caught (once again) red-handed.
No quote mining.  I have already agreed several times with you that your source quite possibly is correct.  I did not have a reference which is why I posted it without one.  I may wind up agreeing with you about your 3150 BC date for the founding of Egypt.

Let's clarify here, Dave. Are you saying that the passage cited by Deadman, which you reproduced verbatim (without citation) came to you in a dream? Or that you reproduced the passage from memory, and that you can remember it word-for-word, and in the order of its source, but you can't remember the source?  Please explain.

Date: 2006/10/18 05:32:29, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 18 2006,10:25)
Jim Wynne ... no dreams.  I simply remember hearing of these problems somewhere ... possibly in a lecture and they stuck in my mind.  I freely admit that they could be mistaken as I make no pretense of being an authority on ancient Egypt.  But I am working to fix that!  Maybe you and Deadman can help me become an expert on ancient Egypt!

Don't change the subject. Answer the question: are you saying that you "...simply remember hearing of these problems..." and remember them verbatim, and can cite them from memory without paraphrasing? Is that your testimony?

Date: 2006/10/18 06:33:01, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 18 2006,10:59)
I don't know why the aparent fine tuning of the Universe is dissmissed so casually by posters here. As far as I am aware this is an aspect of the Universe that bothers plenty of Astronomers/Cosmologists and Physicists.

In the same way, and pretty much to the same extent, that any unanswered question "bothers" curious people. Heddle's argument is a classic attempt at shoving God into a gap and making impotent appeals to authority: It's all very puzzling, an highly unlikely, and prominent scientists think so too, so God must have done it.

Date: 2006/10/19 05:40:07, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (heddle @ Oct. 19 2006,08:27)
    But using God to answer the why question is perfectly reasonable—because you are answering a question that is outside of science.

This is exactly where Heddle and rationality part company. It is not "perfectly reasonable" to invoke a god as a catch-all for anything that we don't understand. How many times must this be proven?

Date: 2006/10/19 08:52:31, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (heddle @ Oct. 19 2006,11:56)
Jim_Wynee
     
Quote
This is exactly where Heddle and rationality part company. It is not "perfectly reasonable" to invoke a god as a catch-all for anything that we don't understand. How many times must this be proven?


No, it is perfectly reasonable to invoke God for questions outside the domain of science. You may wish to invoke purely secular philosophy or to ignore such questions, but I think most people would agree that such questions are in the domain of religion.

Shorter Heddle: Many people are irrational, so what they think must be rational.

 
Quote
So suppose the constants are determined from a theory. And suppose someone asks you why do think the theory just happened to produce the values in the life-supporting range. How would you answer?

"I don't know, but we're working on it"?

 
Quote
And why would it be irrational to invoke God in answering this non-scientific question?

It wouldn't be, so long as you agree that invoking the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't irrational either.

Date: 2006/10/20 04:15:55, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (heddle @ Oct. 19 2006,16:35)
Jim_Wynne

As I expected, you are actually begging the question. Your argument is really that any invoking of God is irrational-- it really has nothing to do the specifics of our discussion.

BTW "But we are working on it¨ is an irrational answer. The question was based on the premise that a theory of everything predicted the constants. There is no physics left to do--but we are left with the metaphysical question why the constants are in the necessary range. The problem cannot be "worked on"¨ in the sense of physics. So exactly how would you be working on it?

At about this point in any discussion with Heddle, it can be mildly entertaining to go back through the posts and count his uses of logical fallacies and his denials of invoking them.  At a glance, so far I can see the time-honored argument from personal incredulity (without which Heddle would be stuck in church), appeals to authority (Heddle: "You don't know what 'appeal to authority' means.") and now the obligatory false dilemma.

Date: 2006/10/20 07:12:00, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (ericmurphy @ Oct. 20 2006,12:06)
It doesn't matter how heterozygous Adam or Eve were.

Well, if Adam and Eve were homozygous, that would be an abomination.

Date: 2006/10/22 04:53:56, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 22 2006,08:27)
We will get to Antartica and penguins later when we talk about the Ice Age.

But first you should probably learn how to spell "Antarctica." By all means, though, I hope you do go there soon.

Date: 2006/10/22 05:00:26, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 22 2006,08:27)
Jeannot...
Quote
So according to you, the average thousand of species that descended from a couple of individuals in the Arch are "BAD things"?
The different species of salmonids adapted to salty and fresh water are all "BAD"?
No.  Only the mutations are bad.  The variability which was designed into these organisms was very good, but this variability is NOT the result of mutations as you have somehow been led to believe in school.

This is your fundamental error.  The sooner you can recognize this error, the more sense genetics will make to you.

Shorter Dave: Everything "good" that happens is a result of godloading, and everything "bad" is the result of mutation.  The evidence for godloading is favorable genetic changes, which we see all around us. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Date: 2006/10/24 05:30:17, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 24 2006,09:27)
I've often wondered how DT feels about the fact that since he's eventually forced to ban anyone at all intelligent there, the blog he polices is now top heavy with obvious dimwits, most of whom are indeed dumber than he is. I suspect he understands this situation perfectly well and continually wonders why he doesn't get a smarter class of wingnut at UD.

It's very simple, really. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, and  DT needs to be the king of something.

Date: 2006/10/25 06:44:29, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 25 2006,11:40)
Overwhelming Evidence has all the ambience of a deserted barn.

Before all the horseshite has been swept out.

Date: 2006/10/27 08:24:37, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (hereoisreal @ Oct. 26 2006,23:54)
The Golf Ball

by Tom Hemingway

It's monday, September 10, 2001, and I'm playing golf with a foursome at

La Cita Country Club in Titusville, Florida. I'm riding with my good friend

Denis Haggerty, a retired pro football player, and probably doing more

talking than playing.

We had torrential rain yesterday, courtesy of hurricane Erwin, which

has passed by and headed for Long Island, New York. Our course

drains well so we were able to play "cart paths only".


Along about the 6th hole, my first experience with a hurricane came to mind.

I said to Denis, "Being a Pennsylvania boy, I didn't have any idea what

a hurricane was all about until we were invited to Long Island in the

early 50's for the wedding of my friend Jack Dwyer's sister.


The power was out and the rain was teeming down. We wrapped

the bride in sheets, carried her into the candle lit church for the ceremony.

Afterward we went to a reception at a country club, I think, is named Westward Ho."


Denis, a Long Islander, replied, "It must have been Southward Ho in Brightwaters."


With my memory being what it is at this stage in my life, I didn't argue.


On my drive at the 8th hole, I pulled my ball into the woods. While looking

for my errant shot, I found an old, algae encrusted ball and picked it up out

of the moss. At the next tee I washed my ball and the one I had found.


When Denis completed his tee shot, I said, "Look at the logo on this old

ball I found. It says, ' SOUTHWARD HO COUNTRY CLUB' ".


Neither Denis or I had been near that club in over 40 years.


ps:

Saterday, 13 March, 2004, Tom gave me a copy of this story because

I knew about it and wanted to include it on my web page.

I was almost finished copying it into my computer when my wife

called me to dinner.


While eating, I had the Golf Channel on. The announcer on Golf

Central said that three golfers who had never had hole-in-ones

accomplished the feat together. Two on one hole and the other on

the next par 3.

This sounds something like Jungian synchronicity. Do you like Sting? My sister has a yellow golf ball, if you do. I once went hunting and shot at two rabbits. Afterwards, I discovered that there was a hole in one. And there was a golf ball in the trunk of my car, which was also yellow.

Date: 2006/10/30 08:50:49, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 30 2006,12:52)
if you're true to your belief system and comfortable in your own skin, then people will respect your integrity.

Exactly. For instance,

Date: 2006/11/01 02:40:35, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 01 2006,06:54)
MORE ABOUT GENETIC RICHNESS (OK, GENETIC DIVERSITY), BOTTLENECKS AND ALLELIC DIVERSITY
Those of you who truly want to understand the creationist position on genetic diversity possible with the Flood/Ark scenrio should read John Woodmorappe's book Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study.  

Woodmorappe? WOODMORAPPE?? For those who have bothered to objectively review the relentlessly stupid book in question, it's been made clear that the author made a fatal (and most likely deliberate) mistake in basing his feasibility contention on the  median size of the animals on board rather than the mean size. No doubt the substitution was made in the belief that the author's target audience was too dumb to know the difference and its significance wrt "feasibility."  Looks like the strategy was successful.

Date: 2006/11/03 05:06:19, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I just left this comment at UD:
Quote
McGrew and Cordova are both wrong about this; the quote is accurate and right where Myers said it is.  Have a look here


I bet it doesn't see the light of day.

Date: 2006/11/03 05:10:35, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Now there's a new post at UD, asking Sal why he deleted the one with the link to PZ's post:
Quote
10. HodorH // Nov 3rd 2006 at 11:06 am

Sal, why was the comment linking to Myers’s response deleted? It seems the best way to get to the truth of the matter would be to get all the information. If links to foul-mouthed christian haters are not allowed no matter what the situation, I think it would at least be appropriate to note that the accusation that Myers “changed Wells’s wording” isn’t exactly accurate.

Comment by HodorH — November 3, 2006 @ 11:06 am

Date: 2006/11/03 05:26:48, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (argystokes @ Nov. 03 2006,11:17)
And the awesome just keeps coming.  MacNeill stops by to bring the pain:
 
Quote


Apparently the comment linking to Myers’s response was deleted because it was “inconvenient” - in other words, it showed that McGraw’s allegations are entirely without merit, and that Myers’s original statements were, in fact, exactly as he represented them.
Why is it so difficult to admit this?

Comment by Allen_MacNeill — November 3, 2006 @ 11:13 am


EDIT:  Uh, oh, trouble at the farm.  Asstastic moderator Patrick has posted PZ's scanning of the infamous pp. 35, and criticized Sal for not fact-checking!  I give this thread about 20 minutes before it disappears (that's be about 8:35 PST)

Clueless Cordova has now responded to Patrick:
Quote
13. scordova // Nov 3rd 2006 at 11:22 am

Patrick,

I posted it for discussion, I wan the readers to decide and argue amonst themselves and provide data and links or whatever.

What is at issue is not what Ballard said, but Myers quotaion of Wells.

Sal

Comment by scordova — November 3, 2006 @ 11:22 am


It just keeps getting better and better. Does Sal really think that this is about what Ballard said???

Date: 2006/11/03 05:32:54, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Sal now replies to MacNeill, and in so doing digs the hole a little deeper:
Quote
15. scordova // Nov 3rd 2006 at 11:27 am

Apparently the comment linking to Myers’s response was deleted because it was “inconvenient” - in other words, it showed that McGraw’s allegations are entirely without merit,

Allen,

That is not accurate, I cut and pasted things, links die in the process. Any of the readers and commenters can post links to amend the situation.

They can follow the links to McGrew’s original comment that have all the hot links.

But for what it’s worth:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....;Myer’s response to Wells

Sal

Comment by scordova — November 3, 2006 @ 11:27 am


A comment is deleted, and Sal ascribes it to some sort of C&P accident. Shit happens, doncha know.
Since Sal is obviously too dumb to disappear the thread himself, it can't be too long before someone else does it for him.

Date: 2006/11/03 05:42:13, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Not content with the absurdity of his initial response to MacNeill, Sal has now edited it:
Quote
15. scordova // Nov 3rd 2006 at 11:27 am

Apparently the comment linking to Myers’s response was deleted because it was “inconvenient” - in other words, it showed that McGraw’s allegations are entirely without merit,

Allen,

That is not accurate, my post was at 3am, Myers is at 10am. How the heck can I post a link to something that didn’t exist yet?

But for what it’s worth:

PZ is such a LIAR!

Sal


Deleted post? What deleted post?

Date: 2006/11/03 06:04:45, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 03 2006,11:51)
OOohhh! *claps hands*

 
Quote
24. Patrick // Nov 3rd 2006 at 11:47 am

I’ve been deleting snarky comments ever since this page was posted but I don’t remember zapping anything by franky172 (I even let in his latest comment; see #18).

Sal, I forget, do you even have mod capabilities?

Comment by Patrick — November 3, 2006 @ 11:47 am


So there we have it.

Science has: Peer review.
ID has: "Deleting snarky comments"

Patrick can't remember deleting the comment because...it was DT who did it:
Quote
26. DaveScot // Nov 3rd 2006 at 11:47 am

I pulled the link Franky left to Myers’ response, not Sal, and then temporarily banned Franky while I sorted the mess out. Franky’s on the moderation list not the banned list and is free to comment here subject to moderator approval. Myers won’t let me put links to our blog on his so it’s only fair that I snuff his here. I made an exception just to get the page scan from Wells’ book and left out all Myers’ vile diatribe that went with it.

Comment by DaveScot — November 3, 2006 @ 11:47 am


Right now, everyone there, including DT, is trying like crazy to build strawmen and deny the fact that the whole thing is about McGrew's calling Myers a liar:
Quote
21. scordova // Nov 3rd 2006 at 11:38 am

Allen,

See my corrected post in response to you above. There is no way I deleted myers response, since, well it wasn’t even posted until after I made this entry.

Or if Hodor was referring to the original PT post, the readers can access it easily by following McGrew’s links.

What is at issue is page 30-31, not page 35. Myers is omitting the fact he ignored what Wells actually wrote on page 31 as McGrew pointed out.

The issue is whether Myers misrepresented the clear intent of what Wells was writing by omitting what Wells wrote on page 31.

Comment by scordova — November 3, 2006 @ 11:38 am


And this from the King of Tardzania himself:
Quote
22. DaveScot // Nov 3rd 2006 at 11:41 am

It appears that Myers was quote mining a quote mining.

If this is an accurate scan

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2006/11/pigdig35.gif

of page 35 (and I presume it is) Myers evidently cherry picked this box quote and ignored the text on pp. 30-31 where Wells included the gastrula stage clarification that Myers objects to as being left out.

Clearly Wells wasn’t trying to hide anything as the gastrula is explicitely mentioned in the text of the book. The box quote uses “early embryo stages of vertebrates” instead of “the cleavage and gastrulation stages of vertebrates” as is used in the text.

So now we need to look at whether or not “early embryo stage” is a fair phrase to use in describing cleavage and gastrulation stages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastrulation

Gastrulation is a phase early in the development of animal embryos

The answer, yes it is entirely accurate to refer to gastrulation as an early embyro phase.

So now we ask ourselves why the big box quote might use a different phrase.

Everyone raise their hand who doesn’t have to rush to a biology textbook to have a clue what an “early embryo stage” is.

Now everyone raise their hand that immediately knows what “cleavage and gastrulation” is?

Wells simply used a fair and more widely understood phrase in a big bold text box to highlight an important point and he put the more obscure but more accurate biology language in the text.

Myers probably shouldn’t be a teacher if doesn’t get that. Of course we all knew that already.

Comment by DaveScot — November 3, 2006 @ 11:41 am


This just might be the tardy-est thread ever.

Date: 2006/11/06 15:10:35, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 06 2006,13:15)
DaveScot came to my blog to say Hi. (Actually, he called me a "potty mouth freak.") :D

He was at mine today too. He dropped in, performed an act of acute tardity (see the next-to-last and last comments under the linked post) and he was gone.

Date: 2006/11/09 10:52:15, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I think this is more like it:

Date: 2006/11/09 11:25:06, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Russell @ Nov. 09 2006,10:12)
On a completely tangential note, as long as I have the attention of at least a couple of people who have significant indiginous ancestry... The author sticks to the term "Indian" - and gives a number of good reasons for doing so. I've always avoided that term, I guess largely because most "Indians" I have personally known are from southern Asia. Your thoughts?

"Native American" correctly refers to anyone born in the Americas, regardless of ethnic origin, as does indigenous.  The correct word to use in reference to the first known inhabitants is "aboriginal."
I'm a native American, but not an Indian.  In a similar sense, I have a friend from Libya who is an African American, but who is not black.

Date: 2006/11/14 09:02:50, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,08:51)
Shirley...  
Quote
You can provide no evidence whatsoever to support a charge of lying against Deadman.
 
Quote
"THIS is what I said ...  
PEOPLE LIKE DEADMAN WHO SAY THAT C14 DATING PROVES THINGS LIKE A PRE-FLOOD EGYPT AND PRE-HISTORIC MAN ARE ... LYING TO YOU !! "

Prove it.  Give a permalink to a single post in this or your previous thread where Deadman asserts that C14 dating provided proof of a pre-flood Egypt.
You cannot because he did not.
OK.  That's easy.

 
Quote
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 09 2006,22:58)
 
Quote
AFD..."What good evidence do you have that Egypt (or China) existed prior to about 2200 BC?"   Simple question, Deadman.

Coming from you, all questions and statements are simple, Dave...consider the source...you.
I mentioned some of the data in my previous post to you, Dave, including an explicit mention of radiocarbon dates on the Great Pyramid itself. There are far more -- many, many more.  The Evidence for Sumer, Natufian and Assyrian, Babylonian groups etc, is very extensive, Dave.

(snip)

You can start with the radiometric 14C dates on the pyramids
(http://www.archaeology.org/9909/abstracts/pyramids.html )    
that precede the flood date you believe in...and why there are no sediments showing a global flood affected them.

Anything else you want to argue, Shirley?

********************************

Oh and Deadman ... still waiting to hear your SPECIFIC objections to Dr. Batten's article that I posted most recently.

I've resisted coming into this thread because of a dislike for beating my head against the wall but...

Dave, do you understand the difference between evidence and proof?  Sometimes a preponderance of the former may be characterized as being equal to the latter, but they're two different things. You asked Deadman for evidence, and he gave it to you, then you move the goalposts and claim that you were asking for proof.  You'll never get anywhere if you don't understand the basic terms, or if you do understand them and prevaricate.

Since Dave has been backed into a corner wrt RC dating and is now attempting to escape via changing the subject, I suggest that we keep holding his feet to the fire on the subject at hand, and ignore his obfuscatory excursions into irrelevance. Let him either answer the questions he's trying to avoid, or drown in his own stupid flood.

Date: 2006/11/14 10:05:55, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 14 2006,09:50)
Oh brother ... more word games ... "evidence" vs. "proof" ...

Regardless of which word you use, you are still lying to public school kids with my tax dollars.

Shameful !!

Well, since you think that an pointing out an important distinction is "word games,"  I hope that you never leave fingerprints or other evidence somewhere where someone else commits, or has committed, a crime. Evidence=proof, right?

Date: 2006/11/15 13:57:17, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote
He says he enjoyed Miller's testimony, which is puzzling, because based on his discussion of it, he didn't read it at all.

He enjoyed it for its soporific effect.

Date: 2006/11/17 12:03:20, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,11:39)
What part of that post did you not understand?

Well, I just keep wondering how your argument is substantively different from this one:
Quote
...a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.


This seems to be your version of the scientific method:
1) Make a wild-assed unsupportable assertion.
2) Superficially review the available data on the subject.
3) Reject everything found in Step 2.
4) Make shit up, and provide links to others who've done so.
5) Declare VICTORY

Date: 2006/11/17 12:15:15, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
And another thing...

I assume that a linear foot is not equal to 12 inches. I know you don't believe that, but bear with me. Try to use your imagination.  I assume that a foot is equal to one meter.  This means that I am nearly 20 feet tall. Understand? There were giants in the earth in those days, you know. This explains it. Don't we have to make assumptions sometimes?

Date: 2006/11/17 13:10:57, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 17 2006,12:42)
Please give me an example.  And don't try to use   micro-evolutionary theory.  

Date: 2006/11/17 13:37:56, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 17 2006,13:27)
I never understand why comics, given all the complaining about the shrinking size in the newspaper, are published on the web in the same tiny, hardly readable size.

That was my fault I should have provided a link: Jesus & Mo

Date: 2006/11/18 08:54:38, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 18 2006,00:34)
I've always heard that expression refer to a petard as a small bomb, like a satchel charge, that was used to blow holes in defensive walls or gates.  It was employed by having the combat engineer run up to the gate, hand place the device, then light the fuse and run like he11.  If the fuse was too long, defenders could and would just run over and snuff it out.  To prevent this, the engineer would make the fuse as short as possible.  If the fuse was too short, KABOOM! while the poor guy was still standing there - hoist with his own petard i.e. blown skyward by his own weapon.

This is the correct etymology of the phrase. Have a look here. The link is to the World Wide Words site authored by lexicographer and author Michael Quinion, and I've found it to be an eminently reliable source on English etymology.

Date: 2006/12/03 10:27:24, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
This morning PZ Myers links to a List of 281 Ways to Irritate an Atheist. See how many you can count that remind you of Davey.

Date: 2006/12/05 14:51:28, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 05 2006,13:57)
DaveScot  
Quote
Random mutations are by definition unpredictable. The theory cannot predict what mutations will occur, when they will occur. or what effect they will have. It’s without predictive value.


Add probability theory to things DaveScot either doesn't understand. Consider that there is such a thing as a probability "theory" for a flavor of why DaveScot is wrong.

The tardy boy never learns. I noticed his problems with the concept of randomness back in July. Here's part of what he said at UD that got me:
Quote
To call any mutation “random” requires that you demonstrate 1) the unverse is not entirely deterministic and 2) you have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that no unknown directed process is involved. I won’t hold my breath while you show me where these are demonstrated. What random in this case really means is “unknown cause”.

Date: 2006/12/12 11:15:51, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 12 2006,11:00)
HOW CAN BRILLIANT SCIENTISTS BE WRONG ABOUT SUCH A BIG, BASIC THING?
I cannot explain it, but I do know it happens all the time.  

That says all anyone needs to know about Dave and his "hypothesis."

Date: 2006/12/14 07:22:06, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 13 2006,16:53)
Quote
The difference in complexity between a watch and a butterfly is a relative one. The difference in reproductive capacity is absolute.
Why is reproductive ability not simply a matter of degree of complexity?  What do you mean ... absolute?

OK, that's it. No one who can learn to tie his own shoes or fly an airplane can be that stupid.

Date: 2006/12/14 12:26:01, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
The New Scientist reporter who wrote the piece is Celeste Biever, who is the same reporter who attempted the nefarious infiltration of the Cornell IDEA club.

Date: 2006/12/22 12:39:45, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 22 2006,08:18)
You are very confused.  Engineers (incuding nano-engineers) don't say "Design is a mechanism".  
I love it!

Oh really? The world-famous ID advocate Joe G. begs to differ. And he claims to be an engineer.

Date: 2007/02/09 22:23:32, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 09 2007,21:54)
I wonder what he makes out of the vast innervation of the clitoris?

I don't know, but I'm all for it.

Date: 2007/04/06 11:08:34, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (phonon @ April 06 2007,10:45)
Love this:tyharris
 
Quote
I am absolutely getting hammered guys. If there is ANYBODY out there with a reasonable, rational, and polite argument in FAVOR of creationism, could you please stop by and add a comment?



Patrick:  
Quote
All I have to say is that you either need to get really, really thick-skinned or implement a better moderation/filtering system if possible. It’s amazing how nasty these people can be…and how much free time they seem to have.

Apollo  
Quote
tyharris,

I agree with Patrick. Moderate your blog.

That's right. If you "get hammered" by those evil Darwinistas, just delete their posts and you win by default. No, Jesus wins.

Speaking of Jesus winning, check out this SP Easter Special. It's friggin genius, IMO.

Ty Harris, the poor fool, has but a single post on his blog thus far, and he made the foolish mistake of linking to it from UD. Blissfully ignorant of the fact that the UD denizens don't like going where comments aren't moderated, he thought that a lot of them (even Dembski) would come to his rescue.  I left a few comments in foolishly thinking that he might be willing to listen to reason, but he's just another typical Paleyist whose mind is made up.

My guess is that he'll start "moderating" and fade back into talking to himself, or just give it up and go back to his knitting.

Date: 2007/04/06 12:41:31, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Ty Harris gets just the help he was looking for, from UDer  kairosfocus:
Quote
Is it just an epiphenomenon of underlying neuronal networks firing away, having originated by chance and necessity, and having survived by being well adapted to the life ofan ape with too many neurons for his own good out on the plains of E Africa? So, why should we pay any more attention to it than to a chimp throwing a tantrum and launching lumps of faeces at anyone within range? And, if your consciousness is so delusional that it leads you to imagine that “moral outrage” at those who challenge “facts” and “science” is more than just an interesting fact of your neuronal networks, then why should we take such a delusional brain-emanation any more seriously than we take the ravings and screams of an angry chimp?]

We could go on and on, on the issue of originating the sort of functionally specified complex information that is more and more evidently a fundamental constituent of the cosmos. But first, are “you” there to debate with? (Or are we simply dealing with lucky noise that happened to burst through the internet — chance plus necessity can explain anything in a sufficiently large universe, especially a quasi-infinite one . . .


I hope Ty is appropriately thankful for the support.

Date: 2007/04/06 13:19:42, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (wintermute @ April 06 2007,13:10)
Quote
So, why should we pay any more attention to it than to a chimp throwing a tantrum and launching lumps of faeces at anyone within range?

Sounds like something I'd want to pay plenty of attention to.

Have you ever tried to get chimp fæces out of wool? It's not easy, you know.

That's why you never see chimps and sheep in the same room.

Date: 2007/04/08 12:49:03, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 08 2007,11:25)
Will someone please explain the diffence between 'climate' and 'weather' to DaveTard?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-top....rnation

I just asked Dave at UD if he knows the difference, but I have a strange feeling that my question won't make it through the Banninator Filter. And oddly enough, I seem to be unbanned.

Date: 2007/04/17 14:36:57, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
If FtK is famous for anything, it's evasion of the issues. She likes to blab and make it seem like she knows what she's talking about, but when push comes to shove, she has nothing but lame excuses.

She was a recipient of my Stupid Blog of the Week Award, and in the linked post I brought up one of her KCFS forum acts of ignorance.  She had commented, in an age-of-the-earth discussion, that she thought that radiocarbon dating methods were unreliable, and that YECs  
Quote
... simply believe that some of the inferred interpretations involved in various fields of science are questionable.


I asked her why she would accept the basic ideas of nuclear physics when they were applied to such things as nuclear reactors and hydrogen bombs, but reject them when they conflicted with her religious ideas.  
Quote
If a YEC accepts the science that results in MRI machines working and hydrogen bombs detonating and nuclear power plants producing electricity, but denies the efficacy of radioisotope dating methods, do you not see a conflict? How can the same science applied in different situations be "questionable" in one, and accepted without question in all of the others?


Eventually she answered,
Quote
Okay, I'm seriously on overload. Something has to give. I've got to think of a way to get a week's vacation on some cruise ship visiting exotic places, and during the down time I could lock myself up in a cabin having a ball researching all this stuff.


And then
 
Quote
I'm sorry, but it just seems to me like you are comparing apples and oranges. Let me give it some more thought. I'll add you to the list...

Just so you don't think I'm blowing you off or taking it seriously, I did discuss this with my husband and he pretty much thought the same thing. But, I'LL GIVE IT MORE THOUGHT.


Some 9 months later, she's apparently still thinking about it, which might explain her reluctance to discuss anything of substance here.  It looks like she needs many months, if not  years, to explain why she feels such confidence in spouting off about subjects even after she's admitted her ignorance in them.

Date: 2007/04/17 15:07:23, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 17 2007,14:53)
... FTK doesn't come across as an unemployable mentally ill loner on disability.

You're right--there's no evidence that she's on disability.

Date: 2007/04/18 15:05:09, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Davetard weighs in at FTK's blog  on the VA Tech shootings, and stays in character, speculating on the religious/ethnic affiliation of the shooter:
 
Quote
I'm willing to bet long odds he wasn't a member of any mainstream Christian church, that's for sure. Islam wouldn't be surprising as mass murder of anonymous strangers including women and children in innocent public settings to make a political point seems to be de rigueur for them. There's also some speculation it's tied to an Asian gang.

Date: 2007/04/18 15:25:45, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (J-Dog @ April 18 2007,14:59)
"The Virgin Mary in the palm of your hands, and swallowing".

I wonder if that would have been her first taste of Christianity.

Date: 2007/04/19 10:32:42, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ April 19 2007,10:09)
* I take that back, my money is on Joseph.  Clearly he's the dumbest so far, and he elegantly demonstrates how when one "practices" ID (uses the "logic" built in the theory), science grinds to a halt.

I don't think there's much doubt that Joe is the most stupidest of the stupid. Witness:

Quote

Q: “Why do we have wisdom teeth if they do not fit our jaws?”

A: ...What we see now is after many gnerations of genetic accidents caused by pollutants.


It reminds me of a writer, whose name I don't recall, talking about the difference between truth and fiction: Fiction has to make sense.

Date: 2007/05/07 15:53:56, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (J-Dog @ May 07 2007,12:36)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 07 2007,11:54)
More projection from DT
     
Quote
Ignoring contrary evidence is common with pundits of both manmade global warming and chance & necessity evolution. Also common is the driving forces behind both; politics, ideology, and a quest for power by a self-annointed (sic) progressive elite.

That's right!  Those evil scientists want all the power! And they are willing to ignore contrary evidence in order to seize it...

That's a great link!  I recommend reading the Ty Harris post - He lists @ 100 terms describing ID and ID Creos!  

Maybe he is a troll, and found a great way to sneak them onto Dembski's Very Own Blog!  This could even rival the Jeannie Bell Scam from last summer!

Ty Harris is quite a piece of work.  He initiated a stupid blog called Essays by Ty Harris that has (like blogs of our friend JAD) but one post, but there are over 200 comments under it.
I gave Ty a Major Award in acknowledgment of his premium tardity.

Date: 2007/05/07 20:43:16, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ May 07 2007,20:33)
True Christians, if they have ever read their bible and are familiar with the words of Christ, realize that the last thing He would ever suggest is a take over of the government.

And no true Scotsman would ever...

It's hard to argue with someone who's seen the mind of jebus.

Date: 2007/05/08 20:27:20, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,10:08)
Wes,

I understood the point, but I was wondering what you believe Shaw to be saying specifically.  I also wonder if you agree with his quote.

Not answering for Wes, of course, but perhaps Shaw meant something like Thomas Jefferson wrote in an 1820 letter to William Short:
 
Quote
It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentence toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore him to the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, the roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and the first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus.

Date: 2007/05/08 21:34:35, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,21:11)
So, why would one claim to be a Christian if they do not adhere to the central tenants of Chirstianity, namely Christ's fulfillment of OT prophecy and his death and resurrection?

Is a "tenant" of Christianity someone who rents a room in a parsonage?  I hope I don't become a pirahna for pointing out that the word is "tenets."

Date: 2007/05/08 21:49:07, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ May 08 2007,21:11)
I guess I wonder why some people are Christian, yet seem to reject most of the NT...especially some of the Christians in this debate.

Dear Pirahna Lady,

Do you presume to be the Great Arbiter of the Central "Tenants" of Christianity?  You decide who's a "true" Christian and who isn't?  Why should we accept your interpretation of scripture (or the one you've chose to become a tenant of)?

Date: 2007/05/09 15:47:26, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,14:39)
Quote
FTK - There is a famous quote: "a rabbit in the Cambrian" would falsify TOE.....


No it wouldn't.  I've read lots of stuff about out of place fossils.

Name one. Just one. And please, please, no "polystrate" trees.

Date: 2007/05/10 09:18:38, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ May 09 2007,14:39)
Quote
FTK - There is a famous quote: "a rabbit in the Cambrian" would falsify TOE.....


No it wouldn't.  I've read lots of stuff about out of place fossils.  There is also soft dinosaur tissue found in 70,000,000 year old fossils to contend with.  

No matter....just a fucking fluke.  Evolutionists start whipping out just-so stories right and left.  Happens all the time.

Once again, FtK, let's have an example of a misplaced fossil. Or are you too busy all of a sudden?

On a related note, my initial introduction to "the controversy" came in the form of a creationist coworker spouting off about misplaced fossils.  When I expressed doubt, he provided me with a list of 50 or 100--I forget--compiled by none other than the pseudonymous John Woodmorappe.  I decided to take one example at random from the list and look into it.  Turned out that not only was the "misplaced" fossil not misplaced, Woodmorappe compounded the lie by mischaracterizing the situation.

Basically, it was like this:  a fossilized mammal of a certain species was regarded to be the oldest example of its type found up to that point.  At some later point, an earlier example was found (in the correct stratum).   That was what Woodmorappe was describing as "misplaced." He said it was obvious that scientists didn't know what they were doing because they had one fossil that was they claimed was the oldest, but then someone else found an older one, so the first guys were lying.

When I pointed out the obvious folly to my coworker, he smiled ignorantly and said, "Sure. evolutionists seem to have an answer for everything, don't they.

Date: 2007/05/10 10:06:33, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 10 2007,10:00)
Quote (keiths @ May 10 2007,09:41)
500 pages of the Officially Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread -- the Internet's premier monument to Tard.

w00T!

500 pages, how much CSI is that?

And what about all of the SLoT violations required to type all of these posts? It staggers the mind!

Date: 2007/05/10 10:16:00, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 10 2007,10:08)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 10 2007,10:06)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 10 2007,10:00)
 
Quote (keiths @ May 10 2007,09:41)
500 pages of the Officially Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread -- the Internet's premier monument to Tard.

w00T!

500 pages, how much CSI is that?

And what about all of the SLoT violations required to type all of these posts? It staggers the mind!

I'm mostly impressed by the pathetic level of detail involved.

Yes, but it's mostly street theater. I have an IQ north of some numbers that are farther south, and no one can tell me that this all came about by itself.

Date: 2007/05/10 10:36:23, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Sorry, but I'm very busy right now and just don't have the time to answer all of these questions. I'll get back to you when I have the time, even though I realize that I might become a pirahna if I give an answer that doesn't agree with your scientific atheist world view.  I have a life, you know.

Date: 2007/05/15 22:05:17, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (keiths @ May 15 2007,19:30)
Ouch -- DaveTard gets mocked at Scientific American's blog.  

For an autodictor who owes the entirety of his scientific knowledge to unread issues of SciAm, that's gotta hurt.

And at UD, after 3 or 4 commenters took him to task, Peewee Herman Davetard claims that he meant to fall off the bicycle:
 
Quote
Okay, so maybe nothing nefarious is afoot. I was looking for an excuse to expose some of Guillermo’s work and who’s using it in academia.


You just couldn't make this stuff up and expect anyone to believe it.

Date: 2007/05/16 13:56:37, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (blipey @ May 16 2007,13:12)
My butt-ass stupid clownish fourbarers, who travelled extensively in Europe in the 14th & 15th centuries AD (that's 1400-1599 for you non-learned homos-

Actually, that's 1300-1499. Homo.

Edit: 1301-1500. Homos.

Date: 2007/05/16 14:06:23, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I'VE RED ALL THRU THIS THREAD (UNLESS YOUR AS SMART AS ME YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW FAST I READ THINGS) AND HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING ABOUT A BORED MECHANIC. GET ON TOPIC OR HIT THE RODE.
-DT

Date: 2007/05/18 19:57:04, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Joseph seems to think that he has to get stupider as time goes by:
Quote

To me the “amazing” thing about Polaris isn’t just that it sits above our North Pole, but that it can be found due to the pointer (Ursa Major) that accompanies it.

IOW to find Polaris in the midst of all the stars just find the “big dipper” (easy to spot) and follow the outside edge of its pot to Polaris.


Truly "amazing."

Date: 2007/05/23 10:20:17, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 22 2007,07:04)
DT boggles. "At first glance, it seems like a clear-cut case of discrimination" turns into, "The Chronicle says of Gonzalez 'a clear case of discrimination'":
   
Quote
The Chronicle says of Gonzalez “a clear case of discrimination”
DaveScot


The Chronicle of Higher Education has a balanced article on Iowa State’s refusal to tenure Guillermo Gonzalez.

"Advocate of Intelligent Design Who Was Denied Tenure Has Strong Publications Record
By RICHARD MONASTERSKY

At first glance, it seems like a clear-cut case of discrimination. As an assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Iowa State University, Guillermo Gonzalez has a better publication record than any other member of the astronomy faculty. He also happens to publicly support the concept of intelligent design. Last month he was denied tenure."

Two lines later, a statement that summarizes the thrust of the article:
   
Quote
But a closer look at Mr. Gonzalez's case raises some questions about his recent scholarship and whether he has lived up to his early promise.

One thing is clear: Dave Springer should be denied tenure.

On the contrary; DT should be the beneficiary of an endowed chair in Applied Tardology at the Southwestern Babble Seminary.

Date: 2007/05/23 16:19:57, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 23 2007,15:43)
Constructive criticism is one thing, and it involves intelligence, while you merely snipe (yeah, real funny Steve--if it was, you would probably have the sense to quit telling the same "joke" over and over again).

OK, some constructive criticism. You have a tendency towards verbosity that causes many of your posts to have a decided soporific effect. When this is pointed out to you, you characterize the person making the observation as lacking in intellectual capacity, rather than acknowledging the bloody obvious and moving on.  It's much harder to write a short, cogent post than a long, rambling one, but you should give it a go.

And I know, I'm just an illiterate twat who's too blind to recognize your awesome perspicacity.

Date: 2007/05/23 16:28:53, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 23 2007,13:26)
DS. King of All Tardom
 
Quote
It’s already well established that intelligent agency can impose any physically possible order regardless of the improbability by chance alone.


DS, please make me a mile high diamond tower covered in neutronium. Or a light year long sheet of paper. etc etc.

You're asking the wrong guy--he said intelligent agency.

Date: 2007/05/23 16:54:38, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 23 2007,16:32)
I didn't learn what I did to kowtow to lowing cattle such as you, asshole.

At which point Glen continues to kowtow to my lowing.

Hard to believe, isn't it?
I love it so!

Date: 2007/05/23 17:09:06, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (argystokes @ May 23 2007,17:02)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 23 2007,14:54)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 23 2007,16:32)
I didn't learn what I did to kowtow to lowing cattle such as you, asshole.

At which point Glen continues to kowtow to my lowing.

Hard to believe, isn't it?
I love it so!
Glen could have won the sextuple bovine award, with just a little more care!

You betcha. Even so, he gave me quite a hiding, (although prodded) catching me as he did on the horns of his ruminations.  It would behoove me to be more careful in the future, so as not to be corralled again.

Date: 2007/05/23 17:49:34, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (carlsonjok @ May 23 2007,17:44)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 23 2007,17:09)
Quote (argystokes @ May 23 2007,17:02)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 23 2007,14:54)
 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 23 2007,16:32)
I didn't learn what I did to kowtow to lowing cattle such as you, asshole.

At which point Glen continues to kowtow to my lowing.

Hard to believe, isn't it?
I love it so!
Glen could have won the sextuple bovine award, with just a little more care!

You betcha. Even so, he gave me quite a hiding, (although prodded) catching me as he did on the horns of his ruminations.  It would behoove me to be more careful in the future, so as not to be corralled again.

I hate to horn in, but please don't steer the conversation in that direction again.

I used "horns" already. You get points for "steer," though.

Date: 2007/05/23 17:59:00, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (carlsonjok @ May 23 2007,17:55)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 23 2007,17:49)
Quote (carlsonjok @ May 23 2007,17:44)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 23 2007,17:09)
 
Quote (argystokes @ May 23 2007,17:02)
   
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 23 2007,14:54)
   
Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 23 2007,16:32)
I didn't learn what I did to kowtow to lowing cattle such as you, asshole.

At which point Glen continues to kowtow to my lowing.

Hard to believe, isn't it?
I love it so!
Glen could have won the sextuple bovine award, with just a little more care!

You betcha. Even so, he gave me quite a hiding, (although prodded) catching me as he did on the horns of his ruminations.  It would behoove me to be more careful in the future, so as not to be corralled again.

I hate to horn in, but please don't steer the conversation in that direction again.

I used "horns" already. You get points for "steer," though.

Well, you don't have to get all hoofy with me.

I wouldn't get hoofy if I cud.

Date: 2007/05/24 20:50:34, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 24 2007,20:14)
Hector Avalos, professor of corn pone and erstwhile nemesis of Guillermo Gonzalez, responds to his critics here.

You should look up "erstwhile" and find out what it means.

Date: 2007/05/24 21:08:39, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 24 2007,20:56)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 24 2007,20:50)
You should look up "erstwhile" and find out what it means.

As far as I know, Avalos' shadowing and attempts to incite the faculty against Gonzalez were in the past.

A predictable response.  So Avalos is not a current "nemesis" of GG.  So wtf is your point here?

Date: 2007/05/24 22:04:36, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote
I am very well read in the field, and I have you to encounter your name.


I'll bet that the fact that you don't seem to know the difference between "you" and "yet" but blither in Latin impressed the crap out of him.

Date: 2007/05/25 14:18:27, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (J-Dog @ May 25 2007,14:07)
My revelation must have come just a little behind your's, so MY religion will be called "The Second Church of Mathists"

YOU MEAN YOU WANT TO WORSHIP THIS GUY? HOMOS.

Date: 2007/05/27 09:52:49, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I agree with the consensus here that direct engagement is probably futile, but if there's a group involved, sometimes there will be collateral influence.  Here in the Series of Tubes, for every person who posts in a place like this there might be hundreds of lurkers, and many of those people can be influenced.  The same applies to face-to-face conversations; if there is a group of people, most of whom are just listening, there could be some influence even if the person you're speaking to directly is impervious to reason.

I have a born-again sister-in-law, and I had a brief conversation on the subject of evolution with her a while back, but it ended, predictably, in her saying, "Well, we look at the same evidence, but just interpret it differently." I was content to let it go at that in the interest of family harmony, and the subject was never brought up again, and we've lived happily ever after.

Date: 2007/05/28 21:07:04, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Henry J @ May 28 2007,20:18)
Quote
Davey, if you'll open comments, I promise not to make a single comment on your blog.

How's that?


But otoh, if he doesn't open comments, you still won't make a single comment on his blog. ;)

Henry

And I will, too.

Date: 2007/05/30 18:18:59, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Dr.GH @ May 30 2007,13:35)
I am an archaeologist, but about 17 years ago I started working on how bone is modified after death.  That evolved into a specailty in forensic thaphonomy.  I don't do much anymore.

FORENSAL THAPAPOTOMY ISNT THAT HARD YOU CAN LEARN IT BY READING MY WIFES SIENTIPHIC AMURICA IF U CAN THINK AS FAST AS ME. THAT THING LOOKS LIKE A FEEMER FROM A JURAFF. HAHA I CRACK ME UP. HOMO.

Date: 2007/06/02 11:33:26, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Davetard:
 
Quote
I’m waiting for some ToE apologist to predict a future event in evolution where the prediction has some specific value. I say this is impossible for ToE as random mutations are by definition unpredictable.


DT can't seem to get his arms around the concept of randomness.  For example he says here
 
Quote
First of all prove it’s random. As far as physics can tell us, at the atomic scale and upwards there is no such thing as random - every effect has a cause and this chain of cause and effect is in principle traceable back to the origin of matter. There is some debate whether quantum events are truly random but the mutations you refer to are chemical changes at the atomic scale and completely deterministic as far as anyone knows. Secondly, random mutation plus natural selection has NEVER been observed creating a new cell type, tissue type, organ, or body plan. Each and every one of novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans must be accounted for in evolution. The proposition that RM+NS is responsible is purely an argument from ignorance i.e. “if not RM+NS then what else”?


I brought this up a while back at my own blog.

Edit: Make sure you read the comments under the post at my blog for some bonus tard.

Date: 2007/06/02 15:59:33, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (stevestory @ June 02 2007,14:53)
FTK, you're hiding from reality. We've asked you questions that you refuse to deal with. Here are some of them  
Quote
1 ID claims to be revolutionary science. Real scientific revolutions lead to what Kuhn called 'normal science', where the new theory is used to solve lots of unsolved problems. ID isn't solving any problems. The ID journal PCID hasn't published an issue in a year and a half. What's wrong?

2 If William Dembski's work is a revolution in Information Theory, why has he never even been mentioned in an IEEE ITSOC publication? Not even once?

3 The Discovery Institute spends ~$4 million per year. A biology lab which spent that kind of money could hire 30-40 postdocs and would generate over 50 scientific publications per year. The discovery institute's money has generated 0 publications in the last year. Does that seem funny to you?

4 No matter how disturbing or unwanted, scientific revolutions only make headway when the revolutionaries convince their colleagues of its merits. The big bang, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics theory, none of these theories advanced by the lobbying of school boards. Rather, the researchers showed that the new hypothesis got results, and after a period of resistance, their colleagues relented. How are IDers hoping to achieve that without any new results in biology?

5 ID supporter and super-religious guy David Heddle used to be a nuclear physicist at Cornell. After much exposure to Dembski's works, he eventually concluded last year that
a) some ID efforts made christians look like fools
b) ID things like Irreducible Complexity aren't real science and don't lead to real experiments
c) Dembski's math is bogus
d) ID really is religious
e) the School Board efforts were a disaster
and finally "I am embarrassed by the ID movement: its tactics as well as the lack of intellectualism of many (though not all) of its leaders."

(http://helives.blogspot.com/2006/09/color-me-id-cynical.html)

Feel free to explain why Mr. Heddle is wrong on any of those points. Especially c.

(and if Dave Heddle wants to complain that I misrepresented anything he said, he's welcome to do so. It isn't my intention to quote mine. The 'S' in my name is followed by 'teve', not 'alvador'. )

6 The guy who proved the No Free Lunch theorems says Dembski's math doesn't prove anything. Is he wrong about his own theorem?

Introducing the FtK answerbot:

To save time and monotony, please choose FtK's answer from the following menu. Note that multiple choices are permissible:

A) I'm really very busy right now, but I'll come back and answer these as soon as I have time.  I have a life, you know.

B) I've already answered all of these questions, and millions more, all over the place.  Go look for the answers yourself--I'm not going to repeat them over and over.

C) Of course you think that all of those make sense, because you're an atheist and materialist. There are plenty of good creationist and ID scientists who think differently, like Walt Brown, for instance.

D) I'm just not convinced by all of the so-called "evidence" for ToE.

Date: 2007/06/05 16:56:34, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 05 2007,15:03)
FtK often claims on her blog and in the comments that there is no evidence that the notion of common descent has had any impact on how science is done. The implication, of course, is that whether one is an ID believer or a "Darwinist", scientific progress does not depend on understanding or utilizing common descent.

Most of us understand how absurd this position is, yet it seems to be a common and intransigent assumption among IDCers. The understanding of common descent actually makes possible all kinds of scientific advances, ranging from medical to theoretical, and these advances are reported daily, if you know what you are looking for.

Over lunch I was reading a back issue of Science (May 25, 2007), and stumbled across an interesting article by Behrens et al. (Science, Vol. 316. no. 5828, pp. 1185 - 1188) that illustrates this point yet again. The research described in that article is not exactly my area of expertise, but I think I can explain it well enough to make the point.

Dicamba is an inexpensive and potent herbicide, used to reduce broadleaf weeds in fields of crop grasses like corn and wheat. It cannot be used for other crops (e.g. soybeans, canola) because it kills those crops. One solution would be to genetically engineer resistance to dicamba into those crops.

Since dicamba is not persistent in soils, it was reasoned that some soil microorganisms are capable of degrading it. That hypothesis turned out to be true, and a three-step electron transfer pathway for converting dicamba to inert compounds was elucidated in a Pseudomonas species. The three steps involved a reductase, a ferredoxin, and an enzyme called dicamba monooxygenase, which catalyzes the reaction shown here.

Clearly it would be at least three times more difficult difficult to get genes for all three of these proteins into the right parts of a soybean plant. But due to common descent, two of the three (the reductase and the ferredoxin) were already present in the chloroplast.  So Behrens et al. inserted a chloroplast-targeting sequence (from the pea plant, another example of the usefulness of common descent) into the bacterial oxygenase gene, transfected this modified gene into tobacco and soybeans, and generated dicamba-resistant tobacco and soybean plants. Constructs without the chloroplast-targeting sequence were not capable of transferring resistance in either tobacco or soybean plants.

Obviously some components of the chloroplast electron transfer system interact well with the bacterial enzyme, if that enzyme can be targeted to the chloroplast. That means that this particular scientific advance is made possible (or at least a lot easier) by the fact of common descent; it would have been much more difficult to generate resistant plants if bacteria and plants did not have a common ancestor, but had rather been uniquely poofed into existence.

Yes, but they're still just soybeans. No one has ever seen a soybean turn into a pirahna.

Date: 2007/06/05 20:54:21, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (khan @ June 05 2007,20:20)
I'm new here and I have to ask: what is the origin of the "pirahna" references?

The person whose blog is the subject of this thread said in a post somewhere,
Quote
It doesn't matter what I say, as I am a (gasp) Creationist, and as such am declared a pirahna to all scientific thought.


Of course she meant "pariah," but not only did she use the wrong word, she spelled it incorrectly.

Date: 2007/06/05 21:10:20, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 05 2007,20:28)
Quote (stevestory @ June 05 2007,20:04)
Bill, you have defaced the image of Tura Satana, and I hope you burn in hell.

I'm in DEEP trouble.  Uncommonly Denyse agrees with you.  

(I think that means you're in trouble too, Muppet Man).

(Tura SATANa?)

Because I just knew that someone was going to ask, you can get an autographed Tura Satana lunchbox.

Date: 2007/06/07 11:57:21, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (creeky belly @ June 06 2007,01:59)
Finish this sentence: Special Creation predicts.....

...that a soybean will never turn into a pirahna.

Date: 2007/06/07 16:37:18, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ June 07 2007,14:27)
Hey, how come there isn't an *eyes rolling* emoticon in this forum?  I really need one for a response I'm working on.  

Just wondering...

You mean like this?

Date: 2007/06/07 20:11:22, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ June 07 2007,17:12)
But, I do like the hammer guy.

Oh, you like the Hammer? Can you slide?



If you ever decide to go into show bidness, you now have the perfect stage name: Ms. Pirahna Hammerslide.  Can I be your agent?

Date: 2007/06/10 12:26:29, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Some time back, on the KCFS forum, I asked FtK a relatively simple question.  It had to do with radiometric dating, which she doesn't  trust, or rejects outright. I wanted to know why she poo-pooed radiometric dating, but accepted uncritically all of the rest of nuclear physics.  I mean, she accepts that hydrogen bombs explode as predicted, and x-ray machines work as predicted, and any number of other commonplace manifestations of predictions in nuclear physics, but radiometric dating is no good.

She used her famous "I'm too busy but I'll get back to you" dodge, and said that her husband thought it was a case of comparing apples with oranges, but never gave an answer. How about it, FtK?  You've had a year or so to think about it now.  Why do you reject only the areas of science that conflict with your religious opinions, but accept the same science when there's no conflict (in your mind, at least)?

Edit: typo

Date: 2007/06/10 12:33:14, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (stevestory @ June 09 2007,22:52)
Davescot used my name to say awful things on a blog one time. Someone used FtK's name recently at PT. Someone's used Doc Bill at pharyngula recently to post stupid rantings.

I think that the post you're referring to was from someone calling himself "a reasonable Kansan," which is not the same thing as posting as "FtK."  Because FtK's blog is entitled "Reasonable Kansans," in the plural, we should be able to assume that she doesn't consider herself to be the only reasonable Kansan.  I hope.

Date: 2007/06/10 23:14:36, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2007,23:04)
It's very hard to get creationists to come by here anymore. We've got a reputation. When I invite them, they react as if I'm inviting them to inspect our new Troy-Bilt Chipper Shredder up close and personal.

Demise by Troy-Bilt is a process known as morselization.

Date: 2007/06/13 13:51:18, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 13 2007,09:06)
Quote (Ftk @ June 13 2007,08:32)
 
Quote
BTW, FtK, do you deny that transitional fossil sequences exist?


I'm not ignoring your question, I'm just trying to find the time to carefully articulate my response so that there is no confusion as to my meaning.  Finally had a chance to get to Dave's question last night, so hopefully I'll find time to put something together for you late tonight.

I think this deserves some kind of Nobel prize for non-answers.

Here are the questions from the KCFS forum I asked Pirahna Lady to answer 11 months ago:
Quote
It looks like ftk is saying, "I know nothing about the details of (say) nuclear physics. I accept the idea that there are certain properties of matter and energy that, when applied in practical situations, prove that the underlying science is correct. For example, I acknowledge the fact that nuclear bombs explode, and nuclear reactors are used to power warships and generate electricity, etc. But I think that radioisotope dating is not efficacious because the science behind it is wrong."

Is that a fair representation? If not, please correct it. If so, please explain,

   * why you feel confident in poo-pooing science that you admit you don't understand;
   * how you think it's possible that accepted properties of matter and energy provide for consistently confirmed predictions except in areas that you believe conflict with the Bible.


Her answer:
Quote
I'm sorry, but it just seems to me like you are comparing apples and oranges. Let me give it some more thought. I'll add you to the list...

Just so you don't think I'm blowing you off or taking it seriously, I did discuss this with my husband and he pretty much thought the same thing. But, I'LL GIVE IT MORE THOUGHT.


11 months and holding. I wonder if I'm still on her list.

Date: 2007/06/14 10:44:26, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Alan Fox @ June 14 2007,07:30)
Quote
Ne c'est pas? (Heh, Alan. I got that right, right?)


Nearly! N'est-ce pas? (I'm rubbish at Arabic, though :D )

Say la vee, Alan, Say la vee

Date: 2007/06/14 14:11:20, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (stevestory @ June 14 2007,13:21)
Jim Wynne thinks Behe is deliberately lying at this point.

Thanks, Steve.  I think that Behe started out earnest enough, but painted himself into a corner.  Now he's just going to sit there and milk it.  He's clearly given up any scientific credibility he might have once had, and short of complete retraction of the past ten years, he'll never get it back. He knows this--he's not delusional.  His only choices at this point are to jump off of the speeding gravy train before his academic reputation is too far in the distance, or take a seat in the club car and enjoy the ride.

Date: 2007/06/14 14:50:03, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 14 2007,14:33)
 
Quote
He knows this--he's not delusional


Jim-

go re-read (or read, if you haven't yet), the transcript of Behe's testimony at the Kitzmiller trial (it's pretty easy to find online).

after reading that, tell me just how sure you are he has no delusions he is trying to maintain.

I have read the transcripts.  At Dover, Behe chose to stay on the train. Once that choice is made and common sense has been abdicated, practically anything he says or writes is bound to sound delusional.  If I'm right, why should I  expect that he'd get on the stand and do an Emily Litella and say "Never mind, I don't really believe any of this"?

Date: 2007/06/14 15:37:19, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 14 2007,15:00)
my point is that there is a difference between a hoax or a scam and what Behe and those like him seem to portray.

sure, there is likely to be an element of thinking your audience are suckers, but that doesn't appear to explain the bulk of their responses, or their behavior.

I recall a thread fairly recently where there was a raging debate over whether people like Falwell actually "believe" even half of what they were saying.

there wouldn't even be any question of it if they were simple snake-oil salesmen.

let's look at some other "moderate" examples.

what about Francis Collins' claim of "moral law indicates special creation" in his recent book?

Is he lying to sucker rubes?

I think not, though he might be lying to himself.

No one is asked to reveal their motives when entering the Big Tent, thus there are many to be found within it.  We can safely say that poor ol' JAD is off his rocker, for example, and DaveScot suffers from the damning combination of big ego and small intellect.  There's no reason to expect that everyone came to the Tent on the same road.  It's only my opinion, but it seems to me that Behe shows enough signs of rationality to be able to exclude him from the delusional group.  I think that he probably does take his theology seriously, and perhaps has trouble reconciling his faith with his science, but that doesn't mean he's not deliberately prevaricating.

By way of full disclosure, by the way, I haven't read Behe's latest.  I'm waiting for the used copies to get real cheap on Amazon. I bought DBB for about $5, I think.  Right now the cheapest used copy of "Edge" is about $17, which is too much to pay for a bunch of stupid.

Date: 2007/06/14 16:54:23, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Gunthernacus @ June 14 2007,16:25)
Quality tard from Joe G at ARN:

The whole thread is classic - but this post is tops:

 
Quote
That doesn't count the experiments I conduct in my basement. Some labs would be jealous of the equipment I house & use there.

For example I now know that ticks are more attracted to watermelon rinds then they are to orange peels or orange slices. I also know that dragonflies play.


For any ARNies reading, Joe G previously trolled as ID's Bulldog.

I love this one--Joe can't talk about his scientific experiments because he's a secret agent.  When asked what experiments he's done, he replies,

Quote
Many dealing with ion trap mobilty spectrometry & mass spectrometry. Many more dealing with electronic circuitry and electricity.

I can't get specific as it deals with security. If you can get a security clearance I could show you what I do.


If he did tell us, he would become a pirahna to all of science.

Date: 2007/06/14 17:16:10, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ June 14 2007,16:47)
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 14 2007,16:22)
 
Quote
Icky, sweetie, I thought your plan was to ignore me...not a very good start, big guy.


actually we were discussing the value of ignoring you as an experiment, but I saw no agreement on methods as of yet.

care to guess as to what the results might be?

what would you do if we completely ignored you?

...I tried to get out of here early on, but people kept bringing up stuff from my blog that I couldn't just let go by without comment.

I tried to get out, but they kept PULLING ME BACK IN

Date: 2007/06/15 16:13:18, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (J-Dog @ June 15 2007,13:56)
Quote (stevestory @ June 15 2007,13:45)
Quote
Louis



Posts: 1138
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2007,14:27 ?  
9 kids?

Message to Mrs Behe:

"Put the dick down. Step away from the dick"

Thank you

Louis
 
Quote
BWE



Posts: 1010
Joined: Jan. 2006



dam louis. I dunno why but I really didn't see that one coming.

er...

So, for my future edification, would the following be acceptable?

"Message to Mrs Behe:

"Put the penis down. Step away from the penis"

Thank you"

Reminds me of an apparently apocryphal story about Groucho Marx interviewing a contestant on You Bet Your Life:

Groucho: Oh, so you're married. Any Children?

Contestant: Yes, Groucho, we have 10 kids.

G: 10 kids! Why so many?

C: (Sheepishly) Oh, I dunno, I guess I just love my wife.

G: I love my cigar too, but I take it out once in awhile.

Date: 2007/06/15 17:34:40, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ June 15 2007,16:48)
It seems ftk has bailed for the weekend, and life will go on here, so Ijust want to highlight the questions that she didn't answer before her abrupt departure.
         
Quote
         
Quote
CJ:
Does theology have more than one putative agent as its subject?

ftk:
Certainly one should consider evidence for all the "agents" before deciding if there is one or more in particular that is supported with sufficient evidence for belief.

That is why, again, ID has nothing to do with religion.  There are many beliefs out there and Design inference  certainly can't prove any of them.

This is an obvious evasion of the question. If theology is the discipline we use when we ponder questions about the designer, the designer is god. If not then:
     
Quote
C.J.:
So evolution by natural selection could be the designer?

If not,can you tell me how ID rules that out?

No answer.
Indeed, ID has no answer.

Oh yeah? Well Professor Doctor Michael Behe, who's a real biologist some kind of really smart science guy, says it's mathically unpossible for evolution to be our Lord and Savior the designer. QED. (QED means, SO THERE, right?)

Date: 2007/06/16 15:13:56, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (hooligans @ June 16 2007,13:58)
What's up with Dembski booting bdelloid? I noticed that not only did this dude get booted, but his comments got delected from the thread. He must have actually posted about Coyne's arguments, rather than just mocking him. After all UD isn't interested in defending Behe with actual EVIDENCE!!!! Mocking people like Judge Jones is the best defense (or not showing up to court cases).
   
Quote
19

William Dembski

06/15/2007

7:05 pm
bdelloid is no longer with us.

bdelloid

From this snip in someone else's comment, it appears that bdelloid did indeed commit the bootable sin of trying to make sense.

Date: 2007/06/17 10:02:17, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (nuytsia @ June 17 2007,02:30)
 
Quote (stevestory @ June 16 2007,22:28)
Speaking of ScienceBlogs, John Lynch actually scooped us on this story by almost an hour.

What can I say? It's Saturday. It's very slow around here on the weekends.

Interesting speculation by PvM in the comments.

A prediction: PvM's observation is probably correct; I think that Dembski might be solving two problems at once: first, he's throwing this Brookfield guy to the wolves (us, among others) and second, he's going to characterize it as the hoax he referred to earlier.  I can't believe that even Dembski takes Brookfield seriously, even for propaganda purposes (although he might have in the past).  Dembski will write it off to street theater, or say that he actually hatched this plot a long time ago, when he first welcomed Brookfield into the Big Tent and "published" his paper.

Remember, none of this needs to make sense to us.

Edit: I put up a post about this at my blog.

Date: 2007/06/20 15:29:32, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (jeannot @ June 20 2007,15:13)
I thought that ID had nothing to do with God.

Well, Jerry is a little tired of ID having to lug around the baggage of creationism:
Quote
The question is, will ID ever be able to shed its creationist image? And if it can not then, will it be forever associated with creationism in official and legal documents?


Then tribune7 comes along and turns his projector up all the way:
Quote
The obvious truth is that there is a difference between ID, which uses tested, objective methodology to find design, and Creationism, which declares Scripture true then seeks material evidence to support the claim.

Now, we invariably enter this debate assuming the good faith of those with whom we disagree i.e. if we show the truth they will play by the rules, correct the record, stop making false claims etc.

I guess it’s about time we figured that isn’t the case — at least for those leading the opposition.

They are practicing propaganda and proselytizating[sic]– not academic debate or scientific investigation.

We just have to understand that.


You lousy bunch of homo proselytizators.

Date: 2007/06/20 20:23:27, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Richard Simons @ June 19 2007,21:12)
Quote
I trust that you all can handle it if FtK does return to address the outstanding questions on this and the other threads.

You mean she sometimes addresses questions! All I've ever seen has been fluff and avoidance mechanisms. I tend to think of her as like an Afdave without the courage to post what she actually 'thinks' of scientific matters. Yet she keeps coming back for more insults about how she consistently avoids answering. Odd behaviour.

Give the poor woman a chance, will you? It appears that the Pirahna Lady's latest diversionary ploy weekend party has now stretched out to Wednesday, so I'm sure that when the party does finally end, and she has a few days to recuperate, she'll be right back here avoiding questions as usual.

Date: 2007/06/24 12:21:03, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 24 2007,10:44)
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 24 2007,10:05)
I appear to have been banned at UD.  Or at least my comments no longer appear.

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


   YARR! SHIVER ME TIMBERS!

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

…

ARRRguing with DARRRwinists.

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

My first ban (I was later reinstated, then banned again) was for a reply to a Dembski post about something he tried to portray as ID-related, which wasn't, and all my reply said was, "What does this have to do with ID?"

Date: 2007/06/26 22:04:45, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 26 2007,21:51)
The rest of Borne's tantrum is actually too stupid to comment on.

You only say that because
 
Quote
You’re another typical wannabe intellectual, a Darwinist ignoramus and an offensive fustilarian niggler to boot.


Link

Date: 2007/06/27 10:18:37, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 27 2007,07:27)
Observations from Outside the Big Tent (includes a link showing discontent within the big tent).

Quoth Heddle :
Quote
Shame on Uncommon Descent for making itself so easy to mock.


And shame on Heddle for making it more difficult to mock him.

Date: 2007/06/27 10:28:15, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Mister DNA @ June 27 2007,00:42)
 
Quote (blipey @ June 27 2007,00:36)
There are some who think that Larry Phlemandbagel is dangerous crazy, but I think it's Joe Gallien who is the truly dangerous nut case.

Didn't Joe G./John Paul get fired (or in trouble with his employer, at least) when it was discovered he was using the computer at work in order to harass his opponents?

I wish I had more details, but I think it happened at the NAIG or OCW boards and it was this incident that "outed" John Paul as Joe Gallien, who had previously been pretending to be a Muslim.

My favorite bit of Joe G tardity happened when he locked horns with Andrea Bottaro at PT, and got his clock cleaned. It was hilarious, and you can read about it here

Bottaro sized Joe up perfectly when he said,  
Quote
...you are remarkably impenetrable to reason and unaware of self-embarassment. I strongly suggest you check the content of your next posts for unwarranted and self-contradictory claims.

Date: 2007/06/28 10:44:19, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
While I hate to add yet another question to the many that FtK hasn't answered, PZ has a post that provides "evidence" of a man being spoken to by god:
Quote
New Kensington resident Joey Salvati, 39, a father of two, was in the shower about a month ago when he first heard God speak to him about the matter. Whether it was an external or internal voice, he wasn't sure. He tried to ignore it, but it kept coming back, day after day, until he realized he had to do something about it. The message was for Salvati to make wooden paddles for corporal punishment and give them to parents who need help disciplining their children.


I'm wondering first if FtK has placed an order, and also how it's possible to tell the difference between someone who claims that god gave him direct orders (Noah, for example) and a paranoid schizophrenic.

Date: 2007/06/28 11:05:25, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ June 28 2007,08:26)
Looks like Mrs. Dino is to be sentenced tomorrow. I honestly don't care if she gets actual time or not. I do not think she was a duped wife who had no idea what was going on however it's pretty obvious that Mr. Hovind was the ringleader and held a pretty strong sway over his whole family.

Either way. If she gets time, fine, I'll trust the court. If she doesn't, same, she's still a convicted felon.

Check out the whining on the CSE Blog

The post about her sentencing ends with  
Quote
To those who have been praying, the CSE Team express our deepest appreciation.


and I couldn't resist adding a comment:
Quote
I've been praying that Mrs. Hovind gets twenty years, so I'm glad you're down with it.

Date: 2007/06/29 10:40:34, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 29 2007,10:30)
 
Quote

If you want an example of Lenny's spewing, just page up!


Make your argument if you are going to.

Wes, please be patient. It should be clear by now that FtK is a very busy person, and just doesn't have the time to support her blathering with evidence address all of these questions. Let her go to her kid's soccer game, and host a party for 900 people, and then maybe she can find the time to read the pertinent literature link to Walt Brown.

Date: 2007/07/11 10:53:54, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I've discovered the perfect specimen for testing the EF.  Do you think we can find someone who knows how to use the filter to run it through?

Date: 2007/07/14 09:47:25, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 13 2007,10:08)
The pot is calling the Kettle black over at UnReasonable Kansans.

(talking to Hector Avalos)
   
Quote
Again, perhaps you should address all the issues rather than just stating that they’re wrong and others weighing in on the case “have little knowledge of ISU or [your] activities against ID”.

I know, I know...you don’t have time..


I don't have time being FTK's typical response when asked anything at all here. bwhahahah. And just stating they are wrong is "her" usual rebuttal in any case!

Before I read this I left a comment at FtK's place, to the effect of
Quote
Seems a rather odd comment coming from someone who makes confident (and wrong) pronouncements and continually begs off defending them due to being "busy." Shall I provide a list of links?


I have a feeling the comment might not show up over there.

Date: 2007/07/14 10:33:02, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
When the eminently ignorant but boundlessly confident FtK spars with a real scholar, the tard flows copiously. The Pirahna Lady cites apologist Norman Geisler:
   
Quote
The great New Testament scholar and Princeton professor Bruce Metzger estimated that the Mahabharata of Hinduism is copied with only about 90 percent accuracy and Homer’s Iliad with about 95 percent. By comparison, he estimated the New Testament is about 99.5 percent accurate. Again, the 0.5 percent in question does not affect a single doctrine of the Christian faith.

Avalos informs her that he's devoted a good deal of space in a new book to dealing with Geisler's claims about the bible and replies to the Geisler claims:    
Quote
Let me give you a simple example. Saying that “the New Testament is 99.5 percent accurate” is meaningless unless you can compare the copies to the originals. But everyone admits that we do not have the originals, and so what does it mean to say that the NT is "99.5% accurate"?

Could you tell me SPECIFICALLY how these scholars calculated that 99.5% figure RELATIVE TO THE ORIGINALS?


FtK is apparently too busy to answer the question.  Not so busy, it seems that she can't make a very tardful observation:    
Quote
I’m not sure why you are particularly concerned with this find.

Avalos has to remind her what he does for a living:
   
Quote
I am concerned with this find because I am a biblical scholar by training and profession, and so that find is relevant to my field.


Part of the problem is that FtK doesn't understand the difference between a Christian apologist, who is biased by definition, and a biblical scholar, who isn't.  She demonstrates this misapprehension by observing,      
Quote
It is interesting that biblical scholars can consider the same information and come away with completely different conclusions in regard to their analysis of the data.

Personally, I don’t think that Geisler can be accused of “minimizing” differences any more than you can probably be accused of exaggerating differences. He has no more to gain from his analysis of the facts than you do.
[My emphasis]

Kudos to Avalos for trying to make sense with a person who's oblivious to reason and logic.

Linky
Edit: Typo

Date: 2007/07/15 12:14:05, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 15 2007,11:06)
In the interim, I'll begin consolidating criticisms of EE, so that the other authors and I can draft omnibus replies.

Just read the Wedge document, the manifold criticisms of Pandas (and moldering junk such as Icons of Evolution) and the Dover Decision.  Why start the whole process over again? Do you really think you're that clever?

Edit: typo

Date: 2007/07/20 10:03:19, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 20 2007,09:54)
Afarensis wrote:

   
Quote
The morphology that was transitioning was not based on size so "smoothing" the scaling to make them look similar is irrelevant.


Right.  But if size is irrelevant to the characters involved in the transitional series, and in any case is easily modified genetically, why not just depict the fossils using the same scale (so that the relative sizes of the actual specimens is clear to the reader)?  If size doesn't matter, showing the fossils as one might see them lined up in a museum drawer shouldn't be a problem.

The accurate representation of data is important, especially when most students will never see the actual fossils in question.

Paul, the strawman is dead, so why don't you stop kicking it and put up another one?  Do you believe that textbooks are never questioned in classrooms, or that teachers play no part in elucidating supplementary materials? Even if your complaint regarding scaling made sense in light of relevancy, and we've established that it doesn't, I've never seen an instance of a teacher at any level refusing to answer questions about the subject at hand.

Date: 2007/07/22 11:45:29, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote
1 - It seems that no one has actually seen this book.  Is that because it is not yet available, or because people are reluctant lend it any kind of support by paying for it?


According to the Deploring Evolution website the book is available for purchase, but I'll wait for used copies to become available.
   
Quote
2 - Their sample page showing how to make a model of a lung seemed aimed at about a third grade level, not the college or AP students they claim to be targeting.  What do the teachers here think of that particular page and the general educational level of the rest of the sample pages?

I'm not a teacher, but it's clear that the target audience is very ignorant religious people of all ages.

Date: 2007/07/22 19:25:46, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (ck1 @ July 22 2007,19:05)
I assume they are marketing to the homeschool and Christian school groups.  They can't seriously think that public high schools and accredited colleges would use this book.

There are many public school districts that would love to use EE, and the DI is foolish enough to think that they can get away with it this time, despite a long string of abject failures.

Date: 2007/07/25 11:33:08, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (lkeithlu @ July 25 2007,10:15)
 
Quote (Patrick Caldon @ July 25 2007,09:22)
But frankly guys, this one's a screwball too.  To wit:
   
Quote

Freon is far heavier than air - therefore it cannot rise into the atmosphere and destroy ozone. Instead it falls to the ground where it is broken apart by microbes in the soil. The ozone hole has nothing to do with humans, it has come and gone for centuries, and will continue as long as the Earth has an atmosphere.  


A volume of nitrogen gas is lighter than oxygen gas at the same temperature and pressure, Red, but for some reason we're not surrounded by oxygen, with all the nitrogen a kilometre or so up.  Thermodynamics has a lot to do with this.

Maybe you need to have a little think about thermodynamics.  Think hard about how heat is moving from a cold place to a hot place when evolution happens via material mechanisms, since this it is this movement of heat that the second law forbids.

Ozone is Airplanes are heavier than nitrogen and oxygen. So, what the *** is it are they doing up there in the ozone layer sky?

I fixed that for you.

Edit: typo

Date: 2007/07/26 12:30:12, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (hooligans @ July 26 2007,12:18)
Check out the questions at UD!! LOL!!! They are so f**king stupid!!

My favorite so far comes from Mathetes:
Quote

How did the human species survive in the transitional period when it lost its natural (primate) defense mechanisms without having as of yet evolved the brainpower to invent weapons? - Jalapeno

Date: 2007/07/27 10:26:09, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 27 2007,09:12)
Quote (Joe G @ July 24 2007,20:43)
Design is an ALTERNATIVE!

Not every alternative is an opposite.

Go soak your head...

Welcome to AtBC Joe. You have probably noticed that most commenters here actually suport the idea that evolution has actually happened.

May I ask you a few questions Joe?
1) What is the scientific theory of ID?
2) Never mind, until you answer No1 nothing else matters (regarding ID).

EDIT: BTW Joe, I am not as hostile as you may think. A few years back i was also an ID supporter. Time has made me hostile though, I consider ID nothing but a bullshit atempt to get religion taught as science now.

However I would love to "return to the fold" providing you can do something.
A) Provide proof that ID is "scientific" (you know what that entails right?).
B) Provide proof that evolution is wrong.*

BTW. Evolution=wrong is not ID=Correct. But it would help.

Can you do that?

Prediction: Joe will issue the 3-hour Challenge.
Quote
Watch two videos- "The Privileged Planet" and "Unlocking the Mystery of Life", and then, if you can without lying, tell us why ID is not based on observation and scientific research, but is based on religious doctrines and faith.


Joe thinks advocacy videos are "evidence."

Date: 2007/07/27 11:21:52, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (blipey @ July 27 2007,11:01)
He also thinks that sentences are evidence.  I'm not sure if he realizes that sentences contain information and that it is the information that can be used as evidence.

On the up side, his sentences are truly master works of surrealism.

Andrea Bottaro provided an excellent encapsulation of Joe's tardity a comment at PT:
Quote
...you are remarkably impenetrable to reason and unaware of self-embarassment


This led to an overdose of tard from Joe, which I chronicled here.
Joe referred to Bottaro as a "she," and when corrected chose to dig his hole much deeper.  He's truly his own worst enemy, and is totally unaware of it.

Date: 2007/07/27 15:39:43, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (stevestory @ July 27 2007,14:44)
by googling phrases like "is no longer with us" it would be fun to compile a list of the people banned from UD.

Just a few:

Pixie is no longer with us
bdelloid is no longer with us
Mr. Christopher is no longer with us

UD seems to have gone down when I was in the middle of compiling my list.  Coincidence? You be the judge.

Edit: UD is back up now, so the list continues:
Hermagoras is no longer with us
beervolcano is no longer with us
Poisson is no longer with us
puckSR is no longer with us
steveh is no longer with us
Ilion is no longer with us
PWE is no longer with us
keiths is no longer with us

That last one is perfect.  Davetard waxes stupid, gets called on it, and pushes the button.

Date: 2007/07/27 16:17:45, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (cogzoid @ July 27 2007,16:08)
Lest we forget the classic: "Go in peace, but go."

That's how the blow was delivered to me:

Link

Date: 2007/08/04 11:38:38, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 04 2007,11:27)
Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 04 2007,08:48)
The lung argument is in Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record - a later edition of Evolution: The Fossils Say No. I have not been able to find the turtle argument in either edition, so it may be in the Morris book.

Thanks.

The turtle thingie may be in one of the old ICR Impact articles.

There's this from NCSE, which includes a copy of the cover page from a 1982 issue of Creation/Evolution:

Date: 2007/08/04 14:08:23, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
As the evidence against EE mounts, it becomes more apparent that the DI is hoping for a sacrificial hick school board somewhere, and another religious advocacy law practice like Thomas More.  Only thing is, when the inevitable lawsuit is filed, the DI won't be able sneak away like they did at Dover.  I think this thread should go a long way towards giving them second thoughts about the whole thing. Unless, of course, they're able to solicit the services of Joe G, who will provide devastating cross examination of plaintiff experts, and win the day.

Date: 2007/08/04 14:25:26, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
In the same thread I referenced above, Joe G confirms Lenny's oft-stated contention that the dopes can't go 10 minutes without bringing jebus into the discussion. Why ID doesn't depend on supernatural explanations:

Quote
“God” is nature and therefore does not exist outside of it.


Of course, the scare quotes around God are indicative of the fact that "God" might be space aliens.

Date: 2007/08/04 17:41:10, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (kdaddy @ Aug. 04 2007,16:33)
If a lawyer disavows the rule of law, I wouldn't call them a lawyer anymore - anarchist, yes.

HOW DO YOU NO THE ANARCHIST WILL BE A LAWYER. THATS NOT WHAT TEH BIBLE SAYS.
HOMO.

Date: 2007/08/06 12:55:02, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 05 2007,15:25)
RedDot wrote:  
Quote
That being said, if no naturalistic answer is possible, we may have stumbled upon a previously undisclosed miracle.

Well. that certainly is a satisfying explanation.

Carry on.


RD demonstrates exactly why "creation science" is such an exemplary oxymoron.

Date: 2007/08/08 10:55:38, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I wonder if RedDot went to Rome, where the Internet is inaccessible, with Paul Nelson.

Date: 2007/08/10 11:32:33, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 09 2007,20:54)
There's essentially nothing we can say about the 'pre big bang state'.

By this you're referring to Texas, I assume.

Date: 2007/08/10 11:35:57, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I think the answer is fairly simple, and all of the physics stuff is just smokescreen. If you allow that something can have infinite existence, it might just as well be the universe as jeebus. There's nothing wrong with saying "I have no effing idea what happened prior to the BB or just after it, but at least I'm not making up stories to explain it."

Date: 2007/08/11 12:20:07, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 11 2007,11:55)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 11 2007,11:33)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 11 2007,10:34)
The only possible conclusion I can think of is RedDot thinks that the world revolves around the US, and is JUST LOOKING AT USA TERRETORY records. Anyone know when the earliest writing found in the US is from?

Well, that's one possible conclusion. He could assume that the good ol' USA is the only place worth discussing in terms of history. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he truly is an edumacated creationist, and has been exposed to history from other countries, but prefers the "were you there?" form of rebuttal.

Re the question of earliest writing from the US, I'm afraid we don't have much to brag about. Mayan glyphs (dating back to the first century BC) might be the earliest "writing" in the Americas; perhaps Arden can enlighten us further.

But there are petroglyphs in Coso Canyon (China Lake Naval Weapons Station, Owens Valley, on the east side of the Sierras in California) that have been dated to over 13,000 years ago. A picture of one of these petroglyph panels can be found here, and more pictures, along with some historical and cultural information, are here.

Mesoamerica is not my specialty, but the oldest writing from there appears to be 900BCE. So it's not old enough to figure in this.

This is agreed to be the oldest sample of Chinese writing of any kind (on tortoise shells), at 6600 BCE. So 8,600 years old.

The Indus Script dates back to between 2600–1900 BC. So 3,900 to 6,600 years ago.

The earliest verified Egyptian heiroglyphs seem to date to 3300 BC or thereabouts. So 5,300 years ago.

Sumerian cuneiform dates back to about 3,000 BCE, or 5,000 years ago.

The Vinca script in southeast Europe is up to 6,000 years old.

If you allow petroglyphs, the dates go MUCH further back (See the Lascaux caves, for instance.), but RD can always just claim that all the geologists in the world are wrong or collaborating in some kind of massive atheist conspiracy.

All interesting stuff, and it doesn't bode well for RD's ideas, but don't expect any of this to sway someone who thinks he'll go to hell if he quits thinking the earth is 6,000-8,000 years old. To maintain YEC beliefs and posture as a scientist, you have to have a healthy tolerance for ignoring vast amounts of evidence placed before you, and this will be no exception.

All of that "old" writing might just be the result of a previously undisclosed miracle.

Date: 2007/08/15 15:17:59, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 15 2007,13:35)
Fine tuning...nah.

http://cosmicvariance.com/2007....nations

The best part of that thread is this exchange in the comments, where Moshe asks,
 
Quote
Probably an obvious thing I am missing, but why can?t life form from dark matter?

and Dark Matter Man responds,
 
Quote
Moshe: it can, but sex loses a lot of its fun when you just keep flying through each other.


BTW, any mention of fine-tuning will summon Heddle and his bottomless bag of logical fallacies.

Edit: typo

Date: 2007/08/15 17:07:07, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 15 2007,16:04)
mentalist Mentok gets suckered into a "who designed the designer" variant, and does badly.

From Mentok's comment:
Quote
God had to have a transformational cause in order to become what God is today. What this means is that the God of today has the knowledge on how to build the natural world within which we exist.


Perhaps an apocryphal story, but someone is said to have remarked about Dorothy Parker that she was smarter than god.  When asked whether she thought this was true or not, her answer was, "No, but I'm probably smarter than He was at the same age."

Date: 2007/08/17 09:40:13, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 17 2007,01:39)
Tardeo?

http://uk.youtube.com/user/VenomFangX

In the comments, a tard called shawks123 says,
Quote
this is a good argument of logic. i have used this argument for years and have not seen anyone be able to refute it.

It helps, of course, when you talk to yourself a lot. Also, I suspect that shawks123's cat is very tired of hearing about it.

Date: 2007/08/18 09:48:24, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 18 2007,06:50)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 18 2007,01:43)
Hmmm.... think we should invite VenomFangX to come here and 'debate'?

(Things have been a little slow lately, and VMartin's shtick has gotten very predictable. :p)

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO!!!!!

We need less screaming TARD not more. You want real TARD, just try discussing anything with Skeptic. I am rapidly becoming convinced he is a hopeless loon.

At least he has a degree (allegedly, no evidence of rational thought yet exists). Go to IIDB and play with AFDave who is still going "strong", and has defaulted to "evil long ager conspiracy" and flat out denial so often now that the mental breakdown predicted years ago is surely around the corner.

Do you really want to bring on board some mentally subnormal, borderline case for proactive imprisonment and chemical castration posting from Mom's basement in Sixfingersshagyersistersville, Kentucky just so you can watch the results of him dribbling on his keyboard and wanking himself into a fervour over his Colour Pop-Up Edition of the New-Speak Living Wipe Clean Bible for Dummies whilst he tries with his polydactyly afflicted digits to hammer out "Jeezis dun lovs yoo so yu shud hatez da evilushun".

I realise the Colosseum-esque mob mentality pleasure and fun of watching the poor malnourished slaves who have been kept in the pitch black for weeks get torn apart by lions and gladiators alike whilst they shit themselves and blink at the sun is compelling. But people, we have to give it up! It is wreaking psychological havoc. People are mainlining the hard tard from UD a little too much. We shall be reduced to shambling wretches, capable of nothing more than downloading viedo tard from Youtube whilst having Roy Zimmerman play "Ted Haggard is completely heterosexual" on iTunes in the background.

Tard: Just Say No!

Louis

But other than that it's OK, right?

Date: 2007/08/19 09:17:00, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 18 2007,19:13)
Did you know William A Dembski can be rearranged to Skim Labia Mildew?

You do now.

Also: Dim likable swami.

Bonus anagram: Spiro Agnew = Grow a penis

Date: 2007/08/19 09:26:00, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
And one more for william a dembski: Kill web ID miasma

Date: 2007/08/22 22:07:17, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I think it'd be great if they brought Joel Borofsky back.

Date: 2007/08/24 11:08:43, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 24 2007,10:12)
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 23 2007,22:21)
Bwahahahahahhah

Ftk gives Sal a hj link

?  
Quote


Forthekids

08/23/2007

4:26 pm

   
Quote

Sal,
?And after running your own blog for a few weeks with Darwinists relentlessly spamming, one gets a whole new perspective.?


LOL?NO KIDDING. After blogging for a whole year now, I?ve completely shut down and I?m regrouping. I?m not allowing repetitive rhetoric in any more - I?m going into the DaveScot moderation mode. I don?t have time for the crap. I?m working on a FAQs site that I?ll send repetative questioners to and to heck with the rest of their worthless banter.

I wonder what FAQ's she'll include?

"Why won't you answer any questions?"

"Why do you insist there is no 'big science' conspiricy, and yet claim that Walt Brown wouldn't be allowed to publish?"

"If you have no problem with atheists, why do you semi-constantly bitch about them?"

Regardless of the questions, there will be only two answers:

1) I've addressed that a million times already.
2) Let me look into it and I'll get back to you. I have a life, you know.

Date: 2007/08/31 09:12:07, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 29 2007,21:51)
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 29 2007,20:52)
Re "Louis - Why do you make the Baby Zeus cry? "

Yeah, don't upset a deity what might throw a thunderbolt or two your way if he gets reeeeeeally miffed! ;)

Henry

Pfffft.  I bet Thor can beat up Zeus.

Punchline: You're Thor? I'm tho thor I can hardly pith.
Make up your own joke.

Date: 2007/08/31 12:10:29, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 31 2007,11:44)
It must be hard to be a blamange a stiff non-descript peice of vegetable.

I got caught in the middle of that sentence and almost couldn't find my way back out again.

Date: 2007/08/31 21:12:25, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 31 2007,20:45)
Whoever coined the phrase Uncommonly Dense, the meme's been picked up by others.

Uncommonly Dense Blows Common Descent.

BTW, someone should notify RBH that his title's two words too long.

I did, this morning.

Date: 2007/09/02 10:04:47, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I think that the whole Bioinformatics Lab thing would have gone mostly unnoticed had Marks not tried to drag Dembski in the back door with it.  It seems clear to me that Dembski is considered a pirahna to all of science at Baylor, (rightfully so) and his chutzpah in trying to sneak back in wasn't likely to be swallowed by the Baylor administrators and faculty.

I expect the botnik post to go down one of those tubes in the UD Ministry of Truth, because while I'm sure that Dembski must realize he's burned his bridges to Baylor, he won't want it to come back to haunt him if he ever attempts to escape the Southwest Babble Seminary and be employed by a reputable school (although those bridges might be gone too).

Edit: typo

Date: 2007/09/02 10:08:50, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Happy birthday and thanks for all the good work!

Date: 2007/09/02 15:48:35, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 01 2007,12:47)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Sep. 01 2007,02:16)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 27 2007,14:47)
New advert in the Tardshoppe window:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

Ha Ha Ha!

Look at the screen dumps of the questions.  In the first, it's cut off at the right.  The second is for question 77, and it's not cut off, so we can see most of one of the potential answers.  We can also therefore see the current score - 22%.

Bob

That's just too good not to repost.And it might get "edited" :)http://www.evolutionnews.org gets 22%

Rehosted.

From the "Physician, Heal Thyself" department:
Quote
In 1970 an estimated 65,000 black rhino could be found throughout sub-Saharan Africa, despite widespread poaching that targeted the animal for its ivory tusk...

Date: 2007/09/05 11:48:34, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 23 2007,14:57)
Sorry to have been away from the discussion: my travel schedule has kicked in again. ? I'll have only infrequent net access for the next two weeks.

I talked with Discovery and a moderation-light Explore Evolution (EE) critique board there is a live possibility. ? I say "moderation-light," because the critical posts will need to address the content of EE, not my failure to publish my monograph, DI funding sources, etc. ? Except for that content requirement, however, and the usual no-vulgarity stuff, the board should be totally open.

Given my travel, the board won't be operational until mid-August. ? Until then, keep posting here, and I'll continue compiling criticisms.

That was way back in July, and we know that Nelson has logged in here at least twice since then, but hasn't bothered to answer any of the many questions that have been asked, and the "Debate" page on the EE website is still empty.

Maybe Nelson is back in Rome, where there's no access to the Series of Tubes.

Date: 2007/09/16 09:49:51, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Edit: never mind

Date: 2007/09/19 13:02:18, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 18 2007,13:25)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,11:59)
Nicely written, J-Dog.  Can I recommend you to JoeG as a writing instructor if I am unavailable?

Why thank you kind sir (blushes)...

Just PLEASE don't ask me to do a rewite of Densey O'Leary! There are some things that are IRC - Irreducibly Recondrite Crap

That's recondite.  :D

Date: 2007/09/21 10:35:35, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
If ID Were A Sports Event

There would be no need to run races or hit/kick balls, run around, and get all sweaty.

Date: 2007/09/21 10:37:38, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
If ID Were A Horse Race

You could make your bet and collect your winnings at the same time without bothering the horses.

Date: 2007/09/21 13:34:51, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
My favorite so far, from Tracy Hamilton at Pharyngula:
 
Quote
If ID was a computer manual

There would be one page that says "This page intentionally left blank."

Date: 2007/09/23 10:45:45, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 23 2007,00:34)
last sentence:

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmat....ous.php

Quote
And as a religious Reconstructionist Jew, I fully support religious gay marriage in the Reconstructionist community.

That means he's not just Jewish just for the jokes.

Date: 2007/09/24 13:00:50, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,12:15)
Hi Albatrossity2 and K.E.,

One of the things I have noticed in blogs is the tendency to engage in "Shield Bashing".  This is generally done by trying to frame the debate where the other side is expected to prove their point thus allowing the shield basher to alternate between laughing at their pathetic attempts and/or be indignant over arrogance of the presumptions.

I have been banned from Uncommon Descent and Scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy.  I don't think my behavior warrented being banned in either case.  I can (and have) presented the comment that got me banned from UD with minor effort.

I was posting to After the Bar Closes a while ago but quit doing so.  Now, if I were to simply accuse SteveStory of being rude to me as the reason I quit, would it become Steve's burden to prove otherwise.

The "innocent until proven guilty" works both ways.  Telic Thoughts should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

The case needs to be made by TT's accuser, JAM.

Unless, of course, you just want to believe what you want to believe anyway.

I think TP should be banned from ATBC. If he wants to know why he's been banned, just say "bad behavior" and let him prove that he didn't engage in any.

Note that I will personally define what constitutes bad behavior, perhaps next week, but I won't tell TP what my criteria are. ATBC will be presumed correct until TP proves otherwise.

Sounds fair, no?

Date: 2007/09/25 09:31:46, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Here's a snapshot of Daniel's level of comprehension:
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,03:08)
...evolution by speciation which would not create a nested hierarchy at all but would look more like a road map with lineages wandering aimlessly around.
           
One could make a nested hierarchy for automobiles - starting with horse drawn carriages and branching out.
               
Why do you have to be so mean and accusatory?

Similarities and differences can be mapped out into a neat hierarchal pattern.  What part of that is inconsistent with evolution by law?

Many here and at talk.origins who fervently hold to the evolution by RM+NS (and drift and horizontal transfer) seem to be more interested in theoretical arguments than documented field work.

Edit: formatting snafu

Date: 2007/09/25 11:13:57, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Shorter TP: There's stuff we don't understand. Could be frontloading.  Back to gazing at navel.

Date: 2007/09/27 11:59:03, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Sep. 05 2007,11:48)
Quote (Paul Nelson @ July 23 2007,14:57)
Sorry to have been away from the discussion: my travel schedule has kicked in again. ? I'll have only infrequent net access for the next two weeks.

I talked with Discovery and a moderation-light Explore Evolution (EE) critique board there is a live possibility. ? I say "moderation-light," because the critical posts will need to address the content of EE, not my failure to publish my monograph, DI funding sources, etc. ? Except for that content requirement, however, and the usual no-vulgarity stuff, the board should be totally open.

Given my travel, the board won't be operational until mid-August. ? Until then, keep posting here, and I'll continue compiling criticisms.

That was way back in July, and we know that Nelson has logged in here at least twice since then, but hasn't bothered to answer any of the many questions that have been asked, and the "Debate" page on the EE website is still empty.

Maybe Nelson is back in Rome, where there's no access to the Series of Tubes.

The "Further Debate" page is still empty.  They've been awfully quiet about EE of late. Paul Nelson must be very busy in the lab.

Date: 2007/09/30 21:23:10, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 30 2007,19:21)
Why do I trust the Bible?  Have you read Josh Mc Dowell's books or those of Lee Strobel?  These are two gentlemen who tried to disprove the Bible and were convinced by the mountains of evidence that it had to be what it claimed to be...the very Word of God.

If you trust the Bible because of Lee Strobel, I have a bridge I think you might like to buy.

Date: 2007/10/01 11:28:36, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 30 2007,19:42)
In a similiar fashion, said homosexual male sticking his penis in another man's anus is sick, IMHO.  Again, part A does not belong in part B...it was not designed for that.

On this basis we also have to conclude that enemas, proctoscopes and medicinal anal suppositories are no good, because the anus just isn't designed for that.

Why not try thinking before posting?

Date: 2007/10/01 11:38:04, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,09:19)
Dear Jim Wynne,

By the same token, if you believe in evolution because of Darwin, Miller, Gould, etc. I have the same bridge up for sale.  I take it you have not examined his evidence.

I have examined Stobel's "evidence" and found it trivially unconvincing.  By Strobel's own accounts, he came to jebus because his wife had swallowed the Kool-Aid, and he needed to convince himself that jebus was real before he would drink with her.  He then allegedly embarked on a two-year examination of the "evidence" and became convinced.  It's a recurring theme amongst born-agains. In his book "The Case for Christ," do you not find it interesting that in what is supposed to be an objective treatise he cites only Christian apologists, and only addresses carefully-constructed (and easily refuted) strawmen as arguments from the other side?

Date: 2007/10/01 11:41:04, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,09:19)
Dear Jim Wynne,

By the same token, if you believe in evolution because of Darwin, Miller, Gould, etc. I have the same bridge up for sale.  I take it you have not examined his evidence.

The Pee-Wee Herman argument--"I know you are, but what am I?"

Date: 2007/10/01 12:25:52, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,12:04)
Dear Jim,

I suppose that as the evidence presented by only the "pro"side, then it is all invalid?  So what does that say about all the evidence your side marshals?  Why doesn't that invlaidate your evidence?

Thanks for responding.

No, not necessarily "all invalid," although most of it certainly is. If Strobel were interested at all in objectivity, he would have presented scholarly objections to the apologists' "evidence," and showed us how it was lacking. He didn't. He just used strawmen.  The evidence "my side" uses is generated by scientists who use an objective process to develop it.  If a scientist were to try to make the same type of lame evidentiary claims as Strobel, his work would be shredded in short order, and thrown in the dustbin.

Date: 2007/10/01 12:28:33, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,12:04)
Dear Jim,

I suppose that as the evidence presented by only the "pro"side, then it is all invalid?  So what does that say about all the evidence your side marshals?  Why doesn't that invlaidate your evidence?

Thanks for responding.

Please also note that when someone calls your contentions into question, it's best to answer them directly, and not fall back to the prepubescent strategy of saying, "My evidence is bad? Well so is yours."

Date: 2007/10/01 15:57:38, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33)
And as for using prepubescent logic, mea culpa.  It is what you seemd to be using to trash someone's evidence.

Geez, you acknowledge your juvenile argumentation style and then repeat it in the next sentence.  Is this all moving too fast for you?

Date: 2007/10/01 17:27:33, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33)
If you don't accept Mr. Strobel's evidence, then what about Mr. Josh Mc Dowell?

I'm not familiar with McDowell's lies evidence. Is it substantially different from the garden variety ignorance and dishonesty apologetics?

Date: 2007/10/01 19:54:21, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (JAM @ Oct. 01 2007,18:00)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2007,17:27)
 
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33)
If you don't accept Mr. Strobel's evidence, then what about Mr. Josh Mc Dowell?

I'm not familiar with McDowell's lies evidence. Is it substantially different from the garden variety ignorance and dishonesty apologetics?

Jim, we also should note that real scientists describe the evidence instead of quoting the interpreter of the evidence.

I understand, but The junk that Chris is referring to doesn't amount to anything approaching evidence at any level.  The primary literature for Chris is the King James version.

Date: 2007/10/02 11:12:48, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:07)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,10:54)
Behe did not read the pile of textbooks yet was able to dismiss them as unacceptable without reading them or being aware of their contents.

It's very simple FTK. What part of "he lied" don't you understand?

If at that point he had said "Oh, that explains the evolution of the immune system to my complete satisfaction" then what would that have done to the case the ID side was trying to make.

What is wrong with you?  Seriously, is there a portion of Darwinist supporter's brain that does not function properly?

THE LASTEST PAPERS ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM DO NOT PROVIDE ANYTHING OTHER THAN SPECULATIVE INFORMATION ON THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS OF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM....are you deaf?  Why in the bloody heck would Behe have to read every single page from of those articles and books if the very latest information tells us that SCIENTISTS ARE STILL TRYING TO ESTABLISH THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS IN WHICH THE IMMUNE SYSTEM EVOLVED?  

Holy cow, there is such a disconnect here as well as with soooo many issues in this debate...simply boggles the mind.

Please tell us about the papers that Behe didn't read, and your methods of evaluation.  How many did you read before arriving at your conclusions? Do you think that the best way to approach the literature, and form opinions, is to ignore it?

Date: 2007/10/02 11:16:04, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:07)
SCIENTISTS ARE STILL TRYING TO ESTABLISH THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS IN WHICH THE IMMUNE SYSTEM EVOLVED?

Then the obvious question becomes, why isn't Behe one of them?

Date: 2007/10/02 12:32:04, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:56)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,11:15)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,11:07)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,10:54)
Behe did not read the pile of textbooks yet was able to dismiss them as unacceptable without reading them or being aware of their contents.

It's very simple FTK. What part of "he lied" don't you understand?

If at that point he had said "Oh, that explains the evolution of the immune system to my complete satisfaction" then what would that have done to the case the ID side was trying to make.

What is wrong with you?  Seriously, is there a portion of Darwinist supporter's brain that does not function properly?

THE LASTEST PAPERS ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM DO NOT PROVIDE ANYTHING OTHER THAN SPECULATIVE INFORMATION ON THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS OF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM....are you deaf?  Why in the bloody heck would Behe have to read every single page from of those articles and books if the very latest information tells us that SCIENTISTS ARE STILL TRYING TO ESTABLISH THE EVOLUTIONARY PATHWAYS IN WHICH THE IMMUNE SYSTEM EVOLVED?  

Holy cow, there is such a disconnect here as well as with soooo many issues in this debate...simply boggles the mind.

How did he know that if he did not read them?

ROTFLMAO....Okay, I'm thoroughly convinced...you are a Tard, and you need to don the hat of glory.

Rich....give up the hat, OMITSDDI is officially the AtBC tard of all time.

I have a feeling that very soon FtK is going to be very busy planning a dinner party, and will get back to us.

Date: 2007/10/03 10:13:46, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 02 2007,12:53)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2007,17:27)
 
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33)
If you don't accept Mr. Strobel's evidence, then what about Mr. Josh Mc Dowell?

I'm not familiar with McDowell's lies evidence. Is it substantially different from the garden variety ignorance and dishonesty apologetics?

Yes.  It is of lower quality than the usual apologetics.

I've now taken a little time to look over McDowell's website, and all I can find is things for sale.  It appears that McDowell is willing to help us in our walk with jebus, for a price. After looking at the site, I had a quick peek at the New Testament, just to make sure that there hadn't been any significant changes since the last time I looked.  I was relieved to find that  the relevant text remains intact.

Date: 2007/10/03 11:41:27, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,11:29)
When I explain beetles, spiders, or any life form for that matter I discuss speciation and adaptations like the desert fox and his Arctic cousin  But I also say that science has shown in the lab (Drosophilia, bacteria, etc.) that one can can only change within a range.



Linky

Date: 2007/10/03 14:44:28, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,14:10)
Jim Wynne,

Talk about canards!  Your cartoon is the very reason Phillip Johnson discussed the old bait and switch technique used by evos to prove a fallicious point.  Extrapolation is a dangerous path to take when there was no human was present in the past.  Please be more intelligent than that, oh wait, you guys don't believe in design.  The whole cartoon was an accident.

Let's hope someone can recognize sarcasm when it exists.

The point is that if you allow for small changes in the genome over time but still deny that speciation occurs, it's your problem to explain what the limits are, and what prevents speciation (which has been observed) from happening.

Date: 2007/10/04 12:38:56, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 04 2007,09:35)
Quote
...but, even to a non-scientist, non-atheist like myself...


Non-scientist?

Non-atheist?

BURN THE HERETIC etc.

Louis

P.S. HAR HAR THIS IS YOU:


OK, but who is the female figure in the picture supposed to represent?

Date: 2007/10/04 13:13:53, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 04 2007,08:49)
On October 4th, Paul Nelson and Michael Ruse are/were scheduled to have a debate for discussing what it would take for them to switch sides. Here is a link to Paul Nelson's announcement where he said "Michael Ruse and I are going to have a sort of un-debate." I am making the easy prediction of a non-outcome to the un-debate where the spin-masters on both sides will claim victory. This is my overt attempt at preempting with my un-spin to provoke thinking about the polarization that this represents. Allow me some hyperbola to illustrate the point; one extreme view would be to ask for the equivalent of the random assembly of a 747 from a pile of junk another extreme view would be to ask for the equivalent of an Intelligent Designer saying "I am" accompanied by a pyrotechnical display of local shrubbery.


In other words, the basic conflict is generally about randomness verses a designer.

There is a lot of ground between these two extremes. What would it take to convince both sides that a middle ground hypothesis that presumes neither randomness nor a designer is not only plausible but likely?

I have previously presented the concept that there is no such thing as randomness in a post titled The Magic of Intelligent Design. This post has appeared in Telic Thoughts and in After the Bar Closes. For a proposed design agency, I have offered the orchestrating properties of quantum effects generally outlined in the Penrose-Hameroff model called Orchestrated Objective Reduction or Orch OR for short.

What would it take to convince either side that quantum effects are interconnected?

How about seven decades of physicists performing experiments demonstrating non-local behavior and paradoxical behavior that can only be explained if nature is “entangled” at the quantum level?

What would it take to convince either side that life is directly dependent on quantum effects?

How about if respectable scientists at Berkeley lab reported something like…
Early in 2007 a team of Berkeley Lab and UC Berkeley researchers identified quantum mechanical effects as the key to the astonishing ability of photosynthesis to utilize nearly all the photons absorbed by the leaves of green plants. Now a different team has found new evidence that points to a closely packed pigment-protein complex of the photosystem as the key to those quantum mechanical effects. …
How nature manages to pull off this stunt was a long-standing mystery until the spring of 2007, when a study led by Graham Fleming, Deputy Director of Berkeley Lab and a UC Berkeley chemistry professor, found the first direct evidence of what he calls a "remarkably long-lived wavelike electronic quantum coherence." Quantum-mechanical effects enable a plant's photosystem to simultaneously sample all the potential energy pathways from pigment molecules to reaction centers and choose the most efficient one. link
…?

What would it take to convince either side that evolution is under the control of interconnected quantum effects?

What if it turned out the DNA search function is a quantum algorithm that requires quantum-like superposition?

From Patel's Quantum Algorithms and the Genetic Code…
Replication of DNA and synthesis of proteins are studied from the view-point of quantum database search. Identification of a base-pairing with a quantum query gives a natural (and first ever!) explanation of why living organisms have 4 nucleotide bases and 20 amino acids. It is amazing that these numbers arise as solutions to an optimisation problem. Components of the DNA structure which implement Grover’s algorithm are identified, and a physical scenario is presented for the execution of the quantum algorithm. It is proposed that enzymes play a crucial role in maintaining quantum coherence of the process.

From Patel's Towards Understanding the Origin of Genetic Languages…
The initial and final states of Grover’s algorithm are classical, but the execution in between is not. In order to be stable, the initial and final states have to be based on a relaxation towards equilibrium process. For the execution of the algorithm in between, the minimal physical requirement is a system that allows superposition of states, in particular a set of coupled wave modes.

There is more support for the possibility of life's direct dependence on interconnected quantum effects for functions like cellular awareness (i.e. consciousness) as an artifact of quantum computation in microtubules. "Bio-quantum physics" appears to be an emerging science. While it is still speculative, that is not the point.

The question is… What would it take to convince ID/Darwin extremists to agree on a scientific hypothesis that supports neither philosophical agenda?

BTW, a quantum mechanical explanation can be thought of as a tool of an intelligent designer just as much as the result of a non-teleological universe that occurred “randomly” from multiple universes. However, these are metaphysical concerns, not scientific ones.

Over the past few weeks I've come to appreciate TP's posts. Not for their content, specifically, but for their soporific effect. They're more effective in inducing sleep than barbiturates, and they're not habit-forming.

Date: 2007/10/05 09:12:10, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (JonF @ Oct. 04 2007,18:02)
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,07:51)
To Jon F

Here is the quote from the AIG text.  Will you accept this or do I have to quote the whole chapter so you can't claim I took it out of context?

"After a mineral containing uranium atoms is formed, the products of uranium decay begin to collect in the mineral.  The age of the mineral is found by determining the ratio of the parent material (238U) to the end product (206Pb).  Special equipment must be used for determining uranium-to-lead ratios.  In using this method, it is assumed that none of the lead escapes from the mineral, that no outside lead is added, and that no lead from a non-radioactive source was present to begin with.  If any of these conditions have affected the sample being tested, the results will not be accurate."

Well, something's crazy, because that's just plain wrong. I still think you're leaving something significant out ... what you posted is wrong.

In the U-Pb dating that's been done since the mid 1950s and currently is used in over 50% of dating studies, both the ratio of 238U/206Pb and the ratio of 235U/207Pb are measured. And this is almost always done on zircons, which are guaranteed by the physics of their solidification to have negligible lead at formation (as is acknowledged by the RATE group in a link I posted earlier). From THE U-TH-PB SYSTEM: ZIRCON DATING:

"Zircon (ZrSiO4) is a mineral with a number of properties that make it extremely useful for geochronologists (Figure 1). First of all, it is very hard (hardness 7-1/2), which means it extremely resistant to mechanical weathering. Second, it is extremely resistant to chemical weathering and metamorphism. For geochronological purposes, these properties mean it is likely to remain a closed system. Third, it concentrates U (and Th to a lesser extent) and excludes Pb, resulting in typically very high 238U/204Pb ratios. It is quite possibly nature's best clock. Finally, it is reasonably common as an accessory phase in a variety of igneous and metamorphic rocks."

Measuring those two ratios is, in essence, dating the sample by two different methods.  If no lead or uranium has been added or removed, when the results are plotted on a graph of 206Pb/238U versus 207Pb/235U then the point representing the sample will fall on a curve called "concordia":



If the results plot on the concordia curve, as many do, then it is virtually certain that the system has remained closed. The other possibility is that both addition and removal have happened and have happened in just the correct ratio to keep the plotted point on the concordia curve. It might happen once in a great while, but it doesn't happen every time.

If the points representing the samples do not fall on the concordia curve, all is not lost.  It turns out that in several common cases we can still get a good date.  The most common case is one relatively brief episode of lead loss (lead is volatile relative to uranium, is unstable even in an udamaged lattice, and is only found in portions of the crystal lattice that have been damaged by radiation from the decay of uranim and its daughter products).  In this case and several others, the points representing several co-genetic samples will fall on a line, and the upper intersection of that line with concordia is the age of the samples:



(In some cases the lower intercept is the time since the lead-loss episode, but in other cases it's not, so interpreting the lower intercept is dicier).

Of course concordant dates are preferable to discordant dates, so geochronologists have made great strides in sample selection, treatment, and measurement to obtain concordance. Here's some analyses of Greenland rocks from the 70s and 80s, including what were then the oldest known terrestrial rocks:



(from "The Age of the Earth", G. Brent Dalrymple, Stanford University Press, 1991).

Here's what are currently the oldest known terrestrial rocks from Great Slave lake in Canada, much more concordant (plotted on the Tera-Wasserberg variation of the concordia diagram):



(from Bowring, Samuel A.; Williams, Ian S., "Priscoan (4.00-4.03Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada", Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, Volume 134, Issue 1, pp. 3-16 (1999)).

Obviously there's lots more that could be said on the subject; books have been written. I don't know of any really good but not overly technical Web resources. The first two figures in this message came from Radiometric Dating. One of the canonical texts on the subject is on-line at Radiogenic Isotope Geology, and all of chapter 5 is extremely technical coverage of this subject. THE U-TH-PB SYSTEM: ZIRCON DATING is also very good and very technical.

In summary, U-Pb concordia-disocrdia dating does not require any assumptions about the initial amount of lead, it indicates when the system has been opened, and it often yields a reliable date even when the systme has been opened.

And I didn't even get to isochrons and the Ar-Ar method ...

No matter what your book says, no matter who wrote it, the one and only one premise of radiometric dating is the constancy of radioactive decay.

Chris will undoubtedly trample this under his feet, and turn again and rend you.

Date: 2007/10/06 09:27:24, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
It all depends on how you define "lie," I guess.  If you limit the definition to the utterance of a deliberate prevarication, FtK might be able to slide off the hook, I suppose.  Even at that, how many times has she been backed into a corner and evaded something by saying she'll do some "research" and get back to it, and never does? It's very charitable to give her the benefit of the doubt when those things start to pile up, I think.

On the other hand, deliberate dishonesty in the way one conducts oneself in a discussion, even while nominally telling the "truth," has to be considered a form of lying, methinks. There are lies of commission and lies of omission.  If we assume a certain level of intellectual capacity--that a person is not intellectually incapable of understanding the evidence--and the evidence is presented clearly and unambiguously and is still rejected in favor of easily and widely refuted canards, there must be some level of dishonesty at work.  

There are educated, intelligent people at the forefront of the ID/Creationism movement--Behe and Dembski are prime examples--then there are the sheep such as the UD denizens who are just too stupid to deal with the debate on a purely intellectual level.  But somewhere in the middle are the FtKs of the world--people who are smart enough to understand the issues but either refuse to do the work, or do the work and just reject it out of hand in order to remain a part of the comfortable flock.  These middle-grounders are compelled by selfishness, mostly, and will lie through their teeth and never admit that they're wrong on the important issues.  They are dishonest, and they're the ones we have to worry about.  

Is FtK a liar?  Perhaps not, in the strictest definition of the word. Is she patently and chronically dishonest?  Of course she is.

Date: 2007/10/06 11:44:39, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Steverino @ Oct. 05 2007,16:32)
Funny how the Science shows up and the host leaves.

I think Chris is just probably very busy, perhaps planning a party.

Date: 2007/10/06 13:56:43, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2007,13:37)
I answered OLDMAN's question about HIV to the best of my knowledge, but that was apparently a non-answer as well.

Actually, you characterized it as "ridiculous," said you would ignore it, then gave a few vague responses that didn't come close to addressing it:
Quote
If the creationist view of the flood is close to being correct, those few survivors wouldn't have to be carrying every deadly disease that was every know to man.


then,

Quote
I would certainly think that HIV is caused by random mutation and the breakdown of the body, but it doesn't look like anything I've ever considered as being a positive form of information that would lead to the type of macro changes that would need to occur in molecule to man type scenarios.


What does "breakdown of the body" mean? What does "molecules to man" have to do with the question? You think that "...HIV is caused by random mutation..." of what? Here's the question: If one or more of the eight riders on the storm weren't carrying HIV, (as well as every other know pathogen, btw) then where did it come from?

Date: 2007/10/09 10:52:34, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 09 2007,00:40)
...the evolutionary pathways of the flagellum have not been sufficiently explained.  [Emphasis added]

There you have it. So long as Behe and Ftk (not necessarily in  that order) reserve exclusive rights to define "sufficiently" in this context, they will claim victory, and it makes no difference whatsoever how science is done.

Date: 2007/10/10 15:10:51, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 10 2007,14:42)
To the others here:

My take on this discussion, which I felt until now was relatively successful, is that upon untangling the issues that were conflated in FTK's defense of Behe I have left his argument with no protection, and she can see that. FTK previously defended her defense of Behe by falling back upon the assertion that specific evoluationary pathways to these complex structures have yet to be fully elucidated - and hence Behe's argument remains safe. However, I have shown that to be a faulty argument; the fact that these pathways have not been fully delineated gives Behe no cover.  

My assumption is that FTK can see that, but does not want to make such a concession so has bailed.

It's really pretty simple, and FtK's arguments are typical of denialists of all sorts.  Some people believe that space aliens couldn't have built the Egyptian pyramids.  They argue, at least in part, that the ancient Egyptians lacked the technology to accomplish the task--that there was simply no way that all of those huge stones could have been piled so high in such an orderly fashion without some sort of machinery that the Egyptians couldn't have possessed. Understanding this objection, engineers and scientists have demonstrated plausible methods that could have been used, although they haven't actually built any pyramids.  The denialists reject the evidence, however, with the same denials that Behe and FtK invoke--no one has demonstrated that the pyramids were actually built that way--when all that's necessary to refute the contention that they couldn't have been built that way is showing ways in which they could.   The goalposts get moved from "there is no possible method" to "You haven't shown me the actual method."

We know that evolution of complex biological structures tends to follow an exceedingly anfractuous and largely unpredictable (in the minute local particulars) path. The only reasonable way to describe the possibility of such evolution is to construct logical pathways that describe possible pathways, with "possible" being defined by our empirical knowledge of the mechanisms.

FtK is a flatfooted denialist, and will never admit she's wrong on the important points so long as her goalposts are on wheels and so long as she feels no shame in rolling them farther away whenever anyone gets close to them.

Edit: typo

Date: 2007/10/10 15:42:25, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 10 2007,15:31)
I apologize for thinking that we understood each other, and had assumed that we had pretty much come to the end of our discussion.

Translation: You said some stuff, then I said some stuff, so I thought we were finished saying stuff.  But you want me to say more stuff about the stuff you said about the stuff that I said.  Is this what you mean by "discussion"?

Date: 2007/10/10 18:23:03, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 10 2007,17:25)
Quote

You might recall that he just finished a book on these topics, so not much time to roll up his sleeves and dig in with Marks and Dembski.


Given what Marks and Dembski have done so far without him, I hesitate to imagine what having three of them together might be like. It may turn out to only be suited for guy humor, though.

Dembski is very busy. In fact, he does the work of three men. Moe, Curly and Larry.

Ba-da-boom!

Date: 2007/10/11 10:57:31, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 11 2007,07:48)
It simply means that a few scientists have offered "potential" explanations that "may" provide viable evolutionary pathways....then again, they "may not".  All those little "potential" individual working parts of the flagellum still (through NS) have to paste their little selves together in order to form the whole...lots to think about before anyone can claim that the flagellum is not IC.

A good while back, at the KCFS forum, I asked FtK explain why she has no problem with the commonly accepted properties of matter and energy when it comes to things like atomic physics and the fact that predictions of the ability to use atomic energy to make bombs and run electrical generating plants came true, but she rejects the same science when it comes to say, radiometric dating.  She acknowledged that it was an interesting question, as I recall, and said she thought that I was comparing apples and oranges, and promised to get back to me. (heh)

So here we are again.  FtK apparently believes that the formation of hypotheses and testing of them is equivalent to just making broad, ethereal assumptions when it comes to biological evolution, but I'm sure she has no problem with a scientist who proposes some type of medical treatment based on assuming the known properties of chemistry and human physiology, and then goes about testing the idea rather than just saying, "Curing x is impossible, so I'm not even going to try."

There are woefully deluded people who deny the germ theory of disease, and would indeed eschew the idea that chemical compounds can have a salutary effect on illness, and would believe research in that direction to be futile.

I still wonder why FtK trivializes science when it appears to encroach on her belief in holy ghosts, but accepts it uncritically when she becomes ill.  It seems the ultimate hypocrisy, and sure evidence of a small, deluded mind.  Maybe she'll get back to us on this.

Date: 2007/10/11 11:17:03, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I haven't been able to examine the contents of her medicine cabinet, but perhaps RTH can help us in this regard.  :O

Date: 2007/10/11 11:20:21, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 11 2007,11:03)
Quote (Altabin @ Oct. 11 2007,10:59)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 11 2007,17:25)
Remember that Jerry was telling us all how he was knowledgeable about biology?  Well, Prof. Myers may like to look away...  
Quote

I have a remote related question to what paraklete just said,
Has any part of the body been identified with development. We all know that development operates quickly during gestation so it is guided some how but it also operates for several more years after that and maybe till death. If some part of the brain or part of the body is removed, does it affect development? I find this an interesting question because “how does it know?” Obviously this could be done with any experimental mammal such as mice to get the answer. Does anyone know if this has been done?

Luckily I'm not a developmental biologist, but reading this I feel pain on their behalf.

Bob

Bob, just remember that they laughed at Copernicus too.  Jerry is Copernicus.  This is what a scientific revolution looks like.

and they laughed at Bozo The Clown also....

Jerry should be able to give us firsthand testimony on the effects of having parts of the brain removed.

Date: 2007/10/11 12:02:02, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Rob @ Oct. 11 2007,10:40)
Note: If anyone wants a copy of the retracted paper, it's still on the Baylor server.  If you really want to be a troublemaker, you could write to call President Lilley and all of the Baylor regents using the home phone numbers provided by Dembski and ask him them if Baylor endorses the paper.

Suggestion edited for maximum troublemaking potential.

Date: 2007/10/11 13:31:44, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 11 2007,13:21)
This is a post I left at Dr. McGrath's site, after I read a review he wrote of Densee's book:

Linky?

Date: 2007/10/11 21:08:32, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 11 2007,21:03)
Quote (ck1 @ Oct. 11 2007,20:52)
 
Quote (silverspoon @ Oct. 10 2007,05:02)
       
Quote (Richard Simons @ Oct. 10 2007,00:02)
Also, please give a citation to the part of Judge Jones' ruling where he said that ID was not science because of its religious implications. I think you are just making this up, which in my book comes very close to lying.

I second this question for Ftk. I’d like a reference for Judge Jones stating that ID could be correct, but isn’t science due to its religious implications.

Jones said the only supposed evidence for ID given in the trial was (paraphrased) ID being something an agnostic or atheist would be less inclined to accept. He did say the positive argument for ID doesn’t meet scientific standards. Nowhere can I find in his ruling where he says ID could be correct.

In summary, he said ID doesn’t meet scientific standards, and he has no opinion on it being true other than being an interesting theological argument. That’s a far cry from Ftk’s caricature of what he wrote.

Not sure if this has been discussed further.  Jones said on page 64 of his decision:

"4.  Whether ID is science
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.  We find that ID fails on three levels...1) ID violates the centuries old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causations."

This is probably what FTK was referring to.

Thank you so much, ck1.  That is exactly what I was refering to.  I've heard it repeated several times, but hadn't taken the time to go find it.  

Ed Humes also mentioned it at his lecture at KU when he was promoting his book "Monkey Girl".

There's nothing there about Jones saying that ID wasn't science because of its religious implications. It's possible to believe in supernatural phenomena without any religious beliefs at all.  Science rejects all putative supernatural causes, including religious ones, but not exclusively religious ones.

And please, no "Oh sure, but we all know what he meant."

Date: 2007/10/12 10:12:33, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 12 2007,00:48)
This really irritates me as a scientist (*adjust pens in lab coat*).

Ha. If you were a real scientist, you would have said, "*Adjusts pens in lab coat pocket protector*"

Date: 2007/10/12 10:20:49, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 12 2007,10:16)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 12 2007,16:12)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 12 2007,00:48)
This really irritates me as a scientist (*adjust pens in lab coat*).

Ha. If you were a real scientist, you would have said, "*Adjusts pens in lab coat pocket protector*"

{SNIP IMAGE}

Pocket protectors are sooooooo last season, darling.

Anyway, they are usually made of plastic and plastic dissolves in 90% of the things that my lab coat is designed to very briefly protect me from getting on my clothes if and when things in the lab get a tad exciting. Molten plastic is not a good look on one's tie.

I speak from experience.

Louis

Bah. Primary evidence is no match for my closely-held beliefs.

Date: 2007/10/12 11:08:05, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 02 2007,21:04)
Behe Doesn't Get HIV

Because of condoms or abstention?

Date: 2007/10/12 11:15:15, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Right now there are seven comments under Behe's notresponse, all of them anti-Behe.  This can't last much longer.

Date: 2007/10/12 11:59:18, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Oh, my--get ready for a tard landslide--Al Gore, U.N. Climate Panel win Nobel Peace Prize

Date: 2007/10/12 12:29:29, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 12 2007,11:51)
Quote

I believe you know this. If you don’t you’re not as bright as I thought you were and if you do know it then it appears you’re just baiting people into talking about their religious beliefs to bolster the Church Burnin’ Ebola Boy belief that ID is religion in disguise.

Stop it now unless you want to lose your commenting privileges here. I have little patience for either stupidity or disingenuousness from ID detractors.


Dave shouldn't leave himself wide open like that.

Well, he did qualify it with "...by ID detractors."  He obviously has lots of patience with stupidity and prevarication from ID supporters, even if his own autodidactic novel body plan is above reproach.

Date: 2007/10/12 12:54:08, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 12 2007,12:45)
Hi All,

Listen to Louis, he might be on to something.

I agree with Richard Dawkins' review that Dr. Behe's Darwin's Black Box had a spark of conviction that Edge of Evolution does not.

I know I won't have a hard time convincing many people here that Edge of Evolution wasn't very convincing from a science point of view.  It appears Behe didn't even attempt to make a convincing scientific case, he offered no alternative, no hypothesis.

BTW, how many people know who Henry F. Schaefer III is?

Why haven't we heard more of Schaefer's scientific hypotheses?

I don't have access to Amazon comments.  Would someone who does please ask the question for me?

Why would anyone here want to help you promote your off-topic quantum navel-gazing?  If you want to ask Behe a question, all you need to know is here.

Date: 2007/10/12 13:55:42, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 12 2007,12:37)
Hey, this is COMPLETELY OT, but I know there are several Europeans who post here and I wondered if any of you have heard, through the media, about an emergency plane landing in Turkey.

What's an emergency plane?

Date: 2007/10/12 18:06:54, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 12 2007,17:44)
Quote
You make the call.


LOL...you're asking that question of Darwin's peanut gallery??

Mercy...

OK, Effie, you're all for teaching the controversy, right? I'm sure you understand that in order to be able to help others understand a controversy, you have to have a reasonable level of understanding of it yourself.  I'll give you an opportunity to gain a little cred and show off your own critical thinking skills.  Here's a passage from BA77's little Amazon Adventure in Density:
Quote
"From actual experimental results it can easily be calculated that the odds of finding a folded protein (by random point mutations to an existing protein) are about 1 in 10 to the 65 power (Sauer, MIT). To put this fantastic number in perspective imagine that someone hid a grain of sand, marked with a tiny 'X', somewhere in the Sahara Desert. After wandering blindfolded for several years in the desert you reach down, pick up a grain of sand, take off your blindfold, and find it has a tiny 'X'. Suspicious, you give the grain of sand to someone to hide again, again you wander blindfolded into the desert, bend down, and the grain you pick up again has an 'X'. A third time you repeat this action and a third time you find the marked grain. The odds of finding that marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row are about the same as finding one new functional protein structure (from chance transmutation of an existing functional protein structure). Rather than accept the result as a lucky coincidence, most people would be certain that the game had been fixed.


How would you answer it if you were a "Darwinist"?

Date: 2007/10/13 09:47:51, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
FtK lacks the self-awareness necessary for being suitably embarrassed by saying stupid things.  This is a trait of denialists of all stripes.  This may stem from some psychological quirk that inhibits her from admitting she's wrong when she knows she is, or it might be that she's so deluded that she actually believes she's right, and her  cognitive dissonance emerges when she says she can't believe we're all so dense that we can't see things her way.

Whatever.

I've come to the conclusion that the best way to deal with these people is not to ask them for their evidence (because there isn't any, and they'll just make stuff up, move the goal post, or cut-and-paste some AiG talking points), but preempt by stating one of the well-known creationist canards and asking them how they would counter it if they were on the other side.   Make them do a little of the critical thinking that should be inherent in their "teach the controversy" strategy.   It'll serve the purpose of demonstrating that their own arguments are on shaky ground if we can get them to actually voice their ignorance of what they're arguing against.

Date: 2007/10/13 12:41:06, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 13 2007,04:02)
I'm surprised ex-xian is still posting at UD.  Dave must have gone for a lay-down.

A couple of responses to ex-xian:
PaV is a tard  
Quote

ex-xian, you don’t seem to have a clue, so I will kindly give you one. The link between Darwinism, HIV/AIDS and Global Warming: government funding! So what we have is basically “scientific political correctness”.
I really have no axe to grind when it comes to the HIV/AIDS controversy; but consider this: HIV, the retrovirus, has been around since the 1920’s. If it’s been around since 1920, why did the AIDS epidemic start in the 80’s? Doesn’t that make you scratch your head a little? But, of course, you’re a liberal; and no one is more close-minded than a liberal, so, if the NY Times says that there’s no controversy, I’m sure that’s good enough for you. But we’re here to try and help you along.


Borne is a tard  
Quote

ex-xian : I suppose that stands for ex christian - a very dumb, judas-like confession if ever there was one.

How nice.

Bannination!

Quote


DaveScot

10/13/2007

11:33 am

ex-xian is now an ex-member and all his comments were ex-communicated.


to which jstanley01 replies,

Quote


jstanley01

10/13/2007

12:02 pm

ex-cellent!


Write it down!

Date: 2007/10/13 13:45:00, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Kristine @ Oct. 13 2007,12:44)
Harris made a bold and important statement about something that I have been contemplating, that we must not pooh-pooh so-called "mystical" experiences and epiphanies just because they are attibuted to religious/supernatural causes. We must study the phenomena (and not just to reduce it) but be suspicious of the explanations. When you know a lot of people from different religious traditions, you begin to see a pattern, not only with them but including yourself. I had some epiphanies when I was young with regard to physics and mathematics, in which I "saw" how things worked, then learned the same thing in school. And I know what religious people mean when they speak of the "peace of God/Allah/Whoever" even though I don't believe in God.

I fail to see anything bold about any of this, and the importance of finding the causes--or verifying the bona fides--of unexplained phenomena seems obvious.

I don't know what you mean by saying that we should study purportedly mystical phenomena, but "not to reduce." Science is a process of "reducing" the unexplained to an understandable, predictable form.  Is this what you think we shouldn't do? I don't want to be cruel, but if it is, seems a slightly more enlightened version of FtKism.

Edit: cleanup

Date: 2007/10/13 15:56:31, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote
By all means, let's just reduce all human endeavor (art, poetry, love, etc.) to the survival instinct, and be done with it then. Yet Dawkins wrote in The Extended Phenotype against such reductionism (because he was unjustly accused of it by Gould and others).


Who said anything about survival instinct? Not me. All I said was that we have to investigate somatic bases for things first, because that's what's always worked in the past.

Quote
Cheap shots like yours are evidence of this boldness - Harris expected (but I did not) such a reaction, yet said it anyway. He didn't get such a reaction, but I did.


I don't see what's cheap about it, unless disagreeing with you constitutes cheapness.  

Quote
That's a particularly uninformed thing ("Ftkism?") to say to me. No one who has consistently read anything I've stated in this forum has a right to slap me down that way.  

Was it you who was cautioning us to be careful about questioning people who seem to believe that "epiphanies" might have some sort of mystical basis? What you posted seemed like a bunch of weak-kneed woo to me. If I was wrong, just stamping your feet and complaining about being slapped down isn't exactly the way to respond unless you want to reinforce the resemblance to you-know-who.
Quote
Were you at the conference?

I was responding to *your* report of something that was said, not *directly* to what was said.
Quote
If not, maybe when the video comes out you watch it before you issue such a proclamation against me. I resent attacks from the self-appointed athiest-purity brigade (which is exactly what Harris was talking about).

I'm still not sure why you're insistent upon characterizing a rather sober response as an attack. *Switches to semi-attack mode*  If you want to just blather rather than explaining wtf you and Harris are on about, go right ahead.
Quote
Note that I didn't need to edit my response. I believe in practicing reason every day.

A good way to counter what you perceive as a cheap shot is to hurl one back--if you're in the third grade.

Date: 2007/10/14 09:42:15, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Kristine @ Oct. 13 2007,17:57)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 13 2007,14:56)
Was it you who was cautioning us to be careful about questioning people who seem to believe that "epiphanies" might have some sort of mystical basis? What you posted seemed like a bunch of weak-kneed woo to me.

No. I think they have no mystical basis. That's the point. I think I stated that succinctly.

Then I misunderstood you--it's as simple as that. You were perhaps not as succinct as you think you were, or I was being Uncommonly Dense.  In other words,



Never mind.  :p

Date: 2007/10/14 09:50:45, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 13 2007,08:16)
In case you haven't figured it out yet, this is my method for fighting the ID Movement.

Polarizing all issues plays into the hands of ID's PR strategists, IMO.

Trying to argue against woo with by compounding it is not likely to have the results you think it will.

Date: 2007/10/14 12:39:09, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Kristine @ Oct. 14 2007,12:27)
A side question that came up re my spat with Jim is somewhat addressed (or undressed) by Denyse, who's branching out - look out...
Quote
Are men really from Mars? Women really from Venus?

*Groan* How sick I am of this stuff - we're both from earth (at least I am - both of me :) ), and yet, sometimes I look at women and want to throw my hands in the air. For example, at a recent function one of the speakers talked of gathering the morning dew and pressing it to one's face to maintain that youthful glow - and the women just cooed with joy at the idea. I thought, "Acid rain?" (And don't get me started on the Dr. Phil thing. Ick.)

Denyse hacks at it:    
Quote
Hmmm. I’m not sure. I’ve met many men and women who conformed to the Mars-Venus stereotype and many that didn’t. But I never did the numbers thing .... [no duh]. Her book, The Myth of Mars and Venus, is surely worth a read.

"The numbers thing." I suppose it's too much to ask for Denyse to understand that even if the numbers support Gray's pulp self-help book, that generalities cannot be applied to specifics. (Ann Coulter: "Evolution is driven by reproduction, so why don't I want to have children, huh? Huh?" Do you want to see your ideas, if one can call them that, reproduced in the minds of others, Ann?)

I like to crack that men and women have different ways of being the same - and yet, I remember the comments tossed my way from women as I was growing up: "You're nothing but a calculating machine!" and "Why don't you pretend to be a girl for a change?" Certainly it's social, but if it's only that, I cannot say. My intuitive sense is that, there's an expectation that women will believe a lot of sloppy thinking - astrology, "coincidences," Gaia stuff, etc. (These are separate from what Harris would investigate.)

Michael Shermer, in his book Why Darwin Matters, gives a series of population groups who are more likely to be creationists. "Women" is one of them.  :(

Men and women are different, but it's important to try and separate the innate differences from the cultural ones. I think that in the long run, the innate differences are less important, and less likely to cause problems. Some people try and reinforce their own cultural prejudices with evidence of what might be innate differences.  For example, I've heard people offer the opinion that women shouldn't hold management positions in business, or important political offices, because they might get cranky or become irrational when menstruating or going through menopause.  Those are just lame excuses used to support personal prejudice, imo.

I think that most of the Venus/Mars crapola can be attributed to cultural issues, and not to the fact that women and men are so different that we can't understand one another if we exert a little effort, and don't allow preconceived notions to cloud things.

Date: 2007/10/14 19:47:55, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 14 2007,19:37)
Quote (nuytsia @ Oct. 14 2007,02:30)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 13 2007,06:19)
It must be a British thing, because I thought that Mr. Bean movie was a dud. Here is hoping he is a better theologian.


carlsonjok I think you're confusing Rowan Atkinson with Rowan Williams.

This is Rowan Williams...


Nice to see the church reaching out to young people... ;-)

Wait: weren't you talking about this guy?


Or this one?

Date: 2007/10/14 20:04:09, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
From the "Please sit down and keep quiet" department, a commenter at Amazon named A. Canfil Jr. (who is critical of Behe) asks,
Quote
Can you spell "ad hominen," Dr. Behe?

Date: 2007/10/14 20:08:27, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 14 2007,19:45)
How old are those meteorites?

~6k years. Try to keep up.

Date: 2007/10/15 11:44:32, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 15 2007,10:08)
Welcome to the frustrating world of Quantum Physics and its measurement problem.

Damn, I was hoping that an actual physicist would answer the door. I must be on the wrong floor. This seems to be Being Hit on the Head Lessons.

Date: 2007/10/17 11:37:28, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Jkrebs @ Oct. 17 2007,11:21)
Over at ftk's blog, my friend Jeremy Mohn (a Christian and a high school biology teacher) has made some good points.

Jeremy writes,

 
Quote
Suppose we adopt your first definition. Let's imagine that supernatural explanations are now deemed acceptable in science. Are you with me?

Okay, now what? How do we proceed?

What kind of experiments do we perform now that one of our options is to invoke an ultimate cause that is not bound by natural law?

How can we determine that the "natural" causes we observe are not the result of supernatural action intentionally disguised to look natural?

Hmmm...can we even do experiments anymore?

Also, how does invoking a supernatural cause differ from simply admitting that we don't currently know the cause?

Finally, given that a supernatural being could act in opposition to and/or in conjuction with so-called "natural" causes, how would you differentiate between a "supernatural" explanation and a "natural" explanation?

Just some things to think about.


The sentences in bold are important, and well stated.

It is entirely possible, and is in fact one of the ways that theistic evolution can be interpreted, to think that the natural causes we observe are all intentional supernatural acts: the world is a manifestation of the mind of God, and that it exhibits the rational order and regularity we see because God, in his omni-everythingness, has a mind that is the epitome of rationality.

So if you open the door to supernatural explanations, then, as Jeremy asks, how do you differentiate between those supernatural "natural" events and those that are supernaturally supernatural?  This is the theological issue that has led many evangelical Christian to reject ID as bad theology.  ID and other creationist positions seem to be saying that when natural things happen, God isn't present, as if God was standing outside nature and only occasionally stepping in when supernatural action is needed.  I call this view "punctuated deism": most of the time God is just passively observing the wheels he set in motion, and only when he is supernaturally present does he introduce "design" into the world.

But as Keith Miller has pointed out, a view of God's occasional presence is a view of God's usual absence, and this is unacceptable Christian theology.  Jeremy is quite aware of this problem, and has pointed it out well.

It in facts supports good Christian theology to limit science to "seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us," as the Kansas science standards state.

Of course, Bobby Henderson expressed the problem succinctly in his famous open letter to the Kansas School Board:
 
Quote
...a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage.

Once we allow for the possible interference of a Noodly Appendage of any sort, science comes to a screeching halt.

Date: 2007/10/17 11:56:15, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 17 2007,11:40)
I accept dating methods that are corroberated by verifiable history, like dating the mummies.

So how is it that radiometric dating breaks down only when the history is not "verifiable," (and I hope you're not using a tautological definition)?  If "dating the mummies" is an acceptable application, how do you reconcile it with your age of the earth? I believe, subject to correction, that the oldest Egyptian mummies date to about 3000 BCE, or some 5000 years ago.

Date: 2007/10/18 11:01:11, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (themartu @ Oct. 18 2007,10:35)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 18 2007,10:20)

 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 18 2007,10:20)

Thanks for the giggles. You were very polite, but far too rational for the UDites.

Welcome to the band.


Thank you.

It's a pity as I was looking forward to kairosfocus's explanation of how one can use the dictionary defintion of race to quantify IQ scores. He still might I guess.

Welcome.  You can bet that the UD flock of sheep will (A) celebrate your expulsion and (B) keep making stupid comments that they know you can't answer now. It usually goes something like this:

1) Person makes comments that question ID "logic"
2) Sheep respond predictably with a lot on non sequiturs
3) Person points out the illogical nature of the responses
4) More non sequiturs
5) Person gets banned
6) Sheep say things like "Well, lotf has is clearly stupid
   because he has no answer for x, does he?"

Date: 2007/10/18 14:15:56, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 18 2007,13:39)
Dr. Behe, many times you have suggested the key to understanding is at the microscopic level. Yet you refrain from exploring the obvious non-random mechanism available from quantum physics.

Why?

Behe has a hard enough time with biology and the chances are he knows next to nothing about physics, but I'll bet that he can recognize a crank when he sees one.

Date: 2007/10/25 13:36:27, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 25 2007,12:57)
oldman, my reply to you is on a separate post.

So none of you like AIG, fine with me.  Let's try these on for size...

As to why I am not convinced by the science facts of your side, go here and read both sets of responses concerning the  chimp-human DNA myth.  We are not the only ones who are stubborn and refusing to face facts.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

Go here if you think Christians cannot be scientists

http://www.boston.com/news...._reason

Another reason why I reject the evolutionary logic is that you want it both ways.  The appendix is said to be evidence for evolution as it has no function and is a vestige from our past (but Lamarck was proven wrong so the concept of vestigial organs is bogus.).

But now it has a function and this makes evolutionary sense...so now we can use it to prove evolution is true.  Go here for the proof that it has a function.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007....be.html

So we all have filters.  You on this blog claim that every thing has to have a natural explanation (naturalism).  
(and I forget who, but how you can guarentee I won't come back as a snail, just how do you scientifically prove the Hindus wrong?)

Up to a point naturalism is okay, but not for the origins of specified complexity like our sentences...which you all convienently avoid.  I have my filter on the issue of origins.  You believe lawn mowers put themselves together...fine.  I hold they have designers.  We both can explain how they work and the issue of origins is moot.

With each new post, you continue to demonstrate your ignorance, which is an unforgivable position for a teacher--especially a science teacher--to be in.  Note that it's difficult to tell with creationists whether they're ignorant, dishonest, or some combination of the two, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here.

There are people here who know a lot more biology than I do, but I can see the (obvious) problems with your characterization of vestigial body parts:
1) "Vestigial" does not necessarily mean that the thing in question has no present function.
2) The concept of Lamarckism has nothing to do with vestigial body parts.  Lamarck's idea was that traits or characteristics acquired during an organism's lifetime could be passed on to its progeny.
3) Scientists recognize the provisional nature of knowledge, thus the idea that no function had ever been discovered for the vermiform appendix doesn't mean that anyone believed that no function would ever be discovered.  To say "We don't understand x" is not the same as saying we'll never understand it, unless you're a creationist. Science allows for ignorance to be remedied.

Aso, I'm not sure why you think that substituting one creationist source (the Discovery Institute) for another (AiG) helps your case.  If you're not interested in actual data, that's fine unless you're pretending to be interested in it.

Finally, if you can point us to some self-reproducing lawnmowers, or ones for which origins and designs are not in evidence, your analogy will hold water.  "Specified Complexity" has been shown to be nothing more than  tautological dembskispeak.

Date: 2007/10/25 14:31:38, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (improvius @ Oct. 25 2007,14:17)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 25 2007,14:36)
Finally, if you can point us to some self-reproducing lawnmowers, or ones for which origins and designs are not in evidence, your analogy will hold water.



Sorry, but I'm not going to take the bait. It's not my job to match your pathetic level of detail. I'll need to see both the contents of the goat's digestive system, and a photo of Christopher holding the goat by its hind legs, guiding it around his yard.

Date: 2007/10/26 13:37:00, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Just yesterday, in the first comment under one of his own posts:
Quote
The global warming debate is SO not over. Al Gore just wishes it was over. The fact of the matter is the crapass bandwagon science underpinning global warming hysteria is sinking faster and farther than a lead weight dropped in the Marianis Trench.

Date: 2007/10/27 22:20:36, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 27 2007,21:55)
 
Quote
DaveScot: terminiki

You need to do a little more thinking. Here’s what you need to think about.

Something can be designed.

Something can be not designed.

Of course, the Theory of Evolution does not equate to every possible "Something can be not designed".  It's such an obvious false dichotomy, I wonder why DaveScot thinks it makes a valid argument...



 
Quote
DaveScot: Use the logic skills you think you have and present us with a third option. Failing that, you’re out of here for belligerant [sic] stupidity.

Oh, yeah.

The Banninator strikes!!
Quote


DaveScot

10/27/2007

10:05 pm

Having demonstrated an inability to discriminate between a true dicotomy and a false dichotomy, terminiki has been terminated.

Date: 2007/10/29 13:30:08, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (slpage @ Oct. 29 2007,10:35)
In case you hadn't noticed, that linebacker-build possessing extreme mesomorph Dave 'tardy' Springer is at ISCID, duking it out with fellow misanathrope John A. "I love it so" Davison...

A classic bit of hypocrisy from tardipus rex:


Tony Blair's isn't a botanist that I'm aware of. Have his findings been published in a peer reviewed journal?



Hmmmm..

Is Davy Springer a physicist?  A biologist?  A geneticist?  ?????
[B]

As evidence that perhaps JAD hasn't gone completely around the bend, he observes in one of thoe ISCID comments that DT is...
Quote
...nothing but a power crazed intellectual disaster...[who]...has never been wrong about anything.

Write it down!!

Date: 2007/10/31 13:36:22, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
The tard at UD is moving like a runaway train these past few days. Witness

this bit from William Brookfield, he of ICON-RIDS fame, wherein he tells the faithful about  
Quote
Teleological Targeted Newtonian Vector Clusters
. Who says ID isn't all about the science?

Date: 2007/10/31 21:06:08, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 31 2007,20:15)
Donald has had it up to here from Mickey.

26
BarryA
10/31/2007
7:49 pm

Mickey, that’s it. If you have not been convinced so far your ignorance has been proven to be invincible. Please move along.

I think this might be premature; It looks to me like BarryA was just trying to get Bitsko out of his thread. Bitsko posted a response.

Date: 2007/11/01 10:22:56, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 01 2007,10:13)
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 01 2007,10:10)
Great quote from religionprof's own blog, in a post about Casey Luskin:

 
Quote
I won't quibble over whether the reasons why ID doesn't identify the designer are 'principled'. At the very least, the principle in question is not honesty.

His blog is well worth checking out.  I invited him to drop by here for cocktails.

ReligionProf has been invited, and has already been here.

Date: 2007/11/02 20:17:56, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 02 2007,02:03)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 01 2007,15:32)
 
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 01 2007,15:18)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2007,14:53)
My goodness, BFast has begun thinking!

He should be very careful, that thinking can lead to all sorts of trouble.  For starters it will get him banned from UD.

Speaking of which, Mickey Bitsko is not long for that world.  He managed to post a comment that says    
Quote
the concept of CSI involves inescapable circular reasoning.

I'm opening the betting table now.  Weekends are slow at UD, so I'll put the over-under on Bitsko's bannination at 4 days (Monday 5 November).

As long as he stays on BarryA's threads, I'm taking over.  Barry seems to be more decent than most of the UD posters.  The trick is to avoid the evil eye of DaveScot.  Thus far he may have been saved by writing long comments.

Bob

Bannination!!!

Quote


DaveScot

11/02/2007

8:00 pm

MickeyBitsko is no longer with us.


I was Mickey. It was fun while it lasted.

Date: 2007/11/02 21:49:00, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
My demise came about as I stuck a needle into one of DT's known soft spots, that being randomness and probability. Unfortunately, I was unable to respond to this gem from Kairosfocus, which came just before the button was pushed:
Quote
What we deal with on scientific knowledge is revisable inference to best explanation, and the objection that something utterly improbable just may happen by accident is not the prudent way to bet in such an explanation, once it has crossed the explanatory filters two-pronged test. [The probabilities we are dealing with are comparable to or lower than those that every oxygen molecule in your room could at random rush to one end, causing you to asphyxiate; something you don’t usually worry about I suspect, and BTW, on pretty much the same statistical mechanical grounds, as I discuss in the appendix A, in the always linked. In a nutshell, the statistical weight of the mixed macrostate is so much higher than that of the clumped one, that we would not expect that to happen just once at random in the history of the observed cosmos.]


"...something utterly improbable just may happen by accident..."  Tard at its finest.

Date: 2007/11/03 09:52:19, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 03 2007,09:48)
Many conundrums for the Nixplanatory Archives. Does the premature record of Mickey's original bannination now stand, because it became retroactively true? Does Jim Wynne's comment upon that premature bannination incur ethical risks for the Nixplanatory Archives because he was commenting upon the premature documentation of his OWN apparent bannination? Most important, does the second bannination enter the archives?

The Committee on Nixplanatory Accuracy convened an emergency session overnight, attorneys present, and after many heated exchanges ruled that Mickey Bitsko's second bannination will enter the archives with an asterisk.

From page 39 of the forthcoming decision: "Rationale: when a person takes a genealogical DNA test, the presence of an asterisk (*) in their test result indicates that they are a member of a particular haplogroup, but not of a known subclade (subdivision). Specifically, they do not possess any of the mutations that would place him/her in one of the known "downstream" subclades. This bannination is unclassifiable because it isn't an identifiable member of any known downstream subclade..."

It should be noted that if there is an asterisk involved, I will not attend the induction ceremony.

Date: 2007/11/04 11:13:40, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 04 2007,10:13)
If "The Design of Life" ends up in court, odds are that Dembski will not be given a choice on appearing to testify: those on the opposite side will likely subpoena him as a hostile witness (and thus open to the rules of cross-examination). And this material is going to be wonderful source material for an attorney to perform that interrogation in court.

In court, Dembski will not have control of the questioning, and the sort of digressions he has relied upon on at UD will not avail him. I don't think that he will be a happy camper.

There's a moment that I hope to see in such an encounter. Dembski at some point may decide to try his old stand-by in response to his examiner, "You don't have the training or background to understand my work." At which point, the attorney calls for another exhibit to be displayed, this one with the text of Dembski's "Disbelieving Darwin - And Feeling No Shame!", and ask Dembski to read the following passage:

   
Quote

How is it that the public is commended for its scientific acumen when it accepts Darwinian evolutionary theory, but disparaged for its scientific insensibility when it doubts that same theory? The mark of dogmatism is to reward conformity and punish dissent. If contemporary science does indeed belong to the culture of rational discourse, then it must repudiate dogmatism and authoritarianism in all guises. If the public can be trusted to evaluate the case for Darwinism -- and this is what Darwinists tacitly assume whenever they publish books on  Darwinism for the public -- then it is unfair to turn against the public when it decides that the case for Darwinism is unconvincing.


"Why, Dr. Dembski," the attorney may ask, "is it legitimate for the public to question 'Darwinism' but they have to have advanced degrees if they want to question 'Dembski-ism'? What excuse do you give for your own authoritarianism?"

Let's not forget ID's ace in the hole, Joe G. , who will teach the evilutionists a thing or two if there's another trial.

Date: 2007/11/04 11:33:20, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 04 2007,10:09)
remember what Thomas Paine said.  the hobgoblins of small minds abound.

I think you meant Emerson :
 
Quote
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

But Paine did say,
 
Quote
It is an affront to treat falsehood with complaisance.
which seems apropos here.

Date: 2007/11/04 11:56:02, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Assassinator @ Nov. 04 2007,11:41)
O yes I have, and I see loads of missconceptions from him. Is that a reason for mocking him? No. Sharply written comments are good because they keep you on your toes, but that has nothing to do with swearing, calling names and simply laughing at someone. I do understand a bit why you guys are doing it, VMartin is simply dodging questions and ignoring large parts of posts he quotes from, most of the times the parts wich are actually relevant to the subject, same with Daniel. Because they're so wrong, they're easy targets to pick on, but you're not building a good reputation.

I have only one real question: why can't it just stay friendly? By swearing, you're only giving people like VMartin a reason to get offtopic. If you just react on there thoughts, on there arguments and nothing left you give them no room to go offtopic and thus cornering them. And please don't start with "But he started!!" things, you guys arn't toddlers ^^

But if this forum is indeed just a place to mock other people's (aka kinder garten) wrong thoughts instead of trying to explain evo and all it's surrounding subjects (wich is the main problem of evo, it has a HUGE PR problem) to other people, then i guess it ain't the right place for me. If so, does anyone knows a forum wich is doing that? I'm just trying to learn here, because it's my goal to get into evolutionary research with my bio-informatics study.

Are you familiar with the term Conern Troll? Try on definition #2 at the linked site, and see if it fits.

Date: 2007/11/04 18:59:01, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
And speaking of ERV, her answer to Behe is up, and it's a dandy.

Date: 2007/11/04 20:57:21, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 04 2007,20:08)
 
Quote
I am also curious about the saltational events. Do you see these as creating a new genus, order, phylum or what?
Schindewolf called them "types".  I have no idea what current category that conforms to.

I'm guessing "kinds."

Date: 2007/11/04 21:01:20, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Assassinator @ Nov. 04 2007,14:23)
Those kind of people are the reason i want to become an anthropologist or socialist (i hope i translated that correctly) :P But i don't think he's posting here for our amusement right (aka, he's dead serious)?

I think maybe you meant "sociologist"?  You could become a socialist sociologist, though.  At any rate, Hero is a crank, but a very good-natured one, which is the best kind.

Date: 2007/11/06 21:30:17, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ Nov. 06 2007,14:02)
Endless books have been published in regard to ID in the past 10 years.

No, all of the ID books I've seen are finite in length, they just seem to go on forever.

Date: 2007/11/08 09:44:37, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 07 2007,23:58)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 07 2007,23:41)
I can't wait to see the NOVA special.  I hope they cast Danny DeVito as the little shithead Behe.  It makes me laugh just visualizing DeVito/Behe as his eyes bug out when looking at that huge stack of unread books and papers on the immune system.  :p  :p  :p

Maybe Rowan Atkinson can play Dembski.  :D

Ha. I can just see DeVito Behe's forehead starting to sweat as Rothschild piles up paper after paper, book after book.

Picture DeVito in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, playing blackjack with McMurphy and friends.  "Hit me...Hit me...Hit me."

Added in edit:  Here he is, at a meeting of the DI braintrust--

Date: 2007/11/09 22:22:50, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote
Pick one and lets look at the experimental evidence showing it's capabilities towards creating complex functional systems.

Define "complex" and tell us how we can identify it, and what the delimiter is between complex and not-complex.  While you're at it, you might also want to tell us what you think a "functional system" is.

Date: 2007/11/10 10:04:46, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 09 2007,23:42)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 09 2007,22:22)
   
Quote
Pick one and lets look at the experimental evidence showing it's capabilities towards creating complex functional systems.

Define "complex" and tell us how we can identify it, and what the delimiter is between complex and not-complex.  While you're at it, you might also want to tell us what you think a "functional system" is.

Suggested reading.

I've done my reading, and unlike you, I've actually learned from it.  Unless you're willing to define your terms in your own words, we have no way of knowing what you're talking about, and you are free to move the goalposts at will. So I'll ask again:
1) What do you mean by "complex," how do you identify it, and what are the empirical delimiters between "complex" and not-complex?
2) How do you define "functional system"?

Date: 2007/11/10 17:39:03, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 10 2007,11:40)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 10 2007,10:04)
Unless you're willing to define your terms in your own words, we have no way of knowing what you're talking about, and you are free to move the goalposts at will. So I'll ask again:
1) What do you mean by "complex," how do you identify it, and what are the empirical delimiters between "complex" and not-complex?
2) How do you define "functional system"?

Fair enough.

"Complex" means "composed of many interconnected parts".
As a general rule: more parts = more complex.

"Functional system" means "an assemblage of parts which work together towards the same purpose or function"

Please reread the first question, and try again. What about boundaries? You need to be able to describe (with more rigor than "I know it when I see it") the difference between complex and not-complex.

Date: 2007/11/11 09:24:39, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 10 2007,21:52)
Damn. Is there anything better than Etta James's version of At Last?

I don't know about better, but there's a live version of the song by Phoebe Snow on Donald Fagen's New York Rock & Soul Revue CD that kicks some serious ass.  There's also a lot of other great stuff on that CD.

Date: 2007/11/11 11:35:12, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2007,10:20)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 10 2007,07:12)
getawitness corrects DaveScot, ducks:

     
Quote
Pantrog, “and ‘generation’ is, as we have learnt, ambiguous.”

Not really. From The Oxford Dictionary of Science:

A group of organisms of approximately the same age within a population. Organisms that are crossed to produce offspring in a genetics study are referred to as the parent generation and their offspring are the first filial generation.

DaveScot’s point is beyond my understanding, but his language isn’t: he was clearly using “generation” in a non-standard sense.

and another:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-147003

 
Quote
66

Stanton Rockwell

11/10/2007

10:29 am
DaveScot,”Each replication is a new generation. Ergo there have been billions of trillions of generations in the last several decades.”
I’m no expert in this area, but it seems to me that using this definition of “generation” that my siblings and I should be considered of different generations?


Get ready for squirming...

No squirming is in evidence at this point. DT seems to have paid no attention to being corrected regarding the generations/replications confusion, but note that in this comment he changes his terminology:
 
Quote
ID claims that even billions of trillions of replications are not enough to have any reasonable chance of observing significant biological complexity on the order of what separates reptiles from mammals.
{my bold}
While still ignoring the basic fallacy, of course.

We have indeed always been at war with Eurasia.

Date: 2007/11/15 14:25:55, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
A hilarious instance of people talking past each other at UD, and jerry saying something and then denying that he said it:
Jerry
Quote
In the trial, he [Behe] referenced the most current 2005 standard view of the immune system and he discussed this in depth with Ken Miller during the trial, but this information was not referenced in the Jones decision.

Stanton Rockwell
Quote
If you can point me to the place in the Dover transcripts where Behe discussed anything with Kenneth Miller, I’d appreciate it.

Jerry ducks the question with some of Behe's testimony.
Stanton Rockwell
Quote
Behe, so far as the transcript shows, discussed nothing with Miller during the trial. Answering questions about Miller’s testimony is not equivalent to having a discussion with him.

Scubaredneck chimes in
Quote


Stanton,

Having watched lots of Matlock and Law and Order re-runs, I can’t recall a scenario that would allow two witnesses, particularly witnesses for opposing sides of the case, to have a conversation on the record during the trial. Perhaps you could clarify exactly what you mean for us.


Stanton patiently explains
Quote
Scuba, It was Jerry who said that there was a conversation between Behe and Miller during the trial...


BarryA, clueless as usual:
Quote
Scuba, you are right. Witnesses don’t have conversations with each other during trials.

Then the money shot from Jerry:
Quote
I never said Behe had a conversation with Miller at Dover.


All of this in a thread bemoaning PBS airing "false facts."

Date: 2007/11/16 09:19:26, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Joe Gallien intends to run for a seat on his local school board:

 
Quote


Joseph

11/15/2007

1:15 pm

All I can say about this fiasco is I cannot wait until I get elected to a school board.

Quote


getawitness

11/15/2007

1:27 pm

Joseph, are you running?

Quote
poachy

11/15/2007

3:39 pm

Run, Joseph, run! Now that ID has won the battle with science, we need to get back into a courtroom in front of a good Republican judge.

Quote


11/16/2007

8:12 am

getawitness,

I plan on running in the next election- my youngest enters the public school system next year.


If he wins, I hope they have popcorn at the meetings.


Linky

Date: 2007/11/16 10:52:30, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 16 2007,10:48)
hey if anyone has a mole account at UD can I take it for a drive?  I promise not to post anything that will get you banned.

PM me if you're willing to give me the keys for a bit.

Why not just create your own account?

Date: 2007/11/16 11:07:59, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Annyday @ Nov. 16 2007,11:01)
I meant not to make more than one account to a single IP, but if you want to use more IPs there's several dozen free anonymous routing sites. Problem is, it will usually stamp you as "someone connecting through X anonymous site" for anyone doing a lookup...

If you have a dynamic IP address it doesn't matter if it's a large commercial domain. They would have to ban the entire domain.

Date: 2007/11/16 16:02:19, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Well, ol' Jim is just back from the tardmine


where I just received a double-secret, unannounced banning (apparently) as Stanton Rockwell.  My posts stopped showing up right after I hinted that I might have some expertise in biology (I don't) :p and defended Abbie Smith here. Unfortunately,  Stanton's my demise also came just as I was getting warmed up in discussions with mastertards Joe G. and Larry F.

Date: 2007/11/16 16:40:12, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 16 2007,16:29)
Hmmm...do bannniations of admitted sock puppets count as operation of the Nixplanatory filter?

I can see that as a bit unfair to UD. And you all know I am the soul of fair play when it comes to UD.

(Well, not the detachable soul of fair play, but you know what I mean.)

I wasn't an admitted sockpuppet until after I was banned, so I don't know how that would be unfair to UD. I mean, it's not like I was trying to provoke them or anything.  :p

Date: 2007/11/16 21:05:40, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 16 2007,20:51)
The Committee on Nixplanatory Accuracy has ruled on Stanton Rockwell's phantom bannination here.

Thanks, RB. That brought a tear to my eye.

Date: 2007/11/17 08:05:20, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 17 2007,07:43)
 
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 17 2007,06:52)
     
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 16 2007,20:51)
The Committee on Nixplanatory Accuracy has ruled on Stanton Rockwell's phantom bannination here.

Interesting, but I am concerned that your solution violates unitarity and is not renormalizable.

Not to worry, I'm making up my own physics in which these issues aren't a concern. A few loose ends; it'll be ready by this evening, once I get to the math. I had to do this to get my chemistry to work, so its all taken a few days longer than expected.

I'm tired of scientists dominating scientific discourse and hiding the truth behind theories that are too complicated for the average person like me to understand and also too implausible to believe and also caused Hitler. And I aim to do something about it.

You said it, brother!! I'm sick of these physicists and all their big talk and  math, like anyone really understands that stuff, or even needs it. I never took a math class in my life, and I'm as smart as those guys. Not dumb--SMART.

Date: 2007/11/17 08:21:10, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 17 2007,08:13)
 
Quote
Cannibalism was seen within the paradigm of their religious beliefs. (Today, most Fijians are Christian.)

So prior to the introduction of Christianity, they had already had a taste of religion.

Date: 2007/11/17 08:38:12, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 16 2007,12:12)
Well howdydo!  Pressure at Uncommon Descent has apparently produced the following statement:

Quote
ERRATA

Thanks to those who pointed to a bug in our software.  This paper has been withdrawn.


Link

I just noticed that Gil Dodgen(!!) and Granville Sewell are on the job at the EI "lab."  Further evidence that the lab is part of a clown college.

Date: 2007/11/17 09:37:50, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Richard Simons @ Nov. 16 2007,20:18)
And another a few minutes ago!
 
Quote
38 user(s) active in the past 15 minutes
25 guests, 12 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Richard Simons >Zachriel >Lou FCD >hooligans >jeffox >Ra-Úl >Mr_Christopher >stevestory >blipey >Paul Nelson >Ptaylor >tsig

I think this thread might have given Nelson et al a little to think about.  It seems more than coincidental that the hoopla over Exploring Evolution died after all of the obvious ties to creationist canards were pointed out.  If this is the case, it makes you wonder about how stupid those people really are.  And the fact that Nelson keeps popping in here while logged in compounds the dumbness.

Date: 2007/11/17 10:04:51, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2007,12:34)
Another analog source, plus a a shot of homebrew enclosure with University reciprocating flare horns (for reference, woofer is 15"). That's the way we used to do it.


The saddest person I ever encountered was a guy in my favorite audio store in the early 70s who had scrimped and saved for a long time to buy the JBL Paragon and then found that he couldn't get up the stairs to his apartment. Of course, Providence may have been on his side, as having one of those in an apartment might not have been thought a good idea by his neighbors.


Date: 2007/11/18 12:58:23, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 18 2007,12:22)
   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 18 2007,12:08)
FtK has joined the fray at the PBS blog.

Comments are not moderated. Oh noes!

       
Quote
would you mind if I make a list of words and phrases taken from this forum which are highly inappropriate when discussing the issues surrounding this debate? It may take quite some time to put together as there is a lot to work with here, but I'd be willing to point them out.

Well, it is nice to see that she found a new outlet for her obsessive need to control the conversation.

From an Ftk post in this thread, back in April:
   
Quote
Alan,

Would you mind if I make a list of words and phrases taken from this forum which are highly inappropriate when discussing the issues surrounding this debate? It may take quite some time to put together as there is a lot to work with here, but I'd be willing to point them out to you.

She seems to enjoy making lists of dirty words, and no doubt looking them up in the dictionary.

A few notable quotes from Ftk on the Nova forum, all with my emphasis added:

   
Quote
I’ve sat in on many lectures, classes, and debates regarding these topics, and I’ve also read many peer-reviewed papers...

   
Quote
I have read quite a few peer-reviewed articles. Scientists at KCFS linked to them all the time when they were discussing various issues with me. I've also gone back privately to some of those same scientists when I've needed help finding an additional article on a particular subject.

Obviously, there were things in some of those articles that I would have had to ask more questions about to completely understand, but overall I was able to comprehend the content.

   
Quote
Most of the discussions going on at the blogs and forums dedicated to the ID/Evolution controversy are really not terribly difficult to understand, and if there are terms or subjects that I’m unfamiliar with, I just look them up.

Having said that, certainly I’m not qualified to consider the math being put forth from a guy like Behe and decide whether it’s “good” or “bad”, and I don’t claim to.

   
Quote
...you won't see me promoting my "personal opinions" as you seem to want me to do. I've been honest in saying that I lean toward a young earth perspective, but I cannot by any means say that my opinion is correct because, as we've been discussing, I don't have the background to make those type of claims. That is why I believe it's important to understand both sides of these issues...and that is what I'm teaching my kids as well. They'll understand both sides, which in the end, will probably put them ahead of game rather than hold them back.
What it comes down to is this. I understand all the mumbo jumbo science talk about what can or cannot be considered "design", what is or is not an "accident", whether the "rain that fell yesterday" was designed or not. I get it.


The dishonesty and self-contradictions (I understand all this stuff!!! Wait, no I don't--I don't get the mumbo jumbo math part, but so what!) are Overwhelming Evidence that Ftk is a blithering ignoramus.

Date: 2007/11/18 21:56:31, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 18 2007,21:19)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 18 2007,20:17)
Where is DaveTard?

It seems generations of posts have passed since he last brightened my day...

My previous hypothesis was that DaveScot might be having "family problems". However, he did disappear around the time it was pointed out that he was conflating replications with generations (and had been doing so for weeks).

 
Quote
Hu: The huge population size is a very poor substitute for a sufficient number of generations needed for anything complicated to evolve. Several thousand generations isn’t enough to make any weakly selectable new trait prevalent, let alone a complicated sequence of improvements.

DaveScot: How do you figure only thousands of generations for falciparum? It infects a billion humans every year, asexually replicates itself into a trillion parasites in a full blown infection, and is carried by God only knows how many mosquitoes (presumably more mosquito hosts than human hosts) where it reproduces sexually. That’s billions of trillions of generations.

Hu states the difference in evolutionary effect quite well.

As Stanton Rockwell, I gave DT a little dig here, after joining in correcting him on the generations/replications thing, and the fact that he never responded seemed very strange.

Date: 2007/11/20 14:27:55, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
BA77 is heavy into neurology, but doesn't know what a synapse is:
 
Quote
I maintain that the synapses, and their supporting structures, that form as our brain grows, are built specifically to be receivers, of specific types of information, and to be transmitters, of specific types of information.

Date: 2007/11/21 22:05:58, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2007,20:53)
I am just dropping the last swallow of a nice merlot, Smoking Loon.

It's hard to tell whether you're [A] addressing an Indian; [B] indulging in a different different type of intoxicant after drinking the merlot or [C] insulting someone.

Date: 2007/11/24 09:31:27, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 24 2007,09:12)
sure it was just a joke, whatever you say, but sometimes you guys really just need to step back and read some of the crap you're spouting.  It's not funny nor do I believe that that is the intention.  Have a nice day.

You've proven the point.  Good job.

Date: 2007/11/24 12:19:34, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
If this one were posted on that list, someone would probably have to call the paramedics for firstsheaf:

Date: 2007/11/24 18:31:54, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Hermagoras @ Nov. 24 2007,12:20)
Uncommonly Denyse gets spanked:      
Quote
Denyse,

Wow: according to this last bit, “materialists” have been brainwashed (”trained to think a certain way”), are uncreative, unquestioning, not independent, are like dogs (”barking in unison”), rely simply on feelings (”it all feels so GOOD”), are analogous to drunkards (”the headache doesn’t happen until sobriety sets in”), and are prone to scapegoating — and even then choose the wrong targets.

To follow this (addiing [sic] “I suspect” and “I suppose” in lieu of evidence), that would make non-materialists independent thinkers, creative, questioning, indivdiualists [sic], reliant on thought, sober, and not prone to scapegoating.

Goodness gracious, Denyse! Try using a broader brush next time: you’re not generalizing enough.

And then Jerry brings a heapin' helpin' of der schtoopid:
Quote

getawitness,

Nearly all experiments in evolutionary biology are based on the Darwinian model. That sounds a little bit like barking in unison. It is also a model that has no empirical underpinning. I actually do not rule out creativity from the biologists because in the course of writing their reports they can get very creative in explaining their contradictory findings.

Maybe you could enlighten us as to why all this effort and money is being expended on a paradigm that has no empirical support except for the trivial unless there is some type of external pressure that is requiring this lock step behavior.

Sounds sort of like Stalin’s purge of the geneticists to get a political solution that is acceptable.


Experiments in evolutionary biology are based on...evolutionary biology!! Who'da thunk it?

Date: 2007/11/29 11:33:38, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Joe G, who rarely disappoints, outdoes himself in terms of bringin' teh stoopid, when he tries to defend GG's publication record:
Quote
Writing a paper takes research. Research takes time. Research in astronomy takes quite a bit of time due to the vast distances involved. (it takes time to detect movement in far-away bodies)

Linky

In the same thread, DT makes a much-needed appearance, and still can't understand why SciAm doesn't count:
Quote
While SciAm is not peer reviewed, per se, a cover story is an accomplishment that few astronomers in the world manage to get and one that no one else in ISU’s astronomy department can brag about. Since SciAm is an old and well respected popular science journal that can be seen prominently on every magazine rack in the western world this represents a tremendous positive advertisement for both Gonzalez personally and for the ISU astronomy department in general.

He still can't bring himself to refer to SciAm as a magazine and not a journal, per se, of course.
The comment from DT must be read in its entirety in order to be able to savor the full flavor of its tardfulness.

Date: 2007/11/29 12:08:22, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 29 2007,11:59)
Good Old Joe. So actually, GG's subpar publication record is ACTUALLY a sign of just what a superb researcher he really is! He's actually BETTER than those eggheads who manage to publish, since they're obviously not doing research!

Well, the difference is that researchers such as (gasp) biologists have their subjects right in front of them, so they can do their research and publish their data right away, and not have to deal with something that's light years away, and have to peer through a telescope for years waiting for something to move. The hidebound chance-worshiping idiots in GG's department, and the rest of the university, obviously don't understand this.

Date: 2007/12/02 20:03:14, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 02 2007,19:57)
while i was copying the ftk thread, i had a glance at a few comments over the months. Saw some craziness she said about how Darwinists are going to look bad in February 08 because the Darwin police have arrested too many people. What the hell was that about? Can anybody translate that from Crazy to English for me?

She  was referring to the impending release of "Expelled," and the "arrests" referred to are Sternberg, Gonzalez, et al. The line from FtK is in my sig.

Date: 2007/12/05 11:42:15, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
It seems to me, a person with no experience in the tenure wars, that in a "normal" situation, someone in GG's position would pick himself up, dust himself off, and get back to work,   having been told what it is he needs to do to earn tenure.  GG has taken a radically different tack, which indicates to me that he is (A) sadly deluded, or (B) under the impression that he can turn this into money somehow, a la Behe and Dembski.  At this point, there is no up-side for a mainstream institution that might otherwise have considered hiring him. He's volunteered himself as a DI sacrificial lamb--and they'll gladly set fire to him if he allows it.

Edit: Because I needed to, and because I could.

Date: 2007/12/06 11:37:29, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 06 2007,11:29)
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 06 2007,11:25)
Dear all,

I feel a nuclear rant coming on.  If you haven't built those bunkers yet, do so now.

You've been forewarned...

Ah, is this the same kind of "nuclear" that works fine to generate power for your little computer and website, but somehow inexplicably all falls apart when you try and use the same methods and understanding to determine the age of the earth.

Radioactivity = good* to make power, well understood.

YEC Radioactivity = must have been different in the past, the earth is *not* billions of years old.

So which is it FTK? How can we be generating power from nuclear reactions if we don't understand them enough to also use them to determine a date range for the age of the earth, or items pulled out of it?

*Well, maybe not "good" but you know what I mean.

This is a question I asked FtK over at the KCFS forum over a year ago.  She said she'd think about it and get back to me.
Linky

Date: 2007/12/08 10:58:50, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 08 2007,10:46)
Another analogy would be trying to do chemistry research with a postdoc who believed in phlogiston...

One strange aspect of this story is that Abraham actually didn't have a doctoral degree in Biology. According to the story in the Boston Globe
Quote
He has a master's degree in biology and a philosophy doctorate, both from St. John's University in New York

I dunno if I would hire a postdoc who had a doctorate in Philosophy rather than in Biology. That's a warning sign, for sure.  ;)

I think it's been established that Abraham does have a PhD in biology, and that a newspaper account messed it up, thinking that "PhD" meant "doctorate in philosophy."
Link

Date: 2007/12/08 12:15:09, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I would start out by simply explaining the difference between "proof" and "evidence."  Similarities in DNA are evidence of common descent, but not proof of it.  In other words your friend is invoking a strawman argument, knowingly or not.  There are other lines of evidence that reinforce the idea of common descent; common descent was proposed and generally accepted long before our present knowledge of DNA. In that sense, greater understanding of genetics has served to confirm what was already proposed.

Date: 2007/12/09 10:57:20, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 09 2007,10:54)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 09 2007,10:49)
I think Joseph [AKA Joe G] may be a Scientologist.  He's "not a Christian," he seems to believe in front-loading and maybe panspermia, and he's a fan of the noted tax evader, anti-psychologist, paranoid huckster, and Dianetics recommender Kevin Trudeau.

That would make sense. He seems plenty wacko enough to be a Scientologist. But I can understand why he would be reluctant to admit that on UD.

I think you give Joe too much credit. He's just a dope, and sits squarely in the center of the demographic group that people like Trudeau aim for.

Date: 2007/12/09 12:29:25, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 09 2007,11:01)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Dec. 09 2007,10:57)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 09 2007,10:54)
 
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 09 2007,10:49)
I think Joseph [AKA Joe G] may be a Scientologist.  He's "not a Christian," he seems to believe in front-loading and maybe panspermia, and he's a fan of the noted tax evader, anti-psychologist, paranoid huckster, and Dianetics recommender Kevin Trudeau.

That would make sense. He seems plenty wacko enough to be a Scientologist. But I can understand why he would be reluctant to admit that on UD.

I think you give Joe too much credit. He's just a dope, and sits squarely in the center of the demographic group that people like Trudeau aim for.

Isn't that the Hubbard demographic too?

There's certainly some overlap, I'm sure. In my experience Scientologists can't keep their mouths shut about it, though, especially the ones who are as intellectually deprived as Joe. And don't forget, he posts crap all over the interwebs, and as far as I know he's never claimed to be anything other than (A) a Muslim at one point, (B) an "engineer," © a basement scientist and (D) a potential school board candidate.

Date: 2007/12/12 14:29:22, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (hereoisreal @ Dec. 12 2007,14:27)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 12 2007,12:09)
Hey Zero, do you ever make sense?  Do you ever speak in clear english, without the nonsense?

Just curious.

Christopher, IMO, Christ and Ophir are two thirds of
the family (trinity) of God.

Pro 16:11 A just weight and balance [are] the LORD'S:
all the weights of the bag [are] his work.

Isa 40:12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand,
and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of
the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales,
and the hills in a balance?

Zero

"No," in other words.

Date: 2007/12/13 11:00:35, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (hereoisreal @ Dec. 12 2007,22:11)
Jim, check out a Lilly.

Like this one?



Or did you mean "lily"?

Date: 2007/12/13 11:45:04, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 13 2007,11:34)
Off topic, sorta, was WAD really given a $100,000 grant/prize by the Templeton Foundation for "writing book on information theory, 2000–2001." ??

Read it  here where Dembski teaches bible classes.

The book that Dembski promised to write was never written.

Date: 2007/12/13 12:19:27, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 12 2007,15:52)
https://www.blogger.com/comment....5980302

Quote
Joe G said...
BTW I can repair refrigerators. Did you have a point?

I can repair anything that is man-made. Anything. And again- did you have a point?

The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.


My gift, for someone without a sig.

Someone should archive Joe's whole blog, in the event that he follows through on his blustering about trying to be elected to his local school board. Unless, of course, he's really so stupid as to leave the blog up for everyone to see.

Date: 2007/12/13 12:33:10, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 13 2007,12:01)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Dec. 13 2007,11:45)
 
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 13 2007,11:34)
Off topic, sorta, was WAD really given a $100,000 grant/prize by the Templeton Foundation for "writing book on information theory, 2000–2001." ??

Read it  here where Dembski teaches bible classes.

The book that Dembski promised to write was never written.

But he was able to pocket the 100K?

Holy cash cow, no offense everyone but I'm thinking about jumping ship.  ID never looked so good!

Dembski claims in his Southwest Babble College CV that the book in question is forthcoming:
Quote
Being as Communion: The Metaphysics of Information, Templeton Book Prize project, book under contract with Ashgate publishers for series in science and religion.
.

But from Ashgate's website:
Quote
We know the value of academic research. Our business is not driven by text books and journals but by a program of scholarly ground-breaking publications alongside the very best in business practice and illustrated art books. Books published within the Ashgate program are subject to peer review by recognized authorities in the field.

Linky

I don't know about Ashgate's track record in this regard, but if there's any sort of rigorous peer review the book is dead meat.

Date: 2007/12/13 14:43:55, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Gunthernacus @ Dec. 13 2007,13:30)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Dec. 13 2007,12:33)
Dembski claims in his Southwest Babble College CV that the book in question is forthcoming

I don't know how recent that "forthcoming" list is...it lists his "Reflections on Human Origins" as forthcoming, but that has been on his Design Inference website for some time (link to PDF) and Google just told me that it is in the July 2005 issue of PCID.  So, two and a half years out of date at least.  Oh well, he does have that one class to teach, not to mention stalking the Baylor campus for an unattended broom closet.

A query to Ashgate Publishing yielded this response as to the status of the book:
Quote
The title "Being as Communion" is not yet published.  It will be published in both a paperback edition & cloth edition.  The title has an anticipated publication date of June 2008.


So much for their peer review process, I guess, unless the reviewers were DI fellows or Baptist preachers.

Edit: Sloppiness

Date: 2007/12/15 09:09:53, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 15 2007,08:15)
Larry Fafarman is a tard  
Quote

The press only reported that she added the initials “FYI” to the forwarded email, and I thought that her email address was the only indication that the forwarded email came from her. The above copy of the email shows that she added more than just “FYI” — she also added her name, position, and TEA address –
FYI
Chris Castillo Comer
Director of Science
Texas Education Agency
1701 N. Congress Ave.
Austin TX 78701-1494
Needless to say, adding her name, position, and TEA address greatly enhanced the appearance of endorsement.
Ding Elsberry’s copy of the forwarded email does not show this additional information that she added — see
http://austringer.net/wp/index.....a-forrest/


Apparently the newfangled technology called the "signature file" has yet to reach the exotic shores of Missouri.

Ludicrous Larry isn't even from Missouri, his blog's name notwithstanding. He's from California, iirc.

Date: 2007/12/15 14:45:56, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (EXEVOLUTIONIST @ Dec. 15 2007,14:36)
Hmm- If the evolutionists believe they have such an airtight case for thier religious belief in evolution, it would seem that they would welcome a side by side comparison of evolution vs. either Creation or ID. But it appears that there is much fear and trepidation about doing that. If you have not done that comparison, perhaps you should. It changed my mind completely! And perhaps that is the underlying reason why evolutionists seem so frightened of the thought of another explanation.

Sockpuppet.

Date: 2007/12/16 11:49:35, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Keith Robinson is a local public school music teacher and creationist. He's written a novel called Logic's End which is described thusly at Amazon:
 
Quote
In the near future, when planetary space travel has become possible, a NASA planetfinder telescope discovers a planet that has the necessary requirements to produce life. Rebecca Evans, a staunch evolutionary scientist, is one of the people chosen to visit the planet. After arriving on the surface, she is kidnapped and finds herself caught in the middle of an ongoing planetary war between alien clans. In an effort to escape, she makes a deal with one of the clans to exchange precious technology for her freedom. She soon finds out that on Kaesh, you cannot trust anyone. For on this planet, survival of the fittest is played out to its logical end. Her journey of discovery turns into a search for truth as she begins to question the very foundations of all that she believes about the origin of life.

In other words, the novel is apparently about a godless planet where the inhabitants are inherently untrustworthy because of evilution.  

If you like you can go here  (scroll down) and listen to a podcast interview of Robinson.

Robinson's publisher is Anomalos, apparently a vanity publishing outlet that claims to not be a vanity publishing oulet.  Robinson's "short bio" there reads as follows:
Quote

Keith Robinson has dedicated his life to teaching others about the evidence for creation and against evolution. He has presented his research findings to school district administrators, fellow teachers, students and church members. His interest in the topic of Creation and Evolution has led him to write both a full-length dramatic play, and the science fiction novel dealing with the issue, Logic’s End: A Novel about the Origin of Life.

An invitation has been extended to Mr. Robinson to join us here and discuss.

Date: 2007/12/16 12:20:26, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I'm interested to hear about his "research findings," and how he's presented them to his fellow teachers and students, being that he's employed in a public school.

Date: 2007/12/16 13:02:21, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Way back in July, Paul Nelson said in this thread,
 
Quote

I talked with Discovery and a moderation-light Explore Evolution (EE) critique board there is a live possibility.  I say "moderation-light," because the critical posts will need to address the content of EE, not my failure to publish my monograph, DI funding sources, etc.  Except for that content requirement, however, and the usual no-vulgarity stuff, the board should be totally open.

Given my travel, the board won't be operational until mid-August.  Until then, keep posting here, and I'll continue compiling criticisms.


We know that Nelson has been here several times since then without posting or answering any questions, and we also know that the EE Discussion page is still as empty as a creationist's cranium, or the ISCID journal.

Is it safe to call Nelson a liar now?

Date: 2007/12/16 19:58:14, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 16 2007,19:43)
he's dangerous because he's endangers the jobs of comedy writers in Hollywood?  Boy what's that say about the quality of comedy writers? lol

Really, you guys might be jumping at ghosts.  Huckabee's not dangerous in the least bit.  He's a lot of things but dangerous isn't one of them.  You guys might want to focus your energy elsewhere because there's only one scenario in which he becomes President and it's looking more and more like a long shot.

Huckabee not dangerous? Jumping at ghosts?
(HT to PZ)

Date: 2007/12/19 09:44:10, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I'm still trying to get Robinson to respond to e-mail messages. I don't know if he's hasn't read them or is ignoring them. In the meantime, there's a story in the local paper about him and his book today. You can see it here. I don't know how long that link will stay alive, so here's the story:
Quote
For a guy who does research for classes he teaches at his church on a computer decorated with pictures of "Star Wars" characters, maybe Keith Robinson's book, "Logic's End," was indeed a logical end.

About eight years ago Robinson was teaching a class on apologetics, the defense or proving of Christian doctrines, at Prayerhouse Assembly of God church when he struck on an idea for a way to lay out his critique of evolution.

"I had all this information, but I realized that this is the kind of information that many people never even hear," Robinson said. "In our day and age, one of the best ways to get information out to people is through stories, and I thought it would be really interesting if someone took this information and put it into an entertaining story."

The result is "Logic's End," the story - which Robinson calls "apologetics fiction," and probably owes a lot to his days playing Dungeons and Dragons and reading "The Chronicles of Narnia" books - of a manned space mission to a fictional planet in the not-so-distant future. The planet's large, dangerous and dragon-like inhabitants kidnap a human scientist and walk her through a world ruled only by the notion of survival of the fittest.

"I also liked the idea of doing a what-if, and this book really does that," said Robinson, the band and orchestra director at Indian Trail Academy. "What if evolution was taken out to its logical conclusion?"

The conclusion Robinson came to does not square with life as we know it on our planet. In "Logic's End," the mutations that drive evolution leave creatures asymmetrical. There is little or no consideration for the well-being of future generations. There is no art, and nothing is made or done with any aesthetic considerations.

These are problems that evolutionists cannot explain, Robinson said.

"Evolution can explain the negatives around us like slavery and abortion, but how do you explain beauty or love?" he said. "Why would someone take the time to make anything beautiful?"

The idea that living things evolve through mutation is shot through with holes, Robinson said.

"Why don't we have more mutations?" he asked. "There are a miniscule amount that are helpful, and then still disappear. Why is that? We don't see mutations helping animals and people. We don't see mutations adding to anything. They're just taking away."

Robinson - who was born in Kenosha, but lived most of his life in and around Chicago and graduated from Northern Illinois University - was not always a believer in creationism.

"I believed a lot of the alternative theories. I believed the secular scientists saying the Earth is millions of years old," he said. "There wasn't really a time where I believed in evolution, but there was a time where I believed in part."

But he couldn't square his religious faith with the science he had learned.

"There are parts of each that contradict the very basic points of the other," Robinson said. "Who were Adam and Eve if we evolved? Monkeys?"

The literalist Christian perspective won out, but the book is no rote recitation of any particular church's version of events.

"The book is called 'Logic's End.' I'm basing it on logic and science, not any specific, literal creation story," Robinson said.

Over the course of two years, Robinson (who had never attempted a book before) wrote and edited "Logic's End." It was another year before it was accepted by Anamolos Publishing of Crane, Mo., and then nine more months before there was a book the author could hold in his hand. Now Robinson can find his books for sale on store shelves and at amazon.com.

Robinson peppered the book with personal references, using connections to his day job to come up with all the alien terms he needed. The book's "Bratsche Gorge" comes from the German word for viola, Robinson's primary instrument. "Ionian Laser Technologies" comes from a kind of musical scale.

As descriptive as his writing may have been, Robinson responded to suggestions from early readers by adding, with the help of artist and recent Tremper High School graduate Samuel Schlenker, vivid drawings of the alien creatures - as well as a pair of maps and a pronunciation guide. Anything it takes to get people engrossed in the lively story, Robinson said, and get them to reconsider their preconceptions.

"One of my biggest frustrations is when I ask people why they believe what they believe and they say, 'Because that's what I was taught,' or 'That's what my parents told me,'" he said. "I want them to think, to ask questions. And they can have some fun while they do that."

Date: 2007/12/21 18:02:42, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (argystokes @ Dec. 21 2007,17:55)
Meh, sounds like a highschooler to me. One that apparently doesn't believe in all sorts of things (s)he learns in his/her biotechnology class. Aside from evolution, I wonder what those things could be. Independent assortment? RFLP? Inquiring minds want to know. Unfortunately, this one smells like a drive-by.

Robinson is a high school music teacher/band director. Robinson hasn't responded to messages sent to his school district e-mail address.  I also left a comment under the web version of the article about the book in the local paper, and the comment included a link to this thread, which is possibly how junior found his/her way here.

Date: 2007/12/22 21:32:30, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I think it might be a good idea to focus on Mr. Robinson's book and its premise, which is (I think) that the the logical end of "Darwinism" is asymmetrical body plans, amorality, and, as someone suggested earlier, bein' all mean an' stuff. Let's try not to come at this from 40 directions at once.

Perhaps Keith (if I may) might want to provide his own synopsis, and we can go from there.

Date: 2007/12/24 09:06:40, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Like Steverino, I'm not a scientist (I'm an engineer!) but I've read several copies of SciAm and took the SAT test (which confirmed my autodidactic proclivities) so I also know everything about biology, physics, paleontology and climatology, and am well-qualified to wish everyone here a merry Christmas and happy new year.  Homos.

Date: 2007/12/24 10:03:01, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 24 2007,08:59)
The board disembodied telic programmatical entity apparently dislikes those links in Alby's post.

I corrected that for you.  There's a reason these things happen, you know, and it has nothing to do with your blind-watchmaker evo-mat chance worshipping, digits-to-text fantasies.

Date: 2007/12/26 23:47:16, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 26 2007,22:08)
ID is for shameless liars.

But you knew that already. (Unless you're still an ID supporter)

...and for crybabies.

Date: 2007/12/27 11:11:32, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 27 2007,10:59)
Quote
The answers to your other questions are either obvious or already given as well.


Yes, its obvious you've been pulling crap out of your ass that has no chance of standing up to scientific scrutiny, Dave.

I'm certain that if Gould were alive today, he would be in awe of DT's autodidactic blinding insights and his SAT score and dump everything he ever knew in favor of ignorant unsupported assertions. It's so much easier than gathering evidence.

Date: 2007/12/28 11:36:59, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (KARobinson @ Dec. 22 2007,14:40)
One of the four main issues I deal with in Logic’s End is the scientific observation that natural processes cannot produce a code system.  Therefore, how can evolution account for DNA, since it is the most advanced information storage system known to man?

Perhaps if I begin by addressing this bit from Keith we can get him involved in a discussion.

You say that "...natural processes cannot produce a code system" is a "scientific observation."  I'm sure you must be aware that there is a great deal of ongoing work in science in this area, and that no one except people with religious predispositions has given up on it yet.  The answer to the question, "...how can evolution account for DNA...?" would be better expressed as "How can scientific investigation account for DNA?" and the answer is that there is no firm answer. What you're proposing is a classic "God of the Gaps" argument--science can't presently explain it, therefore God.  I'm sure you must realize that this is fallacious reasoning, which makes the title of your book (and your premise for it) somewhat ironic.

Is it your position that we should abandon investigations for natural causes in cases where such causes aren't immediately in evidence?

Date: 2007/12/28 12:00:02, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 28 2007,11:47)
http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/154#comment-691

 
Quote
Reminds me of a discussion I had with my son one evening. I asked him why he thought God allowed evil to take place in the world. He said, “Without conflict, there would be nothing to write about”. Made sense to me.

It seems to me that everything in life centers around our choices, and we certainly learn the most important life lessons from mistakes we’ve made or the evil we’ve encountered. And, as you pointed out, how would we appreciate the good, if evil didn’t exist? I could go on and on about this and probably will in a post sometime soon since you have me thinking about it again.

The problem with this subject is that, in the end, we’ll never know for sure what God’s ultimate reasoning was for why and how he created the universe until we reach those pearly gates. But, then again, if we knew everything, life would be unbelievably boring. I just hope the good Lord is patient with me when I pass through those gates, because due to the personality he bestowed upon me, He is going to be bombarded with so many questions our discussion may go on for all eternity.

Comment by Ftk — December 27, 2007 @ 10:32 pm


FtK's conversation with god might go something like this.

Date: 2007/12/28 13:35:53, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 28 2007,12:25)
Bill, Dave, and a few others of you who still display an iota of sense every once in a while, please note that this post is simliar to what Sal was doing.  Taking things out of context and twisting them endlessly in order to try to make a point.

It's used as merely a means of provocation or to try to untactfully make a point (if understood as the writer intended).  I don't agree with the method and rarely use it unless provoked to the point of no return.  Then, after thinking better of it, I have to go back and apologize...hate that.

FtK, like it or not, you are a living caricature of everything that's wrong about religion in general and creationism in particular.  You've been good enough to buttress that contention by avoiding the issues raised by your comments about conversations with god and that particular comic strip, and just wah-wahing about "provocation."

If your god exists, you might have some uncomfortable questions to answer about biblical exegesis and hypocrisy, for starters.

Date: 2007/12/28 15:02:55, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 28 2007,12:27)
A big "high-five" to Jim Wynne over at BeastRabban's . You in Chicago, Jim?

Thanks.  Although I lived in Chicago most of my life, I now reside an hour to the north, across the line in Cheesehead Land.

Date: 2007/12/28 15:49:50, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 28 2007,15:05)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Dec. 28 2007,15:02)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 28 2007,12:27)
A big "high-five" to Jim Wynne over at BeastRabban's . You in Chicago, Jim?

Thanks.  Although I lived in Chicago most of my life, I now reside an hour to the north, across the line in Cheesehead Land.

So uh, Dallas and Green Bay in the NFC championship I'm thinkin'...

It's killin' me.  My only solace in this season was seeing the Bears beat the Packers twice.  As far as the Packers and the Cowboys are concerned, if they meet for the NFC title, I hope both of them lose.

Date: 2007/12/29 09:52:08, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,08:55)
Personally, I don't think many of you ever dig past the surface.

That's one of the great ID/Creationism projections--we reject ID because we don't understand it, and we haven't read all of the source material.  This from someone who continually demonstrates profound--and perhaps willful--ignorance of basic concepts in science.  She unwittingly does us a service by unabashedly trumpeting her primitive notions and utter lack of critical-thinking skills.

Date: 2007/12/29 11:46:23, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,11:35)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 29 2007,11:08)
Something that is built of the arguments of creationism is not legitimately called creationism? Sorry, this is another case where complacency implies complicity, and I won't be taken in like that. The public needs to know that the "intelligent design" movement is simply a re-labeled subset of "creation science", which was the re-labeled content of "scientific creationism", which was a re-labeled subset of "creationism". I can back that up with evidence, and have done so. Last I heard, in US courts truth was an allowed defense.

You, sir, lack all integrity.  Whether you agree with me or not, you have highly misled the public with your twisting of the facts.  ID is not a re-labled subset of creation science.  That is a bold faced lie (a word I've only used twice in the four years I've been involved in this debate).

You can twist your little "subset" definition to fit your needs, but the fact remains that ID and creation science are *not* the same thing, and your use of the term IDC makes it appear as such.  

The "evidence" that you use to back up your claims is a twisted muddle of reasoning, and the large majority of those from the general public have *no clue* as to what creation science and ID entails, which adds to the problems caused by your use of the term IDC which you love to scatter throughout the media.

FtK, read carefully through this thread, then come back and tell us who the liars are. Lenny and others did a great job of showing Paul Nelson how his ID musings are nothing more than repackaged creationist canards, and Nelson disappeared after it became apparent. The Further Debate page on the Explore Evolution site is still empty, just like Nelson's promise to open it up.

Date: 2007/12/30 10:11:07, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 30 2007,00:45)
That would be necessary due to the magnitude of the debate.  A little email chat back and forth is certainly not going to cover all the issues related to the question, "Does the scientific evidence favor creation or evolution?"

Further evidence, as if it were needed, that FtK doesn't have even a superficial level of understanding of the questions, let alone the answers, as evidenced by the false dichotomy in the quoted question.

Date: 2007/12/30 20:05:14, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 30 2007,11:11)
I see no reason not to believe in God and you see no reason to do so, each of us without evidence supporting our position.  Go ahead, I'll flip and you call it in the air...

To give you an idea of the utter absurdity of that statement as a defense of theism, let's make a few substitutions:

I see no reason not to believe in God that Skeptic is a serial killer, and you see he sees no reason to do so, each of us without evidence supporting our position. So flip a coin.

Date: 2007/12/31 10:04:38, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (KARobinson @ Dec. 30 2007,23:14)
I think Mr. Wynne’s suggestion is a good one.  He is correct about the premise of my book.  Besides dealing with what I believe are the logical results and consequences of the theory of evolution (such as asexual creatures, asymmetrical bodies, no objective basis for right and wrong, etc), I also include several of the arguments from Intelligent Design, such as Irreducible Complexity and Complex Specified Information.

I do not believe that either creation OR evolution can actually be proven, since both deal with the issue of origins, thus they are not repeatable in a laboratory.  Even if scientists could create life in a laboratory with from non-living matter, it would, in my opinion, still fail to prove that life could arise by natural processes alone since scientists had to use their intelligence to design the experiments that produced the life.

Let's dispense with the formalities. I'm Jim, you're Keith, Wes is Wes.

A couple of points for starters: as is the case with many creationists, you conflate abiogenesis and evolution. They are separate (albeit related) fields of study. Thus it's possible to believe in both special creation and evolution.

Next, surely you must be aware that at various times in history people have said that because there's no natural explanation for some observed phenomenon, it must be the result of supernatural causes. You don't have to go back very far in time, for example, to find widespread belief that paranoid schizophrenics were demon-possessed.  The idea that we should abandon research into natural causes for the origin of life springs from ignorance and fear, and not rationality.  In fact, Darwin himself remarked:
Quote
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.


With regard to Irreducible Complexity and Complex Specified Information, it would be well if you could tell us the best arguments against those notions, and your answers to those arguments, rather than assuming them to be accurate.

Date: 2008/01/05 10:01:45, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Bump.  I hope Keith hasn't forgotten about us.

Date: 2008/01/05 10:10:36, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Yawn. "Thought Provoker" might be an apt pseudonym, but the thoughts he provokes in me make me want to take a nap.

Date: 2008/01/05 11:14:54, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 05 2008,10:50)
I happen to be a free-lance independent with anti-religious leanings.  Those more loyal to the ID Movement would be perfectly happy for you to continue napping in you Group Think induced stupor.

You have predictably misidentified the soporific agent.  ID proponents who have trouble with the idea of randomness demonstrate on a regular basis that either they don't understand the concept, or do understand it and use it to to provoke amenable thoughts in those who don't.  Your quantum navel-gazing adds nothing of substance.

Date: 2008/01/05 13:13:50, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 05 2008,12:44)
How dare I try to stir up the Status Quo people are comfortable with?

"...Status Quo people are comfortable with" is a pleonasm.

Date: 2008/01/09 21:55:35, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (KARobinson @ Jan. 08 2008,21:27)
Sorry I haven't replied lately, but I have been very busy both with my job and personal life.  In fact, yesterday, as you may have heard, a tornado passed through Kenosha and came within half a block of hitting my house.  However, my church was not so fortunate.  The tornado damaged much of the church, and things have been a little crazy around here.  (Please no jokes or comments about the church getting hit.)

I should have time within the next couple of days to give a proper reply.  Thanks for your patience.

Nice to see you back.  I'm in Kenosha too, and a bit farther south of where the action was.  Sorry about the church (really), but personally I thank jeebus Tacos El Rey was spared, despite what  this alarming headline says.

Date: 2008/01/12 08:39:30, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (dhogaza @ Jan. 12 2008,04:23)
It is possible our friend is just a sloppy writer, but read literally ...

   
Quote
   
Quote
The idea that we should abandon research into natural causes for the origin of life springs from ignorance and fear, and not rationality.


I disagree.

the above would seem to indicate that he believes that

1. we should abandon research into natural causes for the origin of life and

2. he has a rational argument as to why we should abandon that line of research

I'd like to hear the rational argument.

Keith said this earlier:
Quote
When it comes to the origin of life, then I would agree that I believe we should not waste time and money searching for a natural cause, when it seems logical to me that only an intelligent being could create the amazing life we see that functions at such complexity and order at a microscopic level.    However, if you are looking for the origin of some disease or trying to figure out what happened to destroy a forest, then I would say it is logical to look for a natural cause, even if one isn’t readily apparent.  The difference is that we are talking about the origin of something from nothing, which I believe only God could do, as opposed to something already in existence affecting something else already in existence.

[My bold]

Date: 2008/01/12 08:47:55, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (KARobinson @ Jan. 11 2008,22:24)
Irreducible Complexity and CSI are two very deep subjects. Lets just deal with CSI first.  I must admit that I did not read all of Wesley's paper.  I did read several pages of the beginning, and skimmed some of the rest.  Since I have not read all of Dembski's work either, I had a hard time following Wesley's paper.

Keith, earlier you said:
Quote
Besides dealing with what I believe are the logical results and consequences of the theory of evolution (such as asexual creatures, asymmetrical bodies, no objective basis for right and wrong, etc), I also include several of the arguments from Intelligent Design, such as Irreducible Complexity and Complex Specified Information.


You use CSI and IC as a basis for your book's thesis, but apparently without having a reasonable understanding of the two ideas. My point in asking you for the best arguments against those two well-refuted concepts was to gain some insight into your own understanding of them. I don't understand how you can honestly represent them as helping your case when you admit that your knowledge of the source material is lacking.  My suspicion is that this dearth of knowledge also exists in your understanding of science.

Edit: Typo

Date: 2008/01/13 09:57:21, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 13 2008,07:17)
Ftk:

"When I sit back and watch the debate from the sidelines, I'm just shocked how differently each side processess the information they receive. Both sides consider the other to be at times underhanded and deceitful, yet it seems more likely to me that they are coming at the issues from opposite ends of the spectrum.

It's kinda like the duck and the rabbit illusion..."


It's just like you hidebound dogmatists to try to oversimplify things.


Date: 2008/01/16 14:34:13, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 16 2008,13:20)
Quote
Bottom line, funds are limited – register as soon as you can!


Or in other words, they've only got $5000 to start with and almost everybody is going to be disappointed.

Seems like alot of trouble to go to (organised school trips) and find out that there's no money left for you after sending in all those ticket stubs.

Why don't they just say how much cash there is to go round?

Has any other film tried to get people to go see it by paying them? Hardly says good things about the expected draw does it?

Reminds me of the old drama critic line--the best way to get people in the theater is to show the movie in the street.

Date: 2008/01/17 14:14:54, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
All quotes are from Keith:
 
Quote
There are many authors that deal with Irreducible Complexity and information content in DNA, such as Dr. Werner Gitt and Dr. Walt Brown to name a few.  I have read some of Dembski's stuff, but that was years ago when I was researching Logic's End.  Also, the material I read from Dembski was at a less technical level than the material that Wes discusses in his essay.

Good. We know now that you consider (even in researching a book, apparently) secondary (at best) sources reliable while knowing little or nothing about the primary material.  All science so far!
 
Quote
As for arguments against IC, I am aware of co-option, I just don't buy it.  Even if you borrow a few parts from another molecular machine, I just don't believe that you can get ALL of the parts from there.

Arguments from personal incredulity are irrelevant in any discussion about science unless you're planning on doing some science to support your disbelief.  You claim to know something about The End of Logic, then defend the claim with logical fallacies.
 
Quote
I accept this as a reason why having two sexes is better than one, but this doesn't explain HOW two sexes would ever evolve.  I might think it would be better to have wings and the ability to fly, but that doesn't help me to evolve wings.  Furthermore, why just two sexes?  Why not evolve the ability to recombine the DNA from three or more?  Wouldn't that be even MORE beneficial?

If it were, one would think that your omnipotent deity would have done it that way.  Evolution is not directed towards any particular goal. It's about adaptability. Organisms aren't expected to develop ideal adaptations, just ones that work.
 
Quote
This is not altruism, but rather selfishness.  Animals hunt in packs because there is strength in numbers, not because of morals.

Mutually beneficial cooperation between members of populations (or even between different populations) is selfish how? What does hunting in packs have to do with anything? If hunting in packs occurs "because there is strength in numbers," why aren't all animals gregarious? It works for some, but not for others because of selection pressures and adaptation, but it still has nothing to do with altruism. Cultural mores evolve, and the concepts are in some cases roughly analogous to biological evolution (and sometimes affected by it). Cultures survive as species do--by adaptation, but cultures also survive as a result of pragmatic cooperation, and the basic rules are referred to as "morality."  No Bible needed, thank you.
 
Quote
DNA is the most efficient informational storage system in the known universe.

Define "efficient" and "information" and demonstrate quantitatively how DNA is more efficient than the "information storage system" of your choice.
 
Quote
There is enough information in human DNA to fill 1000 books with 500 pages each.
Or 500 books of 1000 pages each. All meaningless until you've defined (and you've shown how to quantify) "information."
 
Quote
Scientists are studying DNA in an effort to make more efficient supercomputers.
Have these scientists published any data? Citations, please.
 
Quote
A single cell is more complex than a space shuttle.
These "Oh, wow!" sound bites are really a little tiresome after a while. I trust you're able to quantify this complexity for us using your space shuttle example. Science is all about the data, doncha know.
 
Quote
The chance of a single cell forming randomly (according to Sir Fred Hoyle) is 10 x 40,000.  According to Emil Borel, any chance above 10 x 50 is considered mathematically impossible.
The Argument from Probability and Really Big Numbers was long ago considered and summarily dismissed. The fact that you invoke it demonstrates profound ignorance of basic probability theory.  I'll give you a hint, though: the probability of something impossible happening is zero. Any number greater than zero (no matter how close to zero it is) means that the phenomenon in question is possible. To say that any probability less than one in x (so long as it's not zero) is impossible makes no sense.  

You also have to consider the idea that when we talk about the random ordering of a finite set of things, some order is inevitable.  The deck-of-cards example is often used to illustrate the idea: in an ordinary deck of 52 playing cards, the number of possible sequences is 52!, which is a Very Big Number (~70 digits). Using your argument from probability, if you were handed a deck of cards and examined the order, you would have to conclude that a miracle had occurred, because there would be only a 1 in a brazillian chance that the cards could be in that particular order.  If you want to talk about some specified order, it's a different story, but to do that you first have to assume your conclusion, which doesn't pass the logic test.

At this point we can charitably assume ignorance on your part. But if after having been informed of the problems with your arguments and the fact that you need data you don't have, you continue to invoke them, it becomes dishonesty.  Your choice.

Date: 2008/01/21 14:37:44, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 21 2008,14:02)
Do you embrace the Many Worlds quantum interpretation?

Or do you think quantum physics exists in a totally separate realm that you can safely ignore when engaged in what you think of as real science?

Not speaking for DB, of course, but I think it's not a question of whether QM can be safely ignored; it's whether anyone should pay any attention whatsoever to someone who hasn't evinced the intellecutual capacity to even be wrong.

Date: 2008/01/22 08:33:55, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
My work network blocks access to image hosting sites, so I can't post the evidence, but our ol' buddy Paul was here again this morning. And the Explore Evolution debate page is still empty.

Date: 2008/01/22 08:42:26, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Bump.

This isn't going to be much fun if Keith just drops in once a week with AiG talking points.

Date: 2008/01/22 08:57:06, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I just happened upon another ATBC, and ironically it's the Apostolic Theological Bible College.  There's plenty of merriment there, such as this bit about their Life Experience Doctorate Degree.  Here are the requirements:
Quote
1.) You must be over the age of 40?
2.) You must have been an Apostolic Oneness Minister for over 20 years?
3.) You must have been a Pastor for at least 10 years of the past 20?
4.) You must currently be in the Ministry?
5.) You must obtain testimony from at least five individuals who will recommend you for a Life Experience Doctorate Degree?
6.) You must be willing to be interviewed on the telephone by Dr. Reckart?
7.) You must be willing to pay $995.00 for the processing of the application and issue of the degree.
8.) Must be willing to pay the expense of Dr. Reckart to come and bestow the degree. This includes travel and motel expense as well as pick-up and return to the airport if air travel is required.


Like so many of these things, it's hard to tell whether it's a parody or not, but I don't think it is.

Date: 2008/01/23 18:28:56, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 23 2008,18:08)
Meanwhile, I suggest the ramifications of Minkowskian space-time geometry is rather interesting in its explanatory power.

Just out of curiosity, how do you reconcile the alleged explanatory power of Minkowskian geometry with the inarguably contrary implications of Henderson-Darling oscillation and reciprocal inversion? You are aware of Penrose's misgivings in this regard, I assume?

Date: 2008/01/23 19:39:34, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 23 2008,19:19)
Perhaps you'd be happier if I worded my statement this way:
"When environmental changes become too great however, NS fails - resulting in extinction."

Is that better?

Yes, but only in the sense that it provides more confirmation--as if it were needed--that you can't grasp the most simple evolution principles even after they've been plainly explained to you.

Date: 2008/01/25 07:54:04, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I'm in an urban area in southeast Wisconsin, and we get the standard complement of birds--finches, cardinals, blue jays, black-capped chickadees, downy woodpeckers, crows, etc. This past summer, due to the large numbers of small birds (my neighbor has a lot of feeders), we also had regular visits from a hawk--either Sharp Shinned or Cooper's, I'm not sure which.  

We get plenty of mammals as well--skunks, opossums, raccoons, and this year a couple of Gray Foxes, one of which I was surprised to see sitting in my backyard one morning.

Date: 2008/01/25 10:38:59, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Nerull @ Jan. 25 2008,10:32)
Joy's post is high quality tard.

Its a rock. Its been there in multiple photographs over the course of three days. Its not alive. Its not moving. Its 6cm tall. It resembles a tree-dwelling mammal on a planet with no mammals and no trees. Its a friggin rock.

Oh no it's not. According to Joy,
Quote
At this resolution, it's a suggestive anomaly that begs further examination.

Date: 2008/01/25 17:18:29, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 25 2008,16:07)
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 25 2008,13:52)
Do you honestly think I don't know how to do vector math if we assume our universe is Euclidean three dimensional space?

Given your track record thus far, you should be able to see why it might be a fairly safe bet.

My sister assumes our universe is Euclidean three dimensional space and she can't even balance a checkbook.

Date: 2008/01/26 10:44:28, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 26 2008,10:09)
FYI

Some other nut on the internet wrote...

   
Quote
Historically, physicist R. P. Feynman first pointed out the fact that the Green functions of Schroedinger equations are given as path integrals [2]. Later, he used it as a fundamental tool for quantum electrodynamics, and had a resounding success.  We find the nice exposition of the “physical meaning.
...
Let “Minkowski path integral” refer to the usual path integral; integral over paths on ‘real’ space-time, interpreted as a Minkowski space. It is known by physicists that when calculating usual path integrals, the formal replacement of the time variable t by “imaginary time” T = it has good effects, e.g. the degree of divergence is reduced. The procedure of replacement is called Euclideanization. This suggests that the Euclideanized path integrals are more likely to be given a mathematical foundation. The history seems to have proven that.
...
However I remark the fact that Euclidean path integral is not ’realistic’, and Minkowskian path integral is the only ’realistic’ path integral, where paths are in the real space-time. In my opinion, the final form of physics should be in Minkowskian formulation. Although mathematical foundation of Minkowskian path integral is an extremely difficult problem, the significance of it must not be underestimated.

We're back in the same smelly miasma as in the other thread. Quotations from learned sources (appeals to authority) don't help anything unless you've demonstrated that you understand the source material.  For example, from your quotation,
   
Quote
Although mathematical foundation of Minkowskian path integral is an extremely difficult problem, the significance of it must not be underestimated.
[my bold]
You want to accept the conclusion (the significance must not be underestimated) without understanding its antecedent (an extremely difficult problem).
Here's what you're trying to get away with:


:angry:

Date: 2008/01/26 11:14:44, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 26 2008,10:55)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 26 2008,08:40)
Daniel Smith:

     
Quote

That doesn't help me much.


This is only a concern if Daniel is being *tutored*.

It is of no relevance if the aim is *rebuttal*.

If I provide two dead links information that indicates that I have no idea what I'm talking about and then ask you to rebut them it, how exactly do you do that?

I fixed that to make it more to the point.

Date: 2008/01/26 11:54:51, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 26 2008,11:36)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 26 2008,09:14)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 26 2008,10:55)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 26 2008,08:40)
Daniel Smith:

         
Quote

That doesn't help me much.


This is only a concern if Daniel is being *tutored*.

It is of no relevance if the aim is *rebuttal*.

If I provide two dead links information that indicates that I have no idea what I'm talking about and then ask you to rebut them it, how exactly do you do that?

I fixed that to make it more to the point.

You realize we were speaking of JAMs dead links don't you?
I'm sure he appreciates your assessment of the information he provided.

You do realize that I sarcastically reframed the question so that it makes more sense in terms of your own blathering, don't you?

Date: 2008/01/26 12:28:24, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Coyote @ Jan. 26 2008,11:57)
Another one from FreeRepublic (no, it is not a spoof):

   
Quote
I’m not hteo ne going against htis- it is Macroevolutionists that go against this as the last 150 years of research have shown the impossible nature of evolution, AND that design is both observably irreducible, and that design is present in everything - those insisting otherwise are doing so purely on religious beliefs that a process as yet undocumented ‘could have been possible’ despite hte incredible problems associated with the process as a whole and at every level. Macroevo’s can’t even demonstrate one small aspect of Macroevolution, and yet they ask that we teach our students that trillions of law violating steps took place and that NEW information just appeared out of nowhere due to a manipulation of a species specific information and that NEW parts and systems arose that violate the biological process. The ONLY way for NEW ifnormation to come about is through leteral gene transference, yet the Macroevo insists that stepwise accumulations that violate hte second law could create NEW information- Everythign science has found contradicts this, and every experiment to show the creation of NEW information has failed. The Macroevo is forced then to insist that CHANGED information within species specific parameters is equivelent to NEW information, and that CHANGED information can produce NEW organs- and htere simply isn’t a shred of evidence to suggest htis- ONLY assumptions driven hypothesis.

Source

From that same source and post, we see:
Quote
Simplistic Stepwise MICROevoltuion has been observed that obey the species specific parameters that keep KINDS within their own KINDS- BIG difference
Sounds familiar--look at the second panel:

Date: 2008/01/26 12:45:41, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 22 2008,09:22)
Have we scared keith off?

I think we probably have. I doubt that he's used to being asked by knowledgeable people to defend his ideas.  Keith is my backyard (figuratively, I hope), and on Friday there was another local yahoo, this time with an op-ed column in the local paper. It was a true Gish Gallop, and he invoked all of the usual canards, or nearly all.  Unfortunately the paper doesn't post those on its website, but I addressed it here.

The guy takes an interesting tack, characterizing (and quotemining, of course) Darwin's eye example* as a "wacky test" that could never be verified and then scores an own goal by citing complexity as an argument against evolution.

*"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Date: 2008/01/27 09:04:16, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
[quote=Thought Provoker,Jan. 26 2008,19:26][/quote]
Quote

My mental defect is I am lopsided towards the analytical.  I can solve puzzles quickly.  I tend to be able to debug software systems based on the symptoms alone.  I see the holistic picture.  I understand it.

No, your "mental defect," if you choose to call it that, is being unable to understand why your intuitions don't count when you don't understand the basic ideas. You've demonstrated (to yourself, at least) a facility for problem solving, and having been favorably impressed with your results you've apparently come to believe that you can apply your quasi-Sherlock Holmes methods to every problem that presents itself.  It's a form of narcissism.  Being able to debug software systems by examining symptoms is called "experience."  You don't have it in physics, and can't (or won't) understand why it matters.

Quote
This is the reason why I went down the path of engineering instead of academia.

I'm an engineer too, and I know enough physics to be able to apply what I need in my work, but my knowledge is far from comprehensive.  I understand what I don't know, and don't pretend I know more because I read mass-market books. I'm not interested in trying to solve problems I'm not qualified to understand.
Quote
But back to the point at hand, you feel that I am not demonstrating a complete enough understanding of the subject in order to suffer carrying on a serious discussion with me on it.

I will tell you what I am looking for.  I am looking for the weaknesses in the basic understanding I do have.  Am I trying to see the holistic picture enough to make sense of things.  I am not in the position to make a detailed presentation of the mathematical foundation tying together Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics while proposing an explanation for decoherence.  If I could do that, I would probably mathematically model Black Holes for a living, engage Stephen Hawking in debates, discover patterns for aperiodic tilings as a hobby and get knighted for my accomplishments.


No, you're not looking for weaknesses in your understanding; if that were the case we wouldn't be into a second or third thread of people explaining that your weakness lies in basic ignorance.  Amongst a good portion of the ignorant masses your grand pronouncements and liberal use of jargon make it seem like you know what you're talking about, but it's a thin disguise when you're spouting off to people who know better.
Quote
No, you aren’t arguing from authority, you are arguing from repetition.  You, and others, are restating over and over that I am ignorant and I am wrong without saying where specifically my logic breaks down or what specific assumptions you disagree with.

Your logic breaks down because of your ignorance. That's what you need to fix. Until you do, you have no basis for understanding anything anyone tells you with regard to specific errors. You are either too lazy or too impressed with yourself to understand where the problem lies. Thus the repetition.  Just because you refuse to acknowledge the problem doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist.  It's cognitive dissonance.
Quote
From your comment in the other thread about Henderson-Darling oscillations and reciprocal inversions; I suspect you are familiar with Penrose’s hypotheses even if you disagree with them.

What I am trying to provoke, politely ask for and/or beg is to get a critique of how well I understand Penrose’s hypotheses, even it is at a very crude level.

Here's the deal, in a nutshell: if you understood Penrose's hypotheses, you wouldn't need to ask, and if you really understood that you don't understand them, you would seek knowledge rather than forming conclusions and challenging people to refute them.  You're not interested in being proven wrong, and it's transparently disingenuous to try to convince us otherwise. You should stick with TT, where there are plenty of ignorant slobs who'll be duly impressed.

Date: 2008/01/27 10:06:13, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
In order to better reflect the actual content of this thread, I think it should be renamed to "Thought Provoker thinks he can take a shortcut."

Date: 2008/02/02 08:11:20, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (blipey @ Feb. 01 2008,23:52)
Quote
Another way of looking at it is that I want to, and can, learn (I consider myself a quick learner) but I refuse to be taught.

This is just asinine.  Anyone who refuses to be taught is of no use to society.  A person who refuses to be taught is a loner.  Such a person should expect to be shunned and should not expect to have an impact on anyone else.  If you are not allowing society to impact you, why do expect that you can impact society?

TP is neurotically skeptical and narcissistic.  The big problem in dealing with people who are grossly neurotic is that being unable to recognize their own neuroses is diagnostic of the neurosis. Attempts to get TP to acknowledge his shortcomings will be futile, as his threads here attest.  "Sane" people don't think that they can overthrow a large body of knowledge without actually understanding it first.

Date: 2008/02/05 21:13:40, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Holy crap--do you suppose the pirhana lady doesn't know what "evangelize" means? Of all people? First she says,
 
Quote
EUGENIE SCOTT IS AN EVANGELIZING ATHEIST.
Then less than an hour later says,
 
Quote
I didn't say she was *outwardly* advocating for atheism in her day job...

Date: 2008/03/02 09:20:55, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
In typical creationist fashion, Paul says he'll drop in from time to time to see if we've identified any errors in his book, but also says tacitly that he'll either ignore them or create new lies.

By the way, Paul, why is the Debate page on the Explore Evolution still empty?

Date: 2008/03/06 13:12:09, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 06 2008,09:21)
About re-packaged creationism.  Sorry, that line of argument is premised on a wholly illiberal (unsound) assumption that I don't accept (no one should accept it), namely, that teachers and students are not entitled to talk about scientific matters which may overlap with historically creationist arguments.  I encourage anyone reading this thread to follow out the implications of that position.

Seems that I recall, way back in the beginning of this thread, that you were asked (by Lenny, I think) if there would be anything new and exciting in this book, or if it would just be the same moldy creationist canards.  You said it wouldn't be the same moldy creationist canards.  Then lots of examples were provided, which clearly showed that it EE is indeed moldy.  Now you seem to be conceding that the creationist arguments are indeed present, but that they "overlap" (whatever that means) with actual science.

So: were you being dishonest in the beginning, or are you actually so stupid that you didn't realize that your book was full of creationist junk?

Date: 2008/03/08 08:50:52, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 07 2008,14:56)
"Quote-mine," "strawman," and "easily accomodated" leave considerable room for debate, of course (but that's OK -- debate makes life interesting); in any case, I accept this as grounds for ongoing discussion.

Then why isn't it here, Paul? Why is that page still empty? Why do you keep avoiding this question?

Date: 2008/03/08 08:56:34, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 06 2008,21:09)
Actually, Jim -- I could deliver your copy of EE personally.  I'll be lecturing (with Angus Menuge) at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, on April 1, 2008.  Kenosha isn't that far away...

Thanks, but I'm not interested in reading yet another creationist tract thinly disguised as science. It's been demonstrated time and again that you're a compulsive liar. It's very convenient for you to say, "Ha! You haven't read the book so..." but the whole point here is that we've all read the book without seeing it.

Tell you what: you open the "Debate" page on the EE website to unrestricted comments (within reason, of course) and I'll read the book and comment there.

Date: 2008/03/21 10:13:48, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (raguel @ Mar. 21 2008,09:58)
Quote
Alb, a semi-biggish favor: would you mind sending me the complete list of textbooks you've examined, in re Haeckel's embryos? Please indicate title, authors, date of publication, level [e.g., high school, college introductory, college advanced], brief description of content on embryology as evidence for common descent, and anything else you think bears on the matter.  Thanks.  As described, that's actually a BIG favor, but I'd greatly appreciate the information.  Email: nelsonpa@alumni.uchicago.edu


Isn't that the type of "research" that should have been done before the book was written?

Honest research makes it more difficult to lie, which is why creationists like Paul don't do it. Perhaps a better way to put it would be: if you're lying you don't need no stinkin' research.

Date: 2008/04/03 18:21:33, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I just received this from our friends at Expelled:

Quote
Jim,

I am emailing to let you know that we have cancelled the Milwaukee screening of Expelled on April 8th.  The Producers of the film are very busy preparing for the film's release in theaters April 18th and due to unavoidable changes in their schedules, they are unable to make it out to Milwaukee for this screening.  I've included links below to information on theaters showing the film in your area and great FREE resources.

Please reply back to let me know you got this notification.

Thanks,
Jessica


Theater Locator: http://getexpelled.com/grouptickets.php
Win $1000 in our Group Sales Competition:  http://getexpelled.com/groupsalesapplication.php
Download the poster and other great materials:  http://getexpelled.com/downloads.php
Order your FREE Expelled Kit:  http://getexpelled.com/ordermaterials.php

Date: 2008/04/16 13:55:33, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (J-Dog @ April 16 2008,12:11)
This Just In:

An email addressed to "Friends Of Expelled" begging for help against the Evil Darwinists.

I guess we could all hold a vigil and stay online, hold virtual hands and sing inspirational songs before this blog and Sci-Blog close down permanently on April 19.

Either that or toast marshmallow on the coals of our Last Church Burnings.  Damn it's been so much fun too.

http://by125w.bay125.mail.live.com/mail....9954878

Here's the full text (I just received it too):
Quote
Dear Friend of Expelled,

They’ve become enraged over it…
They’ve told movie theaters to reject it…
They’ve hurled false accusations against it…
They’ve bashed it in the press…

BUT THEY COULD NOT SHUT IT DOWN…

The most controversial film of 2008
Ben Stein's “EXPELLED”
Opens on 1,000 movie screens this Friday, April 18!

Be there! We need your support!

Check HERE to see where EXPELLED is playing near you.

The EXPELLED controversy has catapulted to #1 most popular blog on the Internet (3/24/08) and #6 on Yahoo’s “Top Searches” (4/8/08), and driven 2,000,000 people to the movie website wondering,

“What is Ben Stein saying that has people so fired up?"

Ben Stein is being called both “an idiot” and “a genius”

Atheists are enraged by the movie, “crashing” EXPELLED screenings

Liberal movie critics are slamming EXPELLED, while leaders are raving

Organizations are urging theaters to reject the movie, while others are holding movie marathons for all Expelled showings at their theaters…
Ben Stein’s EXPELLED has struck a cultural NERVE as it exposes a modern day witch hunt in which scientists, educators and students are being persecuted because they dare to question Darwinism and argue that life may be the result of "intelligent design".

As Ben takes on the world's leading atheists, and their global agenda, the hilarious but sobering results make us realize, “It’s time to get involved!”

CLICK HERE to take a GROUP to see EXPELLED


Stand with Ben Stein and support academic freedom by seeing EXPELLED.


IN THEATERS FRIDAY, APRIL 18!

Please forward this email to friends and contacts!

Sincerely,

Paul Lauer
CEO, Motive Entertainment


WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING:

"I recommend EXPELLED enthusiastically!"
- James C. Dobson, Ph.D., Chairman of the Board, Focus on the Family


"Four stars!" - Ted Baehr, Editor, MovieGuide


“A powerful and riveting film… every open-minded person will love it.”
- Rev. Donald E. Wildmon, Founder & Chairman of American Family Association


"EXPELLED is an enormously important project."
- Michael Medved, national radio host


"We highly recommend EXPELLED to anybody."
- Ken Smitherman, President, Association of Christian Schools International


"SEE THIS FILM, bring your friends and bring your church."  
- Lee Strobel, Author, Case for a Creator


“See EXPELLED and you’ll understand why they want to censor those who question their dogmas.” - Dr. Richard Land, Southern Baptist Convention

“Those who are suppressing belief in God and trying to make materialism the law of the land should beware. Ben Stein is on a mission to stop the suppression, and millions of Americans are behind him."
- Pat Robertson, Host, 700 Club

"In EXPELLED, Ben Stein shows us what happens when academic freedom takes a day off. We should all be listening."
- Carl Anderson, Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus

"EXPELLED is both an eye-opening documentary and riotous entertainment."  - Joseph Farah, CEO, WorldNetDaily.com


"This movie may trigger a cultural revolution."
- Dennis Wagner, Executive Director, Access Research Network


"EXPELLED could easily be one of the most important movies of the year."
- Denny Rydberg, President, Young Life


"EXPELLED is earthshaking. I was absolutely blown away. Everyone in America, even skeptics of Intelligent Design, must see this film."
- J. Matt Barber, Director for Cultural Issues, Concerned Women for America


"A cultural earthquake... Everyone I talked to after the screening used words like 'fabulous' and 'incredible'." - Dr. Tom Woodward, Director, C.S. Lewis Society


"A solid case for giving the theory of Intelligent Design a respected place in the classroom alongside Darwin's theory of Evolution."
- Dick Rolfe, Co-Founder and CEO, The Dove Foundation

CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING FOR MORE INFO:

THEATER LOCATOR

GET EXPELLED MOVIE RESOURCE WEBSITE

OFFICIAL MOVIE WEBSITE

SEE WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING ABOUT EXPELLED

BECOME OUR MYSPACE FRIEND

EXPELLED NEWS

SIGN UP TO RECEIVE EXPELLED UPDATES


All science so far!!1

Date: 2008/05/27 15:06:55, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 24 2008,19:56)
Holy crap.  I'm away on a birthday bender and come back to find DaveScot on double secret probation?
Quote


Denyse

Upon my return from a couple days away from the computer I found I’d been summarily expelled from the inner sanctum of the “big tent”.

Here are a couple of ground rules that weren’t spelled out to me about being allowed inside the big tent:

1) Thou shalt not question the Discovery Institute, its purposes, intents, or methods.

2) Thou shalt not question that belief in Darwin’s theory on the Origin of Species made the holocaust possible.

In other words, you don’t have to believe in God but you’d better believe in the Discovery Institute and not wander off-message.

It looks like Dave's post has gone down the memory hole. :p

Date: 2008/06/29 09:56:56, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Atul Gawande  is probably the best science writer working today. He's a surgeon by profession, and contrast his output to that of the idiot Michael Egnor.  He's been active in developing methods for reducing errors in surgery, and for a relatively young guy has made enormous contributions to science and to public understanding of it.

Date: 2008/07/01 09:31:52, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Back in the tard mine, in the Understanding Intelligent Design buy-my-book thread, Ekstasis rephrases the "What about PYGMIES + DWARFS??" question with regard to the idea that spices must have been a Divine Gift:
 
Quote
And what about spices and seasonings? Why the big craving? Of course, we undertand why we need salt. But what about all those other bottles you find in your spice cabinet? Early humanity certainly did not offer curry and paprika and your other favorite flavorings on their roast whooly mammoth, so why the big deal?

Date: 2008/07/01 09:38:40, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 01 2008,08:17)
First chapter available for free
/UnderstandingID.pdf

What's the very first substantial bit of text in it?
   
Quote
Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the New American Standard Bible ®,
© 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.
(www.Lockman.org)
Verses marked nlt are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright ©1996. Used by permission
of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, IL 60189 USA. All rights reserved.
Verses marked niv are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION ®. NIV ®. Copyright
© 1973, 1978, 1984 by the International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.


Now, why would a book about ID have bible quotes?

Dembski also does the obligatory "Wah Wah Dover, Wah Wah Judge Jones" in the excerpt:
Quote
Jones’s main distinction before being appointed a federal judge was to serve as chairman of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. As neither a scientist nor a scholar, he was ill-equipped to preside over this case. It won’t be the last on intelligent design.


In other words, "We were run over by a bus, and another one will be along soon and we'll jump in front of it, too."

Date: 2008/07/01 10:25:34, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Paulie is late today (10:20 AM CDT):
Quote
50 guests, 12 Public Members and 1 Anonymous Members   [ View Complete List ]
>Jim_Wynne >Louis >American Saddlebred >lcd >Gunthernacus >Paul Nelson >drew91 >Erasmus, FCD >Jake >Leftfield >Albatrossity2 >Reciprocating Bill

Date: 2008/07/03 07:16:42, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (jeffox @ July 03 2008,00:11)
No offense, but I think Hovind's actual convictions came about on money laundering and conspiracy to launder money, but the underlying reason was his lack of desire to pay taxes on his museum's profits.  One of the interesting things involved in this case is the fact that all Hovind had to do was fill out the proper paperwork, and he would have been off the hook.  He was told that by qualified lawyers and chose not to take their advice.

Anyway, my 2c.

Hovind's convictions were for failure to pay income and FICA taxes on behalf of his employees and "structuring" withdrawals from banks in order to avoid reporting requirements (cash transactions > $10,000 have to be reported to the IRS).  There were no money-laundering or conspiracy charges afaik.

Date: 2008/07/06 20:01:45, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:57)
Another reason why I'd rather drill a yet another hole in my head than chit chat about biology address any substantive issues.

I fixed that for you.

Date: 2008/07/06 20:01:45, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Guts @ July 06 2008,19:57)
Another reason why I'd rather drill a yet another hole in my head than chit chat about biology address any substantive issues.

I fixed that for you.

Date: 2008/07/12 10:57:59, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 12 2008,09:22)
Obviously you have not been to a Catholic Mass in a long time, if ever. A) A priest does not give a host to just anybody, or even to any Catholic. B) a Host is considered church property, C) to obtain another's property under false pretences is a crime. D) a church or temple is not public property. E) even in public property, there are legal limits as to what behaviors are allowed.

So what's the protocol? One of the expectations is that the communicant has gone to confession since the last communion, so how does the priest verify that before offering the host? He doesn't.  And you're quite wrong about who can take communion--anyone who wants it gets it, whether he's "eligible" or not, so long as the priest doesn't have knowledge that he shouldn't. I'm a recovering Catholic, and attended mass on a regular basis for a long time, and I know that this is the case.

Insofar as the "cracker" being church property is concerned, the priest either hands the thing to the communicant or places it on the communicant's tongue.  How does this exchange affect the chain of legal possession? I'm sure that since you've apparently attended the Larry Fafarman School of Law, you can explain your contention that the host is still the property of the church after the priest gives it way.

Edited for clarity.

Date: 2008/07/14 12:13:28, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,12:03)
[quote=carlsonjok,July 14 2008,10:30]
Still Darwinism remains a core belief of many, even on this board.  I read what Louis posted but if that is so, then why is there such of fight over new ideas that threaten Darwinism and its stranglehold over science?

There are no new ideas that threaten "Darwinism." The fight is to keep religion out of public schools. If you (or anyone else you know of) comes up with a new idea that threatens "Darwinism," please let us know.

Date: 2008/07/18 13:56:36, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
The piranha lady is the perfect example of Luskin's target audience, and proof that he can aim as low as he wants and still hit the target squarely.

Date: 2008/07/21 14:35:44, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Thought Provoker @ July 20 2008,14:04)
I enjoy interacting with "PhD types".  The feeling isn't always mutual.  Many get frustrated by my oversimplication of their very complex ideas.

Some engineers, yours truly included, understand that oversimplification is a bad thing by definition.  :angry:

Date: 2008/07/22 17:20:06, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Peter Henderson @ July 21 2008,11:19)
Not at all. All that I am saying (as someone who moves in evangelical circles) that these are the type of speakers that evangelical Christians listen to. They're not going to pay any attention to the Pope, Ken Miller, Francis Collins, or any other liberal minded Christian leader for that matter. C.S. Lewis is still widely read and quoted in evangelical circles here. I'm not sure who the modern day equivelent is.

No one is trying to convince the unconvinceable. There are a lot of religious fence-sitters out there who are being told by the fundies that most of science is anti-religious. Having a substantial number of clergy people refuting the contention is aimed at them.

Date: 2008/07/23 12:59:08, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (dheddle @ July 23 2008,12:41)
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ July 23 2008,12:33)
   
Quote (dheddle @ July 23 2008,12:27)
The ancient law was a shadow of what was to come. Jesus' law is much more severe. You don't have to murder to get an eternal death sentence, you just have to hate someone or call your brother a fool.

Well, that sucks, because I hate my brother.

Well, for Christians that's the point. The Jewish law could, at least in principle, be obeyed. With Jesus' law there is no possibility. Who doesn't hate someone? Who hasn't lusted? Who hasn't called his brother a fool? But, for Christians, that's the good news. The impossibility of us saving ourselves through obedience means that someone else has to save us.

All Heddle or any other Christian has is a subscription to (or invention of) a personal interpretation of what the sayings ascribed to Jesus mean. I can say, "Jesus said that a rich man can't get into heaven," or " Jesus said to give up your worldly possessions and follow him," and a Christian can tell me that I'm using the wrong interpretation.  As our old friend Lenny was so fond of saying, Heddle's (or any other theist's) interpretation is no better than that of Lenny's pizza delivery boy.  It's all pointless, and we should get back to the thread topic and make fun of Telic Tard.

Date: 2008/07/24 18:10:03, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Way back in 1999, Dr. Dr. Dembski was awarded a $100,000 grant by the Templeton Foundation to write a book to be called Being as Communion: The Science and Metaphysics of Information.  After publishing No Free Lunch in 2002, Dembski asked the foundation for a second installment of the grant, but was told that NFL didn't meet the expectations of his original grant application.  You can read about it here from an authoritative source.  Dembski still hasn't produced the book.

The reason I bring this up is that last December I found myself looking at Dembski's CV on the Southwestern Babble School website and noticed that he made reference to the book as "Under contract with Ashgate Publishers..."

I sent an e-mail message to Dr. Dr. in December of '07 asking him when we might expect the book to be published. His response in full was:
Quote
It'll be a while. Stay tuned. --WmAD


Not satisfied with that slippery response, I queried the publisher and received this response:
Quote
The title "Being as Communion" is not yet published.  It will be published in both a paperback edition & cloth edition.  The title has an anticipated publication date of June 2008.


So I waited.  In cleaning out my mailbox I ran across the e-mails, and since it was now July of 2008, I went looking for the book to no avail.  Once again the publisher was queried, and today I got this in response:

Quote
Dear Mr. Wynne:

Thank you for your e-mail.

I have checked our database & learned that this title has been pushed back.  It now has an anticipated publication date of December 2009.

I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.


My emphasis.

Like Paul Nelson's greatly anticipated Ontogenetic Depth monograph, it must be a helluva book.  Only Nelson hasn't accepted grant money in support of his prevarications, as far as I know.

Date: 2008/07/24 21:10:47, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (stevestory @ July 24 2008,20:55)
With no experiments, intstruments, or research articles, it's pretty easy to see that ID is not a paradigm destined to win.

Bah. ID has instruments and tools:







Date: 2008/07/29 17:58:29, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
A friend sent me the photo below of some sort of insects he found in his apple tree.  Anybody know what they are?

Date: 2008/07/30 10:12:49, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (nuytsia @ July 30 2008,01:42)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 29 2008,09:58)
A friend sent me the photo below of some sort of insects he found in his apple tree.  Anybody know what they are?


Some sort of Hemiptera.
Look like shieldbug larvae to me?
Wikipedia page.

That looks like it.  Thanks!

Date: 2008/07/31 11:38:23, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
My neighbor has a lot of bird feeders in his backyard, and it resulted in periodic visits from a small hawk. I think it's a Cooper's.  Yesterday I got to see it grab a Goldfinch off of one of the feeders.

Date: 2008/08/01 08:42:57, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (khan @ July 31 2008,18:25)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 31 2008,12:38)
My neighbor has a lot of bird feeders in his backyard, and it resulted in periodic visits from a small hawk. I think it's a Cooper's.  Yesterday I got to see it grab a Goldfinch off of one of the feeders.

I saw a Coopers grab a finch (sparrow?) out of mid air near the bird feeder.

This could have been the case in my sighting as well. I saw the hawk swoop down, disappear behind a fence, and then come back up with the finch in its talons.  It went flew into a large evergreen tree nearby and although I couldn't see the hawk, I could see small feathers floating down from the tree.

Date: 2008/08/01 13:43:14, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (dhogaza @ Aug. 01 2008,12:38)
Quote
My neighbor has a lot of bird feeders in his backyard, and it resulted in periodic visits from a small hawk. I think it's a Cooper's.  Yesterday I got to see it grab a Goldfinch off of one of the feeders.

Or sharpshinned hawk, which are considerably smaller.  They're easy to distinguish once you know how but ...

Cooper's hawk have much more robust legs.  The sharpshinned hawk gets its name from a prominent ridge on its "shin" (metatarsal), which gives it a bit more fore-and-aft rigidity, otherwise its legs are glorified toothpicks.

Cooper's hawks also have blockier heads due to longer feathers on the rear of the head, that they lift to make their head "look big" (and scary, I guess) when nervous/scared see here.

Sharpshinned hawks are more heavily streaked (though there's a great deal of variation in Cooper's hawks - I've banded literally thousands of north american accipiters).

If you've got a kid - a brown-backed bird with brown streaking on the breast - the plumage is going to be grown in and fresh (migration cometh soon).  A Cooper's hawk will show a distinct white terminal band.  A sharpshinned will normally show a greyish terminal band though quite white (but narrow) is not totally unknown.

With an adult bird at this time of year, it's hard to tell, their tail will be molting enthusiastically and the old feather that haven't dropped yet beat to shit (i.e. any white band likely to be worn off).  Sharpies are farther along in molt than Coops at this point (it's a size thing, male sharpies, the smallest, will be very far along now in august).

Far too much data, right?

Go find that hawk and look again!

Thanks for all the information. I was guessing Cooper's based on size alone (and pictures/descriptions from Peterson's field guide); our bird seems a little larger than a big crow. The banding on the tail is clear.  It's making fairly frequent appearances now, so it shouldn't be long before I can get a good look. He was perched on the neighbor's TV antenna yesterday, but was gone by the time I'd gotten my binoculars out.

Date: 2008/08/01 16:56:29, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (dhogaza @ Aug. 01 2008,14:20)
Quote
which one tastes the best?

The chicken hawk, of course.

That's the cooper's hawk, honest!  Cooper's hawks have a fascination with pigeon-sized and chicken-sized birds that has to be seen to believed.  If one shows up outside a locked coop (nice pun) made of chicken wire so the birds are visible, a Coop will sit and stare forever.  And try to figure out how to get in.  "mmm ... all that food ... if I only had a brain I could figure out that door-like contraption and eat for hours!".

Jim - crow-sized+ points to not only Cooper's hawk, but a female one (they're larger than the males, in the western US typically 450-550 grams weight, eastern US a bit heavier).  And that broad band, yes, Coop.  A kid, I imagine (brown not grey-brown), if it's that obvious - an adult female, esp. one that laid this year, would be looking pretty ragged in the tail by now I should think (they start dropping flight feathers after they lay, males get an earlier start and their smaller feathers grow in faster, too).

So drop the "he" bit :)   Believe me, it's the female Cooper's hawk that has the mentality of an NFL linebacker, they're amazing - the boys are chickenshit chicken hawks by contrast.

SHE is very brown.  Just a little while ago I was walking the dog and she (or another one just like her) was standing in a neighbor's driveway, not much impressed with the presence of me or the dog, even though we were no more than 20 feet away. It was the first really good look I've had, and I think it's indeed a Cooper's.

Date: 2008/08/08 08:57:43, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
In addition to the aforementioned Cooper's hawk that's been frequenting my yard, yesterday afternoon there was a female American Kestrel perched on my neighbor's TV antenna, smack in the middle of what appeared to be a finch convention.  There were eight of them (Gold, Purple), apparently unaware of the feeding habits of the kestrel.

As I understand it, kestrels are more likely to eat small mammals (mice, voles) and large insects (grasshoppers, dragonflies) than small birds, and are themselves considered a delicacy by Cooper's Hawks.  Nonetheless, the grouping on the antenna looked like a lion-sleeping-with-lambs situation.

Date: 2008/08/09 11:16:36, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Thanks to all. I especially like the Louis's idea of not being dead.

Date: 2008/08/09 22:58:38, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
A friend sent me a link to one of those things that's awful hard to tell whether it's parody or not.  It's not, I'm afraid. I give you the website for Armor of God PJs.



Makes you think again about Dawkins' ideas about child abuse.

Date: 2008/08/10 17:23:27, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 10 2008,11:22)
I have been away, and just got back in time to wish you a late good birthday.  So, how long will it be before you start yelling at the neighborhood kids to stay off your lawn, think that Iraq and Pakistan share a border, and confuse Suni and Shia?

Keep it down, will you? Goddam kids.  :angry:

Date: 2008/08/11 08:14:35, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Just wanted everyone to know that it's Monday morning, and I'm still not dead.  I will post again if this status changes.

Date: 2008/08/11 09:49:39, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (lcd @ Aug. 11 2008,09:45)
Quote (ERV @ Aug. 11 2008,09:11)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 11 2008,07:05)
No need to wait, lcd.  They've already got one.

That's the one with the transitional fossil in it, and that fossil succinctly, eloquently, and unequivocally should tell you all you need to know about the "science" of Intelligent Design.

No, they have two textbooks.  Dont forget Dembski @ Co. are bumbling thieves, as well as lying sacks of shit.

And of course you have evidence to back that up or is that your belief?

I ask as if one is going to actually claim something, one should have the evidence.

Did you follow the link that ERV provided, and read the post? Do you not see evidence there?

Date: 2008/08/12 08:13:52, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Aug. 12 2008,06:08)
In one interview yesterday evening, a survivor told her story and the fact that she was standing with two of her friends when the bomb went off. Both her friends died and yet she lived. She put this down to divine providence. I think if I had lived through such an experience I'd probably feel the same.

You'd be left trying to figure out why "divine providence" blew your friends to smithereens (by an act of omission, at the very least).  Were they somehow privileged?

Date: 2008/08/12 12:36:34, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Aug. 12 2008,12:09)
Quote
You'd be left trying to figure out why "divine providence" blew your friends to smithereens (by an act of omission, at the very least).  Were they somehow privileged


She quoted the book of Ecclesiastes Jim:

http://www.carm.org/sermons/Ecc_3_1-15.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHvf20Y6eoM

Surely an idea that has been used in many's a horror movie:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0195714/

and TV series:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348913/

On that particular day it wasn't her time.

So should she be thankful, or disappointed?

Date: 2008/08/12 17:32:54, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Aug. 12 2008,17:19)
Quote
So should she be thankful, or disappointed?


She was very thankful in the interview Jim.

Even though she had lost a leg as a result of the bomb and had a very long recovery period she now cherished each day of of life. A very moving story I thought.

Very moving. She is, in effect, cherishing the fact that jebus blew her friends up instead of her.  Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.

Date: 2008/08/13 14:02:38, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 13 2008,12:55)
IDCists are one of the most progressive forces for change...  They must all be... rational thinkers...

It would look better without the ellipses, but it'll do.

Date: 2008/08/14 12:24:48, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 14 2008,12:11)
Do we get to assigne weather to pixies because there is no theory or law of weather?

Dave might want to distinguish between the study of elementary forces and particles, and the study of complex processes. Even gravity gets dicey when you have more than two bodies interacting.

The Law of Weather, according to DT's sole criterion for qualification as a law, is "Weather happens."  Of course, little Davy has demonstrated recently that he doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate, so expecting him to develop his own Law of Weather might be too much to ask.

Date: 2008/08/17 09:31:17, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (dnmlthr @ Aug. 17 2008,09:13)
I've lost my mind, according to Granville Sewell.

   
Quote
When one studies history (especially the history of religion), one may become overwhelmed by the misery and confusion of the human condition, and wonder, why is it so hard to see evidence of the hand of God in human history?

It's not like the evidence really matters, since he's starting with his conclusions anyway.

   
Quote
But notably absent from any list of reasons why intellectuals reject Intelligent Design is any direct scientific evidence that natural selection of random mutations or any other unintelligent process can actually do intelligent things.

What does that even mean? "To do intelligent things". I can imagine a scenario where a falling rock produces an "intelligent" end result. Does that imply Intelligent Falling?

       
Quote
However strong may be the philosophical, psychological and religious reasons why many of our greatest minds reject ID, the argument for ID is still crystal clear to the unindoctrinated mind: once you allow yourself to seriously consider the possibility that the human body and the human mind could be entirely the products of unintelligent forces, “you have lost your mind.”

To me it sounds like he's saying "share my assumptions or I will declare you insane", with a nice slice of projection pie on the side.

All science so far!!

Date: 2008/08/18 11:57:52, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
[quote=Peter Henderson,Aug. 18 2008,11:26]
Quote

 
Quote
The CLP is not an evangelical tool aimed at converting people who have already committed themselves to extreme positions to change their minds and cannot be said to be lacking because it doesn't do that.


Then who is it aimed at Wesley ? Or is it merely preaching to the converted ?

I still feel that a several big name evangelicals need to come out and support it for it to have any impact. Christians who haven't made their minds up about evolutionary science are the ones that will be influenced.

Steve Chalke is the only evangelical leader that supports evolution in the UK. I'm not sure if he agrees with the CLP or not.

Now we're going in circles.  :angry:  It's been explained that (A) people committed to an anti-science position are not targeted by the CLP and (A) the idea is to provide abundant evidence that  it's possible for religious beliefs and acceptance of biological evolution to coexist, mainly for the benefit of people who aren't sure.  Many of those people are members of congregations who are being told by their pastors that they can't believe in the bible and science at the same time.

Date: 2008/08/24 08:58:47, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Happy birthday, Blipey!

Date: 2008/09/02 19:44:48, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Happy birthday, youz.  Getting old ain't so bad when you consider the alternative.

Date: 2008/09/07 10:00:47, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Sep. 07 2008,08:04)
 
Quote
Again, I sympathize with that view. Why can't Christian TEists simply say, "Indeed there is no reason to view the Bible as an historically accurate record, but I'm just going to go on believing in certain parts of it while I stop wasting precious time trying to force it to conform to science."


So if this is what non Christians (and by that I mean Agnostics/Atheists) think of Christians who support evolution (mainstream science) what is the point in us taking part in evolution Sunday/the clergy letter project ?????? Someone please clarify ?????? Christians that support science by and large do not see the creation story in Genesis as an historical event. Again, for want of repeating myself, groups such as the NCSE repeatedly say there should be no problem with Christianity and science. It would appear that some people on the Atheist side of the fence profoundly disagree.

I'm not sure why you created a new thread here, when your question is pretty much the same one you asked in your previous thread. :angry: That question was answered, but you don't seem to have gotten the message.

The value in Evolution Sunday and the Clergy Letter Project is in showing people who aren't sure that there are many theists who accept the fact of biological evolution. Whether or not that support is logically defensible is another matter.  In general, atheists don't get their backs up until theists try to "wedge" their beliefs into public policy.  In other words, atheists get upset, and understandably so, when religious belief becomes political rhetoric.
 
Quote
As  for cherry picking the bible, YECs do this just as much as every other brand of Christianity.

And the cherry-picking by "every other brand of Christianity" indicates some sort of logical disconnection on the part of theists.  If you acknowledge that the whole of the Bible is open to individual interpretation, how can the Bible form the basis of a cogent, widespread belief system?  The fact that there is a fundamental conflict between science and religion doesn't mean that the two can't coexist, so long as theists recognize that metaphysical concepts aren't a part of science.

Date: 2008/09/10 07:23:33, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 09 2008,23:25)
LOL. This was unexpected: I have an ex who's an ARNP, which is some kind of nurse. I ran into her Sunday. Asked her how she was doing. "It's going okay. I saw my first case of a guy with a yeast infection." "You mean like Thrush?" I said. (My grandmother had Thrush right before she died). "No," she said, "Down there." (pointing down). "How'd that happen? The plumbing's not connected the same way. How's a guy get a yeast infection?" "Older guy. Male, like 60. Presents with a rash. Turns out he's diabetic, and the yeasty beasties like sugar." "So what do you do for that? A male yeast infection?" "Oh, I gave him generic Monistat. It said "vaginal cream" on the box. You've never seen an old man turn that red in your life."


:p  I thought it was funny.

A while back I was waiting in a checkout line at Walgreens, and there was a guy in front of me with a package of sanitary napkins.  He put them on the counter so the checker could scan the package, and he was obviously embarrassed. The checker told him the price, he paid her, got his change and started to walk away. He stopped, looked back at her and said, "They're not for me, you know."

Date: 2008/09/10 08:25:42, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Jkrebs @ Sep. 09 2008,21:48)
Aha - nullasalus brings up a good point in his response:

   
Quote
What are you defining ‘a scientific argument’ as here? I’m not arguing that you can’t make reference to scientific knowledge to bolster or attack a design claim, or even a philosophical claim for that matter. But I don’t think such arguments are themselves ’science’ - I guess you could say I go by the falsification standard. How do you falsify the claim that FSCI patterns don’t arise from non-intelligent sources? Watch one spontaneously develop in nature? But even if you did, how do you know you didn’t just witness an intelligence creating the FSCI, either in a front-loaded way or through some kind of intervention?


I asked Behe this same type of question at a conference one time, and got a side-step for answer:  what if we set up an experiment with lots of bacteria cultures, such as has been done by Lenski, and we found that a very novel pathway evolved.  How would we know that it hadn't been designed right there in our petri dishes?  In the absence of any knowledge whatsoever about any limitations of the designer, who is to say that he didn't step in and design the result in ways that just look like a plausible evolutionary set of genetic changes over multiple generations?

So nullasalus is right: there is no way to falsify the generic design inference because it has no empirical specifics.

It's the ID problem that Bobby Henderson pointed out in his now-famous FSM letter to the Kansas state school board :
 
Quote
[The FSM] built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

Once the door is open to unbounded and undefined "designer" powers, science is dead.

Date: 2008/09/10 12:16:10, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 10 2008,11:29)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 10 2008,12:07)
Now, work out what causes female homosexuality and you can call it a day.

I'm not sure, but I think it has something to do with playing college volleyball...

Twenty years or so ago I had a pilonidal cyst that had to be surgically attended to, and I found that due to the location of the thing it was hard to get a bandage to stay in place.  I discovered that a sanitary napkin was just the ticket; it was the perfect size and shape, more absorbant than a regular bandage, and the fact that it had its own adhesive was good too.  

A few years later I had a coworker with the same affliction, and I told him about my wound-dressing solution.  He got all wide-eyed and glared at me like I was crazy.  I said, "Look--what's a sanitary napkin? It's just a type of bandage, isn't it?"   He took a cautious step back and said, "I'll bleed all over everything in sight before I'll wear a goddam Kotex!"

Does this mean I'm gay? (Not that...)

Date: 2008/11/07 09:45:54, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 06 2008,20:10)
BTW over at ISCID Brainstorms, which is totally empty except for JAD talking to himself, JAD calls Davetard the worst person on the internet. LOL.

ISCID is apparently officially dead. If you click on the Contact link on the front page, it takes you to
Quote
ISCID is no longer being managed as an organization, and thus no longer has contact information. We leave this website up for archival purposes.


Linky

Date: 2008/11/09 15:34:33, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
First, a brief review of the movie:

 
Quote
This movie, for those of you that don't know, is a brilliant, well-done look at intelligent design and it's rejection by academia.


And then:

 
Quote
...I am really looking forward to seeing it.

 :O

Date: 2008/11/11 14:10:02, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Jkrebs @ Nov. 11 2008,12:36)
Things are picking up - Dave seems determined to rock the boat, posting on "Would you want your daughter to marry a Branch Davidian."  Allanius responds:

 
Quote


allanius
11/11/2008
1:20 pm

Would you want your child to marry Dave Scott?

As a doting parent, please rank the following in terms of marriage eligibility:

Matt Damon
Eli Manning
Richard Dawkins
Bill Gates
Dave Scott
Adolph Hitler
Boy George
Barack Obama
George W. Bush
Andrew Sullivan
Kurt Cobain
Charles Darwin (what’s in that beard??)


And over on the "Would you want your child to marry an atheist thread, Dave responds to Barry with this:

 
Quote


30

DaveScot
11/11/2008
12:48 pm

Barry

Would you be a bad person if you didn’t believe God wanted you to be a good person?

If forgiveness and everlasting life is available through Christ even for miscreants who rape, torture, and kill children where’s the disincentive in your religion for raping, torturing, and killing children? It seems to me that secular law is the source of the disincentives and your concept of universal forgiveness acts as an incentive.

How do you handle the cognitive dissonance in that?


I think we better be saving these threads before they disappear.

BarryA ducks and runs:
 
Quote


BarryA

11/11/2008

1:43 pm
DaveScot, don’t have time to knock down the multiple strawmen you erected in [30]. Another day perhaps.


And I was hoping for a good tard fight.  :angry:

Date: 2008/11/11 15:25:50, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
As further evidence of the present dearth of tard at UD and how much we miss it, witness the fact that the thread has turned to discussing cosmic ID with Heddle.

Maybe we should let JAD back in.

Date: 2008/11/12 19:32:08, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 12 2008,18:51)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 12 2008,14:35)
I've asked god into my life in exactly the manner you describe completely sincerely. In fact I'm doing it again right now.

Thus far nothing has happened.

All I can say is keep doing it Louis, it could take awhile.

Date: 2008/12/18 11:57:46, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 18 2008,11:10)
I'm predicting that the current method will fail in its efforts to describe a detailed evolutionary pathway for any intricately organized system.  All of your characterizations fail to take into account the fact that it only takes one successful pathway to falsify my claim.  

But you've provided no rigorous definitions for "detailed evolutionary pathway" or "intricately organized."  This allows for you to move the goalposts at will, and it's why your "prediction" isn't worth a damn.

Date: 2009/01/07 08:11:36, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
There aren't too many people who can bring the stupid like Joe Gallien ("Joseph"):
Quote
Ya see nothing supporting undirected processes has come out of the research in 150 years since the publication of “On the Origin of Species…”

And you guys have had federal funding for how long? Yet nothing.

Nothing that would demonstrate that genetic changes can be linked to the physiological and anatomical differences observed.


Linky

Date: 2009/01/08 14:14:50, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
RickToews (which sounds like some kind of foot disease) demonstrates why fundies should never be trusted:
   
Quote
In the absence of a transcendent directive to “love your neighbor as yourself,” is it not patently obvious that it’s a fool’s errand to respect the other guy’s interests if doing so interferes with one’s own?

(If YOU want to be a starry-eyed idealist and follow “noble” values “for the greater good,” then bully for you; I see no personal advantage in that for me–and if all I can hope for is the here and now, I’ll be switched if I’m going to concern myself with the good of nameless others rather than my own enjoyment, when there’s no ultimate meaning to it anyway.)

Date: 2009/02/26 10:43:22, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
For your amusement, I offer a compelling question from a writer who thinks that Robert Marks "...ranks up there with the likes of Newton and Einstein" and has a "...genius level knowledge of statistical models...":
Is Robert Marks the Greatest Scientist of our Generation?

Date: 2009/02/26 15:01:23, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Feb. 26 2009,10:43)
For your amusement, I offer a compelling question from a writer who thinks that Robert Marks "...ranks up there with the likes of Newton and Einstein" and has a "...genius level knowledge of statistical models...":
Is Robert Marks the Greatest Scientist of our Generation?

But wait, there's more!


Huebsch has another piece  on the same website in which he discusses working in the Baylor cafeteria.

Date: 2009/03/16 15:50:28, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 16 2009,05:42)
Jeeebus!  I go home for a weekend to visit my sweet, saintly mother and I come back and the world is turned upside down, cats are living with dogs and DaveTard is no longer with UD!

Fine business!

And to make it a perfect weekend, I ran into this great Ray Comfort quote:      
Quote
Thanks to Delta airlines, you can now sit back and enjoy pedophilia while you fly in comfort across America. While there are certain passengers who may appreciate it, I don't think I am alone in my convictions when it comes to the sexual exploitation of our children. I don't like it.

I have been living in the United States for over 18 years. I became a citizen ten years ago and I'm extremely proud to be an American. I am proud because Americans are a compassionate people. They love and care for their children, and this is never more evident as when they see them harmed by some sexually twisted pervert.

Recently Kirk Cameron, I, and my son-in-law Emeal Zwayne, were flying from Atlanta to Los Angeles. Halfway into the flight, Kirk suddenly looked up and said, "What's going on!" We looked up at the more than twenty screens to see what looked like a nine-year-old child sexually gyrating and stripping in front of an adult audience. As we watched in horror, a few of the adults in her audience stood to their feet and began to clap to the music, obviously encouraging her to strip further, which she gladly did.

The airline kindly warned that the movie contained "adult situations, strong language and violence," and reviews said that it was "hilariously funny." No doubt the film's makers had a reason for their juvenile stripping scene, but what we were looking at wasn't a normal adult situation, nor was it funny. This was the promotion of pedophilia in the public arena.

We looked at each other and asked "How could this be happening?" This wasn't some in-house meeting of NAMBLA where perverts were getting off on seeing a young child take her clothes off in the privacy of their own clubhouse. This wasn't in some dirty little back room in Downtown Los Angeles. This was in front of mothers and fathers and their children on a domestic flight on Delta airlines.

What sort of twisted Hollywood scumbag is allowed to get this trash on a public airline?

The three of us immediately protested to a flight attendant. She smiled and gave her standard response, "You don't have to watch it. Just get on line on the Delta website and register a complaint." She was too busy caring for the needs of the passengers to see the movie.

One of the other passengers heard our protests and began to say that he actually enjoyed the film. Personally, I would like to know the names and addresses of anyone who enjoys watching little kids take their clothes off in public. I would like to warn the families in their area.

If someone is caught with this trash on his personal computer, he will find himself with a stiff prison term, but if he enjoys it on Delta, then that's his right.

I feel angry when our flag is burned, but if it's part of America's freedom, I can live with it. But if our freedom has its bounds, let it be at the harm of our children. Let's not let those who are our enemies see how we treat our children. If we can't agree on gay rights, prayer in schools, the war in Iraq, let's at least agree on this issue.

I have been on more than 1900 flights and I have looked away from adult entertainment many of times, but I will not close my eyes with this issue. I will open my mouth and do all I can to shame Delta for what they have done. What do I want from them? I want a very public apology. I want them and all the airlines to clean up their dirty little acts. The airlines outlawed smoking on their planes because enough passengers complained that they didn't want other people's poison in their faces. Liberty has its bounds. So if enough people protest about pedophilia flights maybe the airlines will ban their poison, and even create a NAMBLA room in the terminal so that they won't lose their business.

I like Delta's flight attendants. They are friendly. I like their pilots. They are good at what they do. I even like their food, and after the horror of 911, I want them to get on their feet financially, so I have a suggestion. I would like them to know that "Fly Delta, the pedophilia airline" isn't good for public relations.
If UD is looking for a worthy successor to DaveTard, they might ask Ray to put down the banana and take up the bannanation button.

Edited because I spel gud.

I wish Ray, Emeal (wtf) and Kirk had walked out on the movie.

Date: 2009/04/03 11:40:57, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (k.e.. @ April 03 2009,11:08)
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 03 2009,18:40)
Quote (k.e.. @ April 03 2009,09:42)
.......apart from Joe and Gordon who mine their own tard like it might be worth something .......

There must be a pony in there somewhere!


The world's best rhubarb compost just ask my mom.

I'd rather eat the compost.

Date: 2009/05/08 16:30:58, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ May 07 2009,23:06)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 07 2009,23:00)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 07 2009,22:57)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 07 2009,22:40)
OMG. I does rockhounding. I has redneck?

hanging around park benches begging for crack rocks... not the same thing

so much

you can haz neck annyway

Suck my ametrine, Ras.  :angry:

i knew a cherokee indian gal once that came out of the likker store in bryson with a half gallon of travelers club and said "I'm gonna drink from here to Bolivia"

and by god she meant every word of what she meant by that too.

if you are drinking pour some out for lannadell.  livers like that don't last forever

The sign said "Drink Canada Dry"/and I think I'm gonna try...

Date: 2009/05/10 10:26:18, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 09 2009,12:10)
In conclusion, the atheistic position, as it has been expressed here, is one characterized by narrow mindedness, cowardice, a lack of knowledge, willful ignorance and extreme bias.  Add to that a healthy dose of judgmental egotism and you'll accurately describe the average atheist posting here.

Date: 2009/05/10 19:28:37, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ May 10 2009,19:19)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 10 2009,10:26)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 09 2009,12:10)
In conclusion, the atheistic position, as it has been expressed here, is one characterized by narrow mindedness, cowardice, a lack of knowledge, willful ignorance and extreme bias.  Add to that a healthy dose of judgmental egotism and you'll accurately describe the average atheist posting here.


i can haz explanation?

Projection.

Date: 2009/05/11 18:55:01, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Doc Bill @ May 11 2009,17:41)
The first time I read Dembski and came across his idea of a "target" I stopped cold.  Really, there was no point in reading any further.

There are no "targets" in nature.  Evolution is what it is.  It's a process and we're here and now because we're here and now, not because we're "supposed" to be here and now.

Because Dembski is a creationist he must start from the end point as being the product of a god, although "theologian" Dembski doesn't have the balls to say that outright which is why he cowers under euphemisms like "intelligent agents" and other bullshit, and work backwards for it to make sense.  Of course, it doesn't make sense.

Dembski's "landscapes" and "targets" completely miss the point that the "here and now" might not be the optimum here and now.  He assumes an optimal solution, but that's fool's gold.  Any solution that yields a viable population in the here and now is an acceptable solution and equal to all others.

If Dembski was right and the designer produced an optimal design then I'd be able to fly.  Oh, hang on, I'm going to London tomorrow.  Never mind.  

Who knew the designer's name was Boeing??

If God the Designer had intended for us to fly he would have given us tickets.

Date: 2009/05/21 10:12:16, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Richard Simons @ May 21 2009,07:54)
[quote=Amadan,May 21 2009,05:19]
In Canada many of the native children, especially from the more remote areas, were compulsorily placed in residential schools, the last of which closed, IIRC, in the 1980s.

[pedantry]I think you mean "many of the aboriginal children," because all children born in Canada are natives.[/pedantry]

Date: 2009/06/01 15:39:01, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (FreeSpeachFan @ June 01 2009,02:39)
Seriously though, the translation was mostly accurate. I am surprised--translator software like babelfish never seems to work, or at least not that well.

Did you know that linguistically speaking, Swedish is a combination of Portuguese and Urdu?

Date: 2009/06/05 16:48:31, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Louis @ June 03 2009,03:13)
My status changed as of 13:48 BST yesterday. I am now a daddy!

Little Nicholas was born a 7 lb 1.5 oz beauty (or more accurately a mini Winston Churchill impersonator with a gob like a foghorn) by Caesarian section. Mother and baby are doing fantastically and I'm off now to see them.

Sleep? I've heard of it. Is it a good thing?



Louis

P.S. I realise I will not be giving David Bailey a run for his money as a photographer. Meh. I think "addled new father brain" and "new iPhone" deal with most of the issues!

I would also like to congratulate the proud father, so please let me know if you find out who it is.  :p

Date: 2009/06/18 10:00:25, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 17 2009,22:15)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 17 2009,21:43)
this is damn near the dumbest thing ever said in print.

   
Quote
Let me simply it as much as I can. Methodological naturalism is an arbitrarily established rule which requires the scientist to study nature “as if nature is all there is.” No such limitation has ever been imposed in the history of science. The “rule” is only 25 years old, and was codified at exactly the same time ID became known. Did you know that?


who is this idiot.

Jesus Tap-dancing Christ. StephenB either has a problem with long term memory or is deliberately obtuse.  Jack Krebs corrected him on that very point in this comment well over a year ago.

Anyone who has a valid login over at UD may want to point StephenB to that prior discussion.

StephenB conceded the point, sort of, in a later post on the same thread:
Quote
The IDEA of methodological naturalism has been around for a while. The DRACONIAN ENFORCEMENT of methdological naturalism is about 20 years old.

TARD

Date: 2009/07/15 16:15:41, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
BA77 makes an appearance at Pharyngula, in a thread regarding the Mooney/Kirshenbaum book Scientific America.  His contribution:
 
Quote
Posted by: Bornagain77 | July 15, 2009 4:03 PM

William Dembski - The Mathematical Impossibility Of Darwinian Evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeOyg90It5w

Here is the formal mathematical falsification of evolution - William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, "LIFES CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information" - http://www.evoinfo.org
id='postcolor'>


Linky

Date: 2009/08/01 09:57:10, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I found the two feathers below in my backyard this morning. They're pretty big for most of the birds I see, with the exception of a Cooper's hawk that's attracted by the multitudinous finches that visit the feeders.

Any ideas what might have shed them?

Date: 2009/08/01 12:24:59, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Dr.GH @ Aug. 01 2009,11:15)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Aug. 01 2009,07:57)
I found the two feathers below in my backyard this morning. They're pretty big for most of the birds I see, with the exception of a Cooper's hawk that's attracted by the multitudinous finches that visit the feeders.

Any ideas what might have shed them?

Hawk for sure.

How many of the posts here will be entered in the PT photo contest? There are some real contenders.

Yeah, it's my friend the "Coop." I should've done teh googlez before asking here:

Date: 2009/08/03 10:15:41, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Quack @ Aug. 03 2009,09:46)
Quote
the universe ever accidentally generating a specifically sequenced 100 amino acid protein by accident

Semantics, anyone?

It's not so much semantics as it is a logical breakdown--the argument assumes its own conclusion, and the tards can't process the line of reasoning deeply enough to understand it.

Date: 2009/08/03 10:17:15, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 01 2009,12:45)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Aug. 01 2009,09:57)
I found the two feathers below in my backyard this morning. They're pretty big for most of the birds I see, with the exception of a Cooper's hawk that's attracted by the multitudinous finches that visit the feeders.

Any ideas what might have shed them?

Another excellent resource is the Flight Feathers of N. American Birds website.

Looks like a Coop to me too.

Thanks for that link.  Not only does it confirm the type, but based on some of the info there it looks like the feathers might have come from a young'un.

Date: 2009/08/09 10:50:32, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Thanks, everyone!

Date: 2009/09/03 12:14:47, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Happy birthday to both of all of you!

Date: 2009/10/05 18:45:09, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Chayanov @ Oct. 05 2009,17:32)
I think this has been a good illustration of the futility in attempting to engage with creationists. We don't have a debate here. It's not even a dialogue. Instead it's pages of the evasions, lies, willful ignorance, and smug, condescending proselytizing of someone whose own faith is clearly very shallow and insecure.

And that's just Heddle.

Date: 2009/10/20 15:59:01, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 20 2009,13:55)
Would a green banana prove anything?

Yes, for sufficiently yellow values of green.

Date: 2009/11/11 19:58:10, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
HAPPY BIRFDAY!!!

My granddaughter celebrates with you

Date: 2009/11/11 20:04:18, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 09 2009,14:00)
It's almost as if they don't realize that different branches of science are independent of each other.

I think it's more like they do think that they're independent of each other and don't understand the role that consilience plays in supporting a theory.

Date: 2009/11/12 09:22:39, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Nov. 11 2009,23:42)
Quote
After I got home, I got Hull due to complaints about how I had sorted the laundry.

Perhaps this is akin to the Canadian bogeyman for not performing chores correctly...

I'd be worried if The Golden Jet were sent 'round to restore order in my house.

eta: the and 'd

Bobby typically sends Glenn out for those sorts of things.

Date: 2009/11/12 09:29:09, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 11 2009,23:10)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 11 2009,18:45)

it's just recently occurred to me that by observing the tard you create more tard.  i'm still struggling with the implications of that.

There's a difference between creating and preserving. The late mayor of Chicago, Richard J. Daley was famous for malapropisms and when his police department was criticized for brutality during the 1968 Democratic convention, he uttered one of his best. "The policeman," he intoned, "isn't there to create disorder. The policeman is there to preserve disorder."

Date: 2009/11/20 10:35:37, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I think Byers' ideas can be summed up in a single sentence, extracted from a  recent comment at PT:

Quote
Darwin make a concept but did not prove it.

Date: 2009/12/05 19:54:28, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Apart from the fact that you're asking the same questions you asked earlier in the day, to which there have been multiple responses, you need to look up "transcendent"  in a dictionary, find out what it means, then be specific about the sense of the word you're using.

Date: 2009/12/11 20:32:38, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 11 2009,10:04)
 
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 11 2009,09:05)
So you understand what you are asking, Inquiry, fish to amphibian would be a completely new class - waaaay beyond merely a change in "kind" or "species". It's no wonder you don't understand or accept evolution - you think it about changes at levels that evolution doesn't speak to.

So in other words there is no evidence to support the idea of macroevolution?

I always use this to answer the stupid micro=good, macro=no way:



From our friends at Jesus and Mo

Date: 2009/12/16 10:24:33, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (phantom menace @ Dec. 15 2009,20:52)
 
Quote
"I don't know" is a valid scientific answer.

"Goddidit" is not.


1) No it's not. It is a non-answer. The very term "science" means knowledge. "I don't know" means ignorance. Nothing wrong with ignorance if something is beyond our intellectual capabilities but let's not pretend that ignorance is knowledge.

I'm a lowly layman wrt science in general, but I know that "knowledge" includes being aware of what you don't know. How could science proceed otherwise? Thomas Edison, in discussing his search for a viable filament material for his electric light, allegedly remarked that he had not failed--he knew 1000 things that wouldn't work. Science is continually filling gaps in knowledge (ignorance) with empirical reality, but it seems that you would prefer reference to an indescribable "designer" --or worse, a magic ghost--as "knowledge."

Date: 2009/12/22 11:58:06, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Dec. 21 2009,18:35)
Iain Stewart is superb as an orator for science Stephen.

Who is science Stephen?  :p

Date: 2009/12/22 12:01:18, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 20 2009,04:37)
Anybody seen Phantom Menace around in the past few days? I was looking forward to seeing how he responds to my "which sequence has more 'genetic information'?" question...

I think maybe he and inquiry have spent enough time in enemy territory to qualify for Dembski's extra credit, and I'm sure he's very proud of them.

Date: 2010/01/09 11:19:02, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 09 2010,08:49)
SCheeseman is apparently unfamiliar with the body of work of one Dr2. William Dembski.
       
Quote

Seversky:

If you will not accept the theory of evolution unless it can provide evidence at the “pathetic level of detail” that Intelligent Design eschews then I assume that you demand a similar standard of evidence from ID.

[Note: I think you meant "demands", not "eschews"?]

No, he meant eschews. I refer you to a comment by William Dembski:
   
Quote
William A. Dembski
Member
Member # 7
posted 18. September 2002 09:01     
Rafe,

I wrote, "Please show me in Michael Behe's writings or my own where we deny that IC systems can be made up of subsystems that can be functional in their own right." Both Behe and I have always defined IC with reference to the basic function of the system in question (if we've not said it explicitly -- and I have in NFL -- then a charitable reading would have granted that -- neither Behe nor I are that stupid). We therefore left open the possibility of subsystems having function in their own right. You and Yersinia charge us with a denial. The quotes you give indicate no such thing.

As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.


Added in edit:  Brainstorms doesn't have any obvious permalinks to specific comments, so you'll need to scroll a bit to see WmAD in action.

What I always liked best about that little rant of Dembski's is his apparent belief that ID "theory" doesn't rise to the level of "pathetic."

Date: 2010/01/11 19:27:09, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 11 2010,06:32)
I suspect that it took a while to get me in this state, so I'll be patient in getting better as well.

Are you referring to your physical condition or Kansas?   :p
Take it nice and easy and get well soon.

Date: 2010/02/03 11:19:57, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,09:58)
I think that for as long as we have only plausible evidence for some biological structures, we will have creationists trying to plug the holes with God.

In other words, so long as their is a possibility that God did something, they will jump on that possible bandwagon, even though there is no way to test the plausibility of this kind of account.

Good work. You've discovered the reason that creationism (ID included) can't stand on its own as science. Once you allow for variables that can't be isolated and controlled, science goes out the window. There's a famous cartoon that illustrates the point perfectly:

Date: 2010/02/03 12:18:41, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,12:06)
At the risk of being severely beaten, what if a miracle, or intelligence was involved in the evolutionary process? How would an evolutionary scientist detect this?

Because admittedly, we are intelligently affecting our own evolutionary path right now, and that of dog breeds, and in our medicinal attacks on deseases, etc... It is self evident because we are aware of our own history.... but what if, for example, a million years ago, E.T. landed on the earth and performed some genetic manipulation of some sea sludge to create the first microbes?

How would we have a testable theory to explain that?

Cheers,
Ut

What if, indeed. It's not turtles all the way down, so you're still left with explaining E.T.

The point is that we can only use the tools and evidence we have to understand things. In that sense it doesn't matter if we're the result of some sort of panspermia, nor does it matter if jebus hisownself waved a wand at some point. If we can't see evidence of such things, we have to assume causes that exist within the framework of knowledge we have now.

IDers like to disingenuously claim that they don't need to identify their designer, and that what they see as evidence for design is enough. But it's clearly not enough, because it's impossible to tell the difference between the work of their designer and what they like to refer to as "nature working freely."

Date: 2010/02/11 19:18:57, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 11 2010,19:04)
I agree with Ut that the world would be a better place if people, myself included, were more rational in every sense of the word.

I suspect that believing in an invisible man in the sky who threatens you, and has this really good deal for you if only you do what he says, or more precisely his self appointed representatives say, but listens to everything you ask of him, isn't going to fall under any workable definition of "rational" that has't been bent over a sofa and rogered from behind so thoroughly you could use its arsehole as a cat flap. For a tiger. Riding on a motorbike. With a series of other very overweight tigers in some sort of large pyramid formation. On an aircraft carrier. Sideways.

Anyway, my revelation (for my gods* speak to me too), says that everyone else's revelation is false. All my reasoning from that point, which constitutes a valid theology, says you're wrong, so nyah.

And that probably constitutes religion hating, I'll break out the fainting couch and smelling salts for anyone having a tough of the vapours.

Louis

*Actual gods may not exist

Yes, but Ut is talking about Roman Catholicism, which is actually the true religion, and has a pope, lots of saints and miracles, and a deity you can eat, unlike all of those irrational religions.

Edit: typo

Date: 2010/02/14 11:01:32, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Joy @ Feb. 13 2010,16:26)
Al2:
     
Quote
But if your ideas were better, maybe that wouldn't be the case.


My 'ideas' weren't the issue. The issues were my name and my experience in 8th grade science. You do know what "ad hominem" means, don't you? Hint: it's not about ideas.

Insufferable bores are always persecuted and misunderstood. You should be accustomed to it by now. It  doesn't deter you from being insufferably boring, after all.

Date: 2010/02/19 18:39:34, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 17 2010,15:05)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 17 2010,10:38)
My girlfriend just advised me to watch "Creation".

Anyone seen it?

44% on the tomatometer. No review from Roger Ebert, a big promoter of evolution.

Ebert's review is up.

Date: 2010/02/28 19:27:23, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I think you misspelled "versus" in the thread title.  :D

Date: 2010/03/08 16:39:59, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 08 2010,15:51)
hmmm something went wrong here. Ignore this!

Louis

You should have told me to ignore it before I read it.  :angry:

Date: 2010/03/12 10:19:46, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 12 2010,01:38)
I know marsupials and other orders of creatures are just placentals of creatures we have everywher [sic] on earth...
No reason not to see it that way.

Hard to believe, isn't it?
I love it so!

Date: 2010/04/03 08:50:26, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,08:04)
Quote (FreeMason @ Mar. 31 2010,11:14)
C'mon, this can't be real.

Measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the dictionary definition of aardvark?

He's just having some fun with you folks. Granted that he is dedicated, but that can be a symptom of extreme boredom as well as extreme zealotry.

That is false.

Only a complete imbecile would think I was measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the definition.

Definitions are examples of specified information

1-The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

2-I then measured the information contained in that definition.

3- It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.

Yes or no- do you understand that?

I understand but not completely.  I've developed a secret written language (SWL). In my SWL, the definition of "aardvark" is written like this:

gkjassdhjkjyenb

Note that the bold type face is part of the SWL definition. If "gkjassdhjkjyenb" is not bolded, it means "platypus."

How much information is contained in my SWL definition? Does the "aardvark" definition contain more information than the "platypus" definition? Does either definition indicate the presence of CSI?

Date: 2010/04/03 09:34:59, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Thought Provoker @ April 03 2010,08:47)
What would it take to accept the modest suggestion that "Reality just might be illogical"?
If that is acceptable, isn't it reasonable for some people to hold the position that if Reality can be illogical, it is?

If the answer to this last question is "yes", then I argue Gould's NOMA is, at least, a reasonable philosophical position.

Two things: you seem to be laboring under the delusion that Gould created the idea that the streams of science and religion need not cross and create irresolvable logical dissonance, when in fact all Gould did was to give the concept a catchy name.

Second, if I were to apply logic in the present, I would say that if we all just tell you that we agree with you completely, you'd stop the seemingly endless stream of intellectual play-acting that seems to obsess you. Unfortunately, I fear that logic would fail and you would prattle on anyway. This may be evidence that there is danger in assuming that human behavior may be defined in logical terms, which is itself a logical construct.

See what you've done? I'm trapped in a vortex of wildly-spinning logic and can't even ask jebus to get me out of it.
Perhaps you would be better off just visiting the Argument Clinic.  :angry:

Date: 2010/04/03 10:27:15, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Thought Provoker @ April 03 2010,10:17)

Philosophical concepts inherently revolve around the obvious fact that we don't know the Truth.

If it's an obvious fact, why do you persist in belaboring it while patting yourself on the back as though you've reached new levels of Deep Thought? If it's bloody obvious, I don't need for you to explain it to me.
Quote (Thought Provoker @ April 03 2010,10:17)
Of course I will prattle on no matter what.


Which means you understand that you're engaged in a self-indulgent, non-enlightening waste of electrons, and don't see that as a problem.

Date: 2010/04/03 12:29:45, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Thought Provoker @ April 03 2010,10:47)
The question you might want to ask yourself, why did my words irritate you enough to comment?

Date: 2010/04/03 15:29:07, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:34)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 03 2010,08:50)
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,08:04)
 
Quote (FreeMason @ Mar. 31 2010,11:14)
C'mon, this can't be real.

Measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the dictionary definition of aardvark?

He's just having some fun with you folks. Granted that he is dedicated, but that can be a symptom of extreme boredom as well as extreme zealotry.

That is false.

Only a complete imbecile would think I was measuring the information of an aardvark by analyzing the characters in the definition.

Definitions are examples of specified information

1-The definition I provided is an example of specified information.

2-I then measured the information contained in that definition.

3- It was an EXAMPLE of how to measure SI to see if CSI is present.

Yes or no- do you understand that?

I understand but not completely.  I've developed a secret written language (SWL). In my SWL, the definition of "aardvark" is written like this:

gkjassdhjkjyenb

Note that the bold type face is part of the SWL definition. If "gkjassdhjkjyenb" is not bolded, it means "platypus."

How much information is contained in my SWL definition? Does the "aardvark" definition contain more information than the "platypus" definition? Does either definition indicate the presence of CSI?

Jim,

Just because you can prove that you are an asshole doesn't mean anything to ID.

Do you understand that?

In Joe's little world, the definition of "asshole" is "person who asks questions I can't answer." Which means the world is full of assholes, and I'm in good company.

Date: 2010/04/22 08:35:35, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Sure, along with the people who say "stadiums," "aquariums" and "forums."*







*This is sarcasm.

Date: 2010/04/25 09:21:36, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,14:44)
Name for me anything that you (or anyone) has ever seen actually evolve from one species to another? (Now you say, we haven't, it takes millions/billions of years for anything to evolve.)

Prediction: when BJ sees the observed instances of speciation, he'll protest that those are examples of changes within a "kind," and not one "kind" changing into another before our eyes.

This is the response (from Jesus and Mo) I always like to give to that ignorant assertion:

Date: 2010/05/29 19:40:59, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 29 2010,18:33)
Here is a paper recently published that the antievolutionists are hyping. CMI sent out an email titled, 'Dawkins demolished: Backwardly wired retina "an optimal structure”'.

I'm having a look. In my first pass through, I saw absolutely nothing in the paper that supports the optimality claim. Nor is there anything that I see that even touches upon the arguments Richard Dawkins has made about differently-wired eyes.

Since I'm planning to write this up, I'd appreciate others having a look to see if there is anything even arguably relevant that I might be missing.

They stopped reading (or comprehending) after the last sentence of the abstract:
Quote
The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images.

My emphasis.

Date: 2010/12/05 11:22:22, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (socle @ Dec. 05 2010,10:53)
Quote

StephenB:

According to the common teaching of the Church, Mary’s will was made so free that she had no inclination or desire to sin and, therefore, could not have sinned.


I don't know anything about Catholic doctrine, but doesn't this explanation lead one to ask why God didn't also give Adam and Eve this additional free will that Mary apparently received?  Maybe the world would have been a better place without that "Fall" thing.

The fall was necessary because it was preordained, except it wasn't exactly preordained because Adam and Eve had free will, and could have refused to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, even though prior to eating from the tree they had no knowledge of good and evil and thus had no way of knowing what they were doing was wrong by the Absolute Moral Standard but should have known anyway because God told them not to do it.

Does that clear it up for you?

Date: 2010/12/09 15:52:00, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 09 2010,12:55)
As for how long this will last- (answering the question that is the title of this thread)- well until one evo steps up and actually starts producing positive evidence for your claims.

IOW it will last a long, long time...

Joe,

You often remind us that ID isn't anti-evolution, so I guess this means that you're an "evo" too.

Date: 2010/12/09 16:10:39, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
A few years ago I think I was part of the only time in recorded history when Joe admitted that he was wrong about anything, and did so in his own inimitable and lovable fashion.

I was going back and forth with him in the comments under one of his posts, and was of course getting nowhere, and remembered something that Andrea Bottaro (a male person) had said to him in a comment at PT, and repeated in the comments at Joe's sinkhole:

   
Quote
I can't say it any better than Andrea Bottaro did in a response to you at Panda's Thumb:

"...you are remarkably impenetrable to reason and unaware of self-embarassment. I strongly suggest you check the content of your next posts for unwarranted and self-contradictory claims."

The only thing I can add is that I hope you keep up the good work; you're the best argument against ID I've ever come across.


Joe's response, with added emphasis:
   
Quote
But "Andrea Bottaro" translated means "can't understand normal thinking".

She is another evolutionitwit that can't substantiate her claims and acts like a baby when her nonsense is thrashed.

Your continued intellectual cowardice demonstrates all you evolutionitwits "argue" alike.


Then me again:
   
Quote
Joe, Joe, Joe. Once again you've pulled down your pants and shown us your unbounded ignorance, and for that I must thank you once again. Andrea Botarro is not a "she".

This included a now-busted link to a photo of the bearded Bottaro.

Joe, bringing the misogyny as an extra added bonus:
   
Quote
ROTFLMAO!!!!

I know the "gender". But when one "argues like a little girl" AND has the name, I like to capitalize/ exploit such scenarios when personally attacked by such a screamer.

Now one along and go play in traffic...


And here it is--14 minutes after the post above, Joey 'fesses up, but not without another flash of his fear of women:
   
Quote
Coming clean:

When I read my first posting/ article/ essay by Andrea Bottaro, I intially had the inference "this beyotch doesn't know what she (gender-female) is talking about."

It was after the name popped up again that I did the research into this person and realized my initial folly.

However every time I read "her" pap-filled diatribe all of my initial inferences come-a-callin'.

Appearances can be deceiving...

At least he didn't call it a "pap-smeared diatribe." :p



ETA: link

Date: 2011/01/15 12:49:47, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 15 2011,12:44)
So that's the starting question. What distinguishes science from life?

I'm not much of a philosopher, but I think it's pretty much the same thing that distinguishes science from double-hung windows and my sister's blue car.

Date: 2011/01/29 10:54:55, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 29 2011,08:31)
Apparently if you like what a Christian says--probably because it is dumb and is easy to attack--then that is what qualifies them as bonafide "representative."

I'm still looking for that part of religious dogma (Christian or otherwise) that's not dumb and easy to attack.

Date: 2011/01/31 09:37:14, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 30 2011,09:24)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 29 2011,11:54)
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 29 2011,08:31)
Apparently if you like what a Christian says--probably because it is dumb and is easy to attack--then that is what qualifies them as bonafide "representative."

I'm still looking for that part of religious dogma (Christian or otherwise) that's not dumb and easy to attack.

Hey now here's a blast from the past! How've you been, Jim?

I'm good, thanks. I'm here lurking just about every day and just poke my head out from behind the curtain now and then.

Carry on.

Date: 2011/03/26 09:18:44, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 25 2011,15:48)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 24 2011,10:13)
Just thought I'd revive this thread, since it's about that time of year.

Give us your best shot ID students.  I'll put in a good word for you with Dr. Dr. if you give a unique (meaning never heard before) argument.

Unlikely there will be many takers, DDrr.. Dembski is not teaching Philo 4483 this semester.
http://www.swbts.edu/index.c....0415379

Click through at the bottom of the page to Dembski's course schedule.

Bonus points for finding WmAD in the photo at the top of the page!

I see that Dembski's CV still lists Being as Communion as being in the "Books in Preparation" category. This is the non-book for which Dr. Dr. received a Templeton grant back in 2000. He apparently attempted a bait-and-switch, representing No Free Lunch as fulfillment of the Templeton agreement. Here's what a Templeton guy said in 2007:
 
Quote
In 2002, Dembski published No Free Lunch and requested a second installation payment on the Book Grant from the Templeton Foundation (Dembski, 2002).  In correspondence with him, he was told by me that this book did not fulfill his obligation to publish a work on metaphysics and theology as detailed in his book proposal entitled Being as Communion.  That book has still not been produced.

After reading that, I sent an email message to the alleged publisher asking about the target publication date. They responded thusly:
 
Quote
The title "Being as Communion" is not yet published.  It will be published in both a paperback edition & cloth edition.  The title has an anticipated publication date of June 2008.

I also emailed Dembski, asking him the same question. His response:
 
Quote
It'll be a while. Stay tuned. --WmAD


After June 2008 came and went, I re-queried the publisher and received no response.

Can I stop staying tuned now?   :O

Date: 2011/03/27 10:08:45, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 27 2011,09:40)
On the off-chance that the good Dr. Dr. is following this thread, Bill, please, your idea, your claim to fame, the thing that you have been concentrating on for two decades, to single-handedly bring down the evil of evolution and burnish the glory of the logos of John's gospel, is going down in flames.  On your own blog!!! That is SO embarrassing.  It's long past time to get in there and save the day by showing how to calculate even just one of your versions of CSI per MathGrrl's request.

And while you are it, prove to your colleague Denyse that you are not one of those junior ID theorists who cannot formulate a single definition of CSI.  After all, you wouldn't want Denyse thinking you're incompetent, would you?

Ah, but Dembski gave a one-size-fits-all answer  to this a long time ago (scroll down the page):
Quote
You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

Shorter Dembski: My version of science doesn't rise to the level of "pathetic" so I don't need any of that pesky math and mechanism stuff.

Date: 2011/04/03 21:13:53, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (didymos @ April 01 2011,23:47)
GilDo's got a "new" post. A1.

Duly acknowledged :p

Date: 2011/06/04 07:46:52, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Noted genetics authority Joe:    
Quote
In order to split DNA requires enzymes. IOW without a hosy of oter molecule DNA wouldn’t do anything by itSELF.

And any idiot should know that a hosy of oter molecule can't arise via a blind watchmaker process.  :angry:

Tard

Date: 2011/06/13 14:28:01, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Robin @ June 13 2011,14:25)
Quote (Kristine @ June 13 2011,11:00)
really am flummoxed by this phrase, "microbe-to-man evolution."


Isn't that just a rephrase of the old Gish canard of "hydrogen to humans"/"particles to people" strawman scenarios?

ETA - fixed quote.

And don't forget "From the goo, to the zoo, to you."

Date: 2011/07/12 12:30:27, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Trubble,

Your opening salvo had "agenda" written all over it. The ones who declaim the loudest about not having an agenda are the ones most likely to have one--you protest too much, in other words.

There are two varieties of denialists when it comes to global warming--those who deny that it's happening at all, and those who acknowledge it but deny anthropogenic causes.  

Your question, if I understand it, is whether or not a person who acknowledges anthropogenic global warming but doesn't want to take "drastic" measures in response to it may be considered a denialist.  Perhaps, but in a completely different discussion and context.  Note that your reference to "drastic" measures connotes a bit of an agenda in itself.

Date: 2011/07/14 07:20:47, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (OzJuggler @ July 14 2011,06:18)
Hello Panda Thumbers.

I was reading a blog today on a very different subject when it unexpectedly contained a post about the origin of life.
the_briefing_room/2011/05/the-chances-of-life-arising-randomly.html

The post contains this extract of Wishart's book:
-----8<-----8<------8<-------
   
Quote

As Morowitz pointed out, if you broke open the simplest living cell known to exist today, and broke every chemical bond within it so that you were left with its individual ingredients, the odds in favour of that cell putting itself back together again would be only one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. To put that figure in perspective, there haven’t even been that many nano-seconds on the clock since the dawn of time nearly 14 billion years ago.

With odds this remote, explains Hugh Ross,[6] “the time scale issue becomes completely irrelevant. What does it matter if the earth has been around for 10 seconds, 10 thousand years or 10 billion years? The size of the universe is of no consequence either. If all the matter in the visible universe were converted into the building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks was attempted once every microsecond (1 millionth of a second) for the entire age of the universe, then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000 they would be 1 in 10^99,999,999,916.”

Now for the sake of scientific accuracy, that’s not an estimation about the spontaneous generation of life randomly, but it is an estimation of whether the known chemical ingredients of a living cell – every ingredient needed – could re-combine from scratch. Clearly the answer is an emphatic no, never, not in a billion universes.

-----8<-----8<------8<-------

Well this does sound somewhat unlikely.

I made a choice a long time ago that naturally unlikely events were still preferred over supernatural events as a cohesive scientific explanation, so it's not really the unlikelihood that bothers me.

Do you or any of your contributing authors know of evidence to support Morowitz' estimate of the probability of cell self-assembly, and how much greater would the probability of RNA self-assembly be?
Is it even meaningful to try to put a single probability on this event?

Have a look at a portion of Morowitz's testimony in McLean v. Arkansas (scroll down to 500) to see what he thinks about the argument from probability.

The money shot:

Q: Is it [the argument from probability] also in your view unscientific?
A: Since deception is unscientific, the answer to that is yes.

Date: 2011/09/07 11:17:55, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Robin @ Sep. 07 2011,08:52)
I think that in recognition of the 100 pages of Joe's contribution to society, a simple summary - an abstract if you will - should be provided for those who stumble upon this lengthy dissertation and wish to know (without flipping back through the entire volume) just what it all boils down to. In honor of Carlson's fine work on the Dodgenator, I give you the Joelator.

Basic rules are as follows:

Pick one item from the first group:

   
Quote
a) Information in an object = the instructions to make it.
b) I am a Muslim who is not a follower of the Nation of Islam.
c) Experiments can be repeated but that doesn't mean anything.
d) Ice is not water!
e) Jim is my friend!
f) I am not IDGuy!
g) Objects are only the same size if they have the same weight!
h) That's not me, it's my dad!
g) ID does not conflict with evolution!


And then pick one line from the second group as a response to anyone's rebuttal:

   
Quote
1) Hey @#$%%# - Nah ahh!!
2) I know you are, but what am I?
3) @#*$@$% liar!
4) #@$@^&*%# you!


Note that unlike the Dodgenator, the two responses don't actually make any sense together at all. That's Joe for you. In fact, the more discontinuity between the first and the second the better.


ETA: Forgot one of the important ones!

Also, an item "h" for the first group: Design is a mechanism.

Date: 2011/10/21 11:25:01, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40)
Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly <snip>
Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes<snip>

How could something that's not planned (i.e., something that happens by "chance") be characterized as accidental?

How can genes make mistakes?

Date: 2011/10/21 12:02:43, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:37)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 21 2011,11:25)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40)
Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly <snip>
Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes<snip>

How could something that's not planned (i.e., something that happens by "chance") be characterized as accidental?

How can genes make mistakes?

Mutations are genetic mistakes or accidents that didnt get fixed by by genetic repair mechanisms

Go back up and read the questions again.

Date: 2011/11/07 11:18:31, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I was thinking of invoking the Jefferson quote-- "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions"--against Forastero's babbling, but I think he's going to need a proposition first. Nonetheless I think that any time the "WERE YOU THERE???" question is asked, it's OK for the ridicule to commence.

Date: 2011/11/14 15:43:07, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 14 2011,14:23)
 
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 14 2011,13:05)
Here, forastero, I'll make it simple for you. We know that, in any radiosotope, the number of atoms that decay per unit time is proportional to the number of atoms present. If there are N radioisotope atoms present and "t" is time, then the change in the number of atoms per unit time, dN/dt, is given by:


Where lambda is the decay constant.

If we start counting time from whatever point the process started, and there were N0 atoms at that time, the number of atoms present at time t is:



(see Radiometric Dating to see how the second equation is derived from the first).

Now, a moron might say that, since there is exponentiation involved in both this equation and the compound interest equation, then changes in the decay constant lambda will compound. but lambda and time "t" appear in the exponent. So when we solve for "t", the age of the sample:



we see that the relationship between "t" and lambda is hyperbolic, not exponential. A change in lambda results in a inversely proportional change in the calculated age, but if you increase the change in lambda the effect on "t" decreases as the change in lambda increases. A 0.5% change in lambda at t=0 (the best case for you, applying the changed rate throughout the entire process) changes the calculated age of the sample by 0.4975%.

(How we determine N0 is interesting but is outside the scope of this discussion. N and lambda are, of course, measured in the present.)

This equation applies to simple-accumulation methods, such as K-Ar. The more advanced age-diagnostic methods are governed by more complex equations, but the relationship between "t" and lambda is always inversely proportional. For example, the Pb-Pb isochron which is the way we find the total age of the Earth:



which is not solvable analytically, but can be solved using a computer. Note that "t" appears in the exponent multiplied by lambda, so we know that as in the above example "t" is inversely proportional to lambda.

The sound you just heard was that of this post going right over forastero's head.

Give not that which is holy involves logic unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls equations before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Date: 2011/11/16 11:31:03, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
One of the things that continually befuddles me about creationists is their apparent belief that in their own  profound --and oftentimes admitted-- ignorance they believe that learned, experienced people  are not aware of, and haven't considered, the bloody obvious.

ETA: Typo

Date: 2011/11/17 15:40:06, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (nmgirl @ Nov. 17 2011,14:06)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:19)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2011,12:53)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2011,09:13)
I still want to know where to look for the flood material.  

Interestingly, if forastero were to pick a coal bed between two igneous layers, then we could date that coal bed within a fairly tight range.

What do you think forastero?  What do you estimate the likelihood of us finding a coal bed that can be dated to within 50,000 years of the present time?  What range of error in dating techniques would be required to get that coal bed to your estimate of error?

And don't give me any guff about geological columns and "I didn't say anything about coal beds".  You said it, you claimed it, these are the consequences.

I think I'm hurt.  Forastero skipped right past my question.  sigh... how will I ever go on?

BTW: I still want to know how a global flood can carve a meandering channel in limestone and then deposit 17,000 feet of sediment on top of it.

Shall I add this and the varve question to your outstanding list?  I know you'll explain exactly what exploded to cause the Big Bang any time now.  Oh, and don't forget the cal bed that covers the Earth.  I really want to know about that one.  

Think about it a coal bed that's on the order of 17,000 feet thick and covers the entire Earth.  Talk about being a billionaire.  Just tell me where to look forastero.

The same the Flood piled up over 2200 feet in Carboniferous Texas


THE MISSISSIPPIAN BARNETT FORMATION:
A SOURCE-ROCK, SEAL, AND RESERVOIR PRODUCED BY EARLY CARBONIFEROUS FLOODING OF THE TEXAS CRATON

http://www.beg.utexas.edu/resprog....ter.pdf

forastero, i finally had time to read the paper on the Barnett shale.  It is obvious that you didn't read it and I quote from the conclusion:
"the section is composed primarily of siliciclastic mudrocks of the
Barnett Formation. These rocks were deposited in below wave base conditions in a deep
water platform to slope setting."  These rocks ain't no flood deposits.

"BELOW WAVE"  "DEEP WATER" TEH FLUD!! :angry:

Date: 2011/11/28 09:38:02, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
In reading through this thread and the other one regarding feminism, it occurs to me that there has never, to my knowledge, been a significant social movement that wasn't created and to some extent sustained by "radicals."  Large-scale social change happens because of noisy people who refuse to shut up, and who invariably offend some people who might be sympathetic in general.

The current complaint about PZ is typical and predictable.  It's helpful in such cases to look at the cumulative effects of the hyperbole (which is what the gelato man business is), rather than getting excited about individual instances.

Date: 2011/11/28 10:11:51, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 28 2011,09:48)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 28 2011,09:38)
In reading through this thread and the other one regarding feminism, it occurs to me that there has never, to my knowledge, been a significant social movement that wasn't created and to some extent sustained by "radicals."  Large-scale social change happens because of noisy people who refuse to shut up, and who invariably offend some people who might be sympathetic in general.

The current complaint about PZ is typical and predictable.  It's helpful in such cases to look at the cumulative effects of the hyperbole (which is what the gelato man business is), rather than getting excited about individual instances.

Isn't that approaching an "end justifies the means" argument? Is it OK to vilify an individual for the greater good? It seems like a scapegoat/set-an-example thing to me and I am uncomfortable about that.

I made an observation regarding the historical role of radical thinkers/speakers in social change. Such observation doesn't imply endorsement of any particular method or action.  In the present case I don't think that anyone has been harmed, or will be harmed, by PZ calling a bigot a bigot.

Date: 2011/11/28 18:17:30, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 28 2011,17:39)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 28 2011,10:11)
   
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 28 2011,09:48)
   
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 28 2011,09:38)
In reading through this thread and the other one regarding feminism, it occurs to me that there has never, to my knowledge, been a significant social movement that wasn't created and to some extent sustained by "radicals."  Large-scale social change happens because of noisy people who refuse to shut up, and who invariably offend some people who might be sympathetic in general.

The current complaint about PZ is typical and predictable.  It's helpful in such cases to look at the cumulative effects of the hyperbole (which is what the gelato man business is), rather than getting excited about individual instances.

Isn't that approaching an "end justifies the means" argument? Is it OK to vilify an individual for the greater good? It seems like a scapegoat/set-an-example thing to me and I am uncomfortable about that.

I made an observation regarding the historical role of radical thinkers/speakers in social change. Such observation doesn't imply endorsement of any particular method or action.  In the present case I don't think that anyone has been harmed, or will be harmed, by PZ calling a bigot a bigot.

Gelato guy a bigot? Seriously, I do not see it that way. In what way (assuming you mean him) is he a bigot?

And that's where the divide is, I guess. I say gelato man is a bigot because he hung out a sign saying that a certain class of people (meaning atheists, of course) weren't welcome in his Christian-owned business. If not bigotry, what is it? I don't think that a general well-meaning attitude gets anyone off the hook, and I agree with PZ when he complains that religion has gotten a free pass in this regard for far too long.

Date: 2011/12/12 15:35:20, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 12 2011,14:02)
Q: How do you get ID advocates into a lab?
A: Tell them that human genes are half off. :D
(Alternate: Tell them that they can look at someone's DNA's junk.)

Alternate #2:

A: Move the lab work into the hallway.

Date: 2012/03/06 08:43:42, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 06 2012,01:21)
KBertsche investigates Cornell's role:
 
Quote
I see both sides of this issue, but I would put as much or more blame on Cornell than on groups that rent Statler Hall from them. Cornell, as a private university, has no obligation to rent their space to anyone. They try to attract rentals as a source of income. And the Cornell name is a selling point for their rentals. Cornell can't have it both ways; if they want to attract rental groups with the Cornell name, they must expect that these same groups will use the Cornell name to publicize their events.

According to the information sheet about renting Statler Hall, "The Hotel School reserves the right to refuse requests for use of space in Statler Hall that it believes is not in keeping with the mission and goals of the school." If Cornell is embarrassed by this situation, they should change their rental policy or make their approval process tighter.

Cornell's event planning information sheet shows concern about using their name or logo on "merchandise" "(i.e. shirts, hats, pens, etc.)" but specifically says, "Note that this policy does not apply to information printed on paper (i.e. posters, program booklets, etc.)."

I don't think the group did anything wrong in scheduling or publicizing their symposium. On the other hand, in attempting to use Cornell's name in the publication of their proceedings, the may well have violated Cornell's policy statement on Use of Cornell's Name, Logos, Trademarks, and Insignias. These sections of the statement are pertinent:  
Quote
Cornell University


Responsibility for use of Cornell’s name and marks in the ordinary course of university business rests with the unit head. Questions regarding such use should be directed to the unit head. Examples of such use:
1. Official unit names. For example, “Cornell Institute for Public Affairs.”
2. Official event names. For example, “Cornell Conference on Law,” or “Cornell Nutrition Conference,” when approved by the appropriate dean or unit head and operated as a university event.
...
Except as specifically authorized in writing, use of Cornell’s name and marks in advertising and other promotional vehicles is prohibited when such use is likely to be perceived as an endorsement, even if such an endorsement is not the intention of the person or organization seeking to use Cornell’s name or marks.
...
Except those uses included in the “Ordinary Course of University Business” segment of this policy, the use of the name “Cornell University” or “Cornell,” in non-student organization names implying or tending to imply some official connection with the university, is prohibited except with the written permission of the university and under such restrictions as it may impose.

This person seems confused. On the one hand, he says "I don't think the group did anything wrong in scheduling or publicizing their symposium," then he quotes Cornell as saying "Except as specifically authorized in writing, use of Cornell’s name and marks in advertising and other promotional vehicles is prohibited when such use is likely to be perceived as an endorsement, even if such an endorsement is not the intention of the person or organization seeking to use Cornell’s name or marks."

It's pretty clear that the intent was to create the impression that Cornell was somehow officially complicit.

Date: 2012/03/06 14:20:50, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 06 2012,13:56)
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water.

Two wrong answers combined in a single response.  :p

Date: 2012/03/06 20:47:53, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Joe is being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture.    :p

Date: 2012/03/28 06:25:40, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 27 2012,14:38)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 27 2012,19:37)
[SNIP]

was the sheep wasn't it

Kinda.

Louis

There will never be another ewe.

Date: 2012/04/02 07:17:52, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Febble @ April 02 2012,06:09)
Quote (Doc Bill @ April 01 2012,18:03)
Dembski is a fascinating character to me, in a train wreck sort of way.  Here's a guy who paid his dues in Chicago to earn a PhD in math and another one in philosophy, and those of use who have traveled this road know that you have to do certain things to reach the end, so congrats to Dr. Dr. for that work.

And then he threw it all away which is the fascinating, on-going train wreck.  Why?  He could have picked up a tenure track job in math or philosophy or both at a small or large university and settled into a nice, long, steady, anonymous career and that would have been that.

But, no.  He appears to have bought into a cult that fed his very large ego and he went downhill from there.  He had a brief chance at normalcy when offered the director's position at Baylor, but he managed to fuck that up, too, but not from academic ineptitude, rather from his penchant of taking Jackassedness to an art form.  And that seems to be his m.o. to this day.

Perhaps one of our trained psychologists can weigh in on the self-destructive personality type exhibited by Dembski, at least, that's my personal, untrained observation.

Well, as I understand it, his thesis for his philosophy PhD was "The Design Inference".

Which is clever, but fallacious.

So he had the choice of sticking with a fallacious argument and not getting very far, or following the light and using his considerable analytical skill.

But it's hard to give up a good argument, especially if you got it published and lots of people liked it.

And very tempting to keep trying to rescue it, which, as I see it, he continues to try to do, and to tell yourself the flaws are fixable.

I think it's quite sad.  I'm actually enjoying No Free Lunch.  It's a good effort.  It just doesn't work.

If Dembski does have "considerable analytical skills" he would know that No Free Lunch was stillborn. This means he either doesn't have considerable analytical skills or he's egregiously dishonest.  I don't know how NFL could be considered a "good effort." Not only did it fail, it failed on a very superficial level.

Date: 2012/04/02 08:13:56, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Febble @ April 02 2012,07:51)
Well some things are easier seen as fallacious from one PoV than another.

The Design Inference passed both the PhD examining committee and the CUP reviewers.

Chain of mistakes = validation.  :O

Date: 2012/04/10 12:38:06, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (utidjian @ April 10 2012,12:30)
Well would you look at that:
Quote
The ID research tank, Biologic Institute, now has a Facebook page


They are clearly moving up in the world of scientific research. What next? Publishing their results on facebook for review?

-DU-

Twitter is more likely, as they won't need more than 140 characters.

Date: 2012/05/27 07:49:28, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
It's hard to believe that what amounts to a notincident not only created the stir it did, but has now been resurrected for another go-around.  It brings to mind Loudon Wainwright III and his "Drinking Song" and in particular the opening verse:

Drunk men stumble, drunk men fall
Drunk men swear and that's not all
Quite often they will urinate outdoors


Drunk people do stupid things.  There was plenty of reason for the woman involved to feel uncomfortable, and even afraid, because drunk men also do unspeakable things sometimes, and those things are often directed at women.   As it turned out the man was rude, or at least obliviously insensitive, and caused someone to be uncomfortable and indignant.  This is not the stuff of great controversy.  

Men, and especially young ones, want to have sex, and lots of it.  It's a biological imperative.   This causes some of them to do rude and insensitive things. This is not an excuse, however, for rude and insensitive behavior, because as John Hiatt, another of my favorite songwriters said, "We can choose, you know we ain't no amoebas"  Therein lies the seed of the controversy, which is not a controversy at all. Someone did something stupid and insensitive and someone else thought, apparently, that commonplace behaviors are the stuff of Profound Meaning and Injustice.  They're not.

As for PZ, there's no doubt in my mind that he occasionally foments this type of thing deliberately and with great glee in his powers of manipulation.  He is, in that sense, a sort of liberal Rush Limbaugh at times.  He throws a pork chop into a pen of hungry dogs and then sits back and watches with delight as the post count rises. That many otherwise intelligent and perceptive people allow PZ to attach his electrodes to them amazes me sometimes.

Date: 2012/06/11 10:34:57, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 11 2012,10:13)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 11 2012,05:29)
Gordon is watching!
   
Quote
F/N 3: In looking briefly at the Anti-Evo thread, I see where there is a continued insistence on conflation of design thought with biblical creationism — cf sparc quoting and approving Katerina98 here on accusing Tyler of “lying for Jesus” and KE here in attempted rebuttal to Sal C by trying to turn about a comment he made on common errors of evolutionary materialism promoters into remarks on creationism. This is incorrect, and as it has been repeatedly corrected on warrant, it is a disregard for duties of care to truth and fairness reflective of precisely the sort of nihilistic ruthless factionalism that I point to above. This gives examples of and underscores the concerns I have pointed to J above. Concerns that trace as far back as Plato.


Hey, Gordo, are you *sure* you want to climb into bed with Sal? Really? I guess you are both YEC so it makes sense....

IDiot.

Hi, Mr KF,
I'm flattered you noticed my comment. Just a reminder:

Mr Tyler's claim was that the paper made a design inference, and he quoted a couple of sentences to bolster this claim.

In fact, however, the paper did not contain any design inference, and the sentences immediately after Mr Tyler's quote made it obvious that the authors had a strictly evolutionary = scientific point of view.

Please consider participating in a discussion in the thread opened for you.

Can he bring Mr. Leathers?

Date: 2012/09/19 11:59:49, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
More likely:
 
Quote
I can hit have been hit in the head by a 95 MPH fastball.

Date: 2012/11/01 07:32:34, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Time to start keeping score.

Date: 2012/11/02 12:31:40, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:21)
If you followed the link that was found in the UD thread to my long ago W I Don't Know experiment that left me well misunderstood, very afraid for the future, but I attended the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and got to know some in the "industry".  Then Radio Pirates were hip in radio and the Grunge movement needed scientific input so there I was writing what I could into that network, that was through fax machine due to PC's and internet not being around yet.  Years later, it's the same thing but all are older and wiser and the theory I was talking about with molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, and so forth, is coming of age thanks to the ID controversy.  

Gary,
Aside from the fact that you're an obvious crank, this bit from you demonstrates why no one knows what the hell you're talking about.  It makes no sense on any level. It's an incoherent mess. Until you can learn how to start at the beginning and work your way to the end by way of the middle, you're just throwing dung and wondering why no one smells the roses.

Date: 2012/11/02 13:00:21, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:48)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 02 2012,12:31)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:21)
If you followed the link that was found in the UD thread to my long ago W I Don't Know experiment that left me well misunderstood, very afraid for the future, but I attended the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and got to know some in the "industry".  Then Radio Pirates were hip in radio and the Grunge movement needed scientific input so there I was writing what I could into that network, that was through fax machine due to PC's and internet not being around yet.  Years later, it's the same thing but all are older and wiser and the theory I was talking about with molecular intelligence, cellular intelligence, and so forth, is coming of age thanks to the ID controversy.  

Gary,
Aside from the fact that you're an obvious crank, this bit from you demonstrates why no one knows what the hell you're talking about.  It makes no sense on any level. It's an incoherent mess. Until you can learn how to start at the beginning and work your way to the end by way of the middle, you're just throwing dung and wondering why no one smells the roses.

Quick question then.

Off the top of your head, what are the four requirements for a system to qualify as "intelligent" and two sources for more info on the cognitive model(s) it came from?

Now I have no idea what your questions have to do with my observations, except perhaps to demonstrate that the problem is your apparent inability to maintain a linear discussion.

Date: 2012/11/11 15:03:07, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Gary,

Have you ever encountered Robert Byers?  I ask because I have a feeling that you two might be able to communicate on the same level.  Here's an example:
Quote
... always remember that in questioning the ark story one is aggressively question , for many, Christian doctrines or Orhodo Jewis ones or Muslim I think.


Linky

Date: 2012/11/12 09:16:20, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,08:12)

The quick answer is like I was explaining earlier about design inferences and such trying to solve the scientific problem in the reverse direction of my method which begins with the most simplified cognitive model for any intelligence. In a design inference there is no beforehand knowledge of the circuit that must be there for this other level of behavior to be intelligent. My search began at our human level brain that we personally experience, to other levels of intelligence necessary for it/us to work, that then goes on into the behavior of matter from which we are expressed. 

           
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 11 2012,05:58)
I think it was oldman... who suggested that you present the core parts of your "theory". I'll reiterate that and suggest that you present them a step at a time and focus on things that can be analyzed/tested/compared in such a way as to figure out if those parts have any merit.


We can easily compare illustrations showing core models. Here is the theory of ID:



And here is a typical EA/GA representative of the Darwinian theory model:
 


Do you see the very major differences?

Date: 2012/11/16 07:08:21, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,23:19)
Modern day in the name of science invading your forum like this, then makes our forefathers proud.

Here's an apropos quote in response to an unintelligible statement:   
Quote
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them... (Thomas Jefferson)


Whatever your "theory" might be, it can't be parsed on any level. This is not because we're all big meanies; it's because *you* are a horseshit writer.  There are times when dense and anfractuous language is deliberately used to mask a writer's true intentions, but in your case it's simple incompetence in articulation.   When someone of reasonable intelligence tells you that you're not being understood, it's not because your "theory" is so advanced that only an enlightened few can grasp its concepts; it's because it's unintelligible on any level, including your own, I suspect.

Date: 2012/11/16 07:34:41, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 16 2012,07:20)
Gary Gaulin's PDF (version of 2012/11/16):

 
Quote


Conclusion

We can here say that a human is an intelligent designer. Cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. Molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells. Behavior of Matter is the behavioral designer of genetic based molecular intelligence systems, from which the other levels of intelligence are in-turn emergent from.



That's your theory's conclusion?

That's it?

You've suffered an incredible amount of pain for pretty much no gain at all. You've come to a conclusion that nobody has *ever* disputed ("a human is an intelligent designer", modulo that "a human is" should be "some humans are"). That's in the category of "ordinary design" that science as practiced by everybody but you is perfectly fine investigating and elucidating.

That first sentence in the conclusion is arguably OK. There was no need to try to force some sort of "intelligent" framework on every physical process leading up to humans, whether it made any sense or not.

You, however, seem to freight your "theory" with greater significance than the (relatively modest) conclusion offers. You have spoken of justifying "creation science" and "intelligent design" of the sort espoused at the 2005 Kansas State School Board hearings. Example:

 
Quote

Much like Metaphysics where it's OK to include some philosophy/religion instead of forbidden as in scientific theory, this theory helps Creation Science become more scientifically serious to a scientist like you.


Your conclusion does not do that, for the simple reason explained in the 2001 Wilkins and Elsberry paper, to wit, that "ordinary design" does not provide justification for "rarefied design" inferences. Both "creation science" and "intelligent design creationism" *require* those "rarefied design" inferences, and thus no "theory" that solely deals with "ordinary design" can be said to support or justify any such thing.

The roll of scientist as your ownself might be is only feasting upon  Karl Pooper-style paradigm shifts into third gear while uphill on a tiny rollercoaster, which you're lack of understanding demonstrates, while in Kansas they understand that Creation Science thinks the theory belongs where it is, being honorifically deposed on Planet Sourcecode, which obviously render's you're objections untimely.

Date: 2012/11/16 10:17:13, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 15 2012,23:22)
Again:
Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?

   
Quote
As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical.

Of course, you've done experiments to confirm this assertion.  You do have evidence, right? You have a  tested method of measurement of "molecular level intelligence" and you're going to share it with us soon, right?    
Quote
But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

Because I'm sure of your basic integrity and know that you would never make unsupported assertions, I'm anxious to see your measurement method applied to incremental development of "cellular intelligence."  :p

Date: 2012/11/16 11:16:49, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,10:22)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 16 2012,09:56)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,10:04)
   
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 15 2012,23:22)
Again:
Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?


As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical. But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

how do you measure these similarities?  quantitatively, and not from the gut?

Best to model it (or conceptualize what that ends up looking right). You then have all of the variables of the algorithm(s) to monitor for comparisons. Also know for sure such things as whether new information from conjugation influenced its molecular or its cellular intelligence.

Depending on cell type there may be little or no conjugation. Where it has a centrosome we get an animal cell which can perform amazing feats, even form social-cell colonies called humans.

You're not answering the question(s). Before you can have a model that simulates something, you must have your variables defined, and in your case you must be able to measure the incremental development of "cellular intelligence."  Because no one else on earth that I know of knows how to do this, and you've made assertions regarding development of "cellular intelligence" you must have also developed a rigorous and well-defined measurement system.  BTW, "rigorous" in this context includes "well-tested," with the data to support the efficacy of the system.  Otherwise, your model is completely useless.

Date: 2012/11/16 12:16:12, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,12:03)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 16 2012,11:16)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,10:22)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 16 2012,09:56)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,10:04)
     
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 15 2012,23:22)
Again:
Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?


As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical. But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

how do you measure these similarities?  quantitatively, and not from the gut?

Best to model it (or conceptualize what that ends up looking right). You then have all of the variables of the algorithm(s) to monitor for comparisons. Also know for sure such things as whether new information from conjugation influenced its molecular or its cellular intelligence.

Depending on cell type there may be little or no conjugation. Where it has a centrosome we get an animal cell which can perform amazing feats, even form social-cell colonies called humans.

You're not answering the question(s). Before you can have a model that simulates something, you must have your variables defined, and in your case you must be able to measure the incremental development of "cellular intelligence."  Because no one else on earth that I know of knows how to do this, and you've made assertions regarding development of "cellular intelligence" you must have also developed a rigorous and well-defined measurement system.  BTW, "rigorous" in this context includes "well-tested," with the data to support the efficacy of the system.  Otherwise, your model is completely useless.

Primary variables (for control, confidence, guess, memory) are in part defined by the terminology found in representative formula or metabolic pathway component name. That information is used in labeling circuit as shown in models/theory that has the same features regardless of how simple or complex the intelligence system is. Even a simple feedback circuit can be formed with the algorithm even though it is not intelligent, not all of the algorithm would be used. Where it turns out that it was more than a simple feedback network whatever new that was discovered has a place in algorithm, it's already there waiting for it and figuring where it no doubt belongs is not hard.

If this is an answer, can you please tell me what the question is?  Give us the details of your measurement system and how it was tested.

Date: 2012/11/16 12:39:16, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,12:21)
Where the system is intelligent it is obvious that they are, instead of not sure because you do not begin with a standard format that easily allows such determinations to be made.

Allow me to translate from the seldom-heard Gaulinian dialect:  "I don't have to define anything--I know it when I see it."

Date: 2012/11/16 12:57:28, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,12:45)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 16 2012,12:16)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,12:03)
   
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 16 2012,11:16)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,10:22)
       
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 16 2012,09:56)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,10:04)
         
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 15 2012,23:22)
Again:
Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?


As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical. But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

how do you measure these similarities?  quantitatively, and not from the gut?

Best to model it (or conceptualize what that ends up looking right). You then have all of the variables of the algorithm(s) to monitor for comparisons. Also know for sure such things as whether new information from conjugation influenced its molecular or its cellular intelligence.

Depending on cell type there may be little or no conjugation. Where it has a centrosome we get an animal cell which can perform amazing feats, even form social-cell colonies called humans.

You're not answering the question(s). Before you can have a model that simulates something, you must have your variables defined, and in your case you must be able to measure the incremental development of "cellular intelligence."  Because no one else on earth that I know of knows how to do this, and you've made assertions regarding development of "cellular intelligence" you must have also developed a rigorous and well-defined measurement system.  BTW, "rigorous" in this context includes "well-tested," with the data to support the efficacy of the system.  Otherwise, your model is completely useless.

Primary variables (for control, confidence, guess, memory) are in part defined by the terminology found in representative formula or metabolic pathway component name. That information is used in labeling circuit as shown in models/theory that has the same features regardless of how simple or complex the intelligence system is. Even a simple feedback circuit can be formed with the algorithm even though it is not intelligent, not all of the algorithm would be used. Where it turns out that it was more than a simple feedback network whatever new that was discovered has a place in algorithm, it's already there waiting for it and figuring where it no doubt belongs is not hard.

If this is an answer, can you please tell me what the question is?  Give us the details of your measurement system and how it was tested.

This is what a standard measurement looks like:


https://sites.google.com/site.......een.png

Regardless of kind of intelligence, in this theory there is a line chart to show vital stats of the algorithm, along with representative circuit which can be drawn to help show how well it is working. That is all it needs.

I doubt you will find a comparable system anywhere else. This is not required in any other theory, where here it is really only a matter of simply showing the primary variables and circuit of the model on the screen.

This is not a rigorously defined and tested measurement system.  There is no data. Measurement units have not been defined.  There are other significant problems, but unless you solve those two, you've created an ugly mess that's supposed to represent a "theory."

Date: 2012/11/16 13:11:42, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
A few more questions about measurement:

1. What's the smallest unit of "cellular intelligence" your measurement system can reliably measure--i.e., what is its resolution?

2.  Have you evaluated the system's repeatability and reproducibility? ("Repeatability" = the extent to which one can rely on the same measurement being made by two or more people independently; "Reproducibility" is the extent to which one can rely on one person being able to accurately measure the same thing continually)

3. Have you investigated and defined the conditions under which your system might yield unreliable results, and controlled for them?

Date: 2012/11/16 14:21:59, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,13:37)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 16 2012,13:11)
A few more questions about measurement:

1. What's the smallest unit of "cellular intelligence" your measurement system can reliably measure--i.e., what is its resolution?

2.  Have you evaluated the system's repeatability and reproducibility? ("Repeatability" = the extent to which one can rely on the same measurement being made by two or more people independently; "Reproducibility" is the extent to which one can rely on one person being able to accurately measure the same thing continually)

3. Have you investigated and defined the conditions under which your system might yield unreliable results, and controlled for them?

It's like being pregnant, you are or are not. There is no resolution, all four requirements are either met are they are not, and where they are it starts self-learning then it's soon growing all over the (real or virtual) planet.

Gary, here's what you said, with emphasis added:
 
Quote
As long as they [cloned bacteria] were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical. But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

You say that cellular intelligence develops during its lifetime and then you say, wrt your measurement system, "It has no resolution."  The verb "to develop" connotes incremental augmentation or progression. How can you possibly know anything about the development of "cellular intelligence"  :O  without being able to discern incremental stages of development?

Date: 2012/11/18 12:03:39, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 18 2012,10:39)
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 18 2012,09:48)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,18:53)
 
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 16 2012,18:37)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 16 2012,15:43)
     
Quote
It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing it's where the theory is from where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.

???

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra?

And this:
   
Quote
Before you know it, all the hoopla over them being there started a little protest then won award because none there mind such science fun there either.


I hope it's not incipient aphasia. Gary, have you had a checkup recently?

I don't believe I have to punctuate it, into baby-steps, to help them, figuring it out.  But here, we go:

It's here not just the opinion of the community that I am showing, it's where the theory is from, where it's not at all a new thing that out of the blue arrived there, the Intelligence Generator did well too.

After having linked to the 2008 Intelligence Generator, it should have clear enough.

Gary, is English your first language? Or eighth? You should stop struggling with this crutch and lay out your theory in your native language.  No worries; we'll have it translated.  I only suggest this for your benefit.

Quick question. Why did you choose a response to the tactic of making an issue out of typos, from all the rest of my responses in the thread?

A typo is the result of careless or incompetent typing.  Your problem is incompetent writing, partially resulting from incompetent thinking.

Date: 2012/11/19 07:55:31, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,07:08)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 19 2012,01:05)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 18 2012,18:38)
     
Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 18 2012,18:30)
So it's B then.

If your game is to make it appear that I "do not understand the nature of a scientific theory" then you were already taken as seriously as you deserve.

Can you explain your definition of a scientific theory in less than 100 coherent and unambigious words?

Can you name one capable judge besides your exalted self?

Can you?

Some readers might already be annoyed by my repeating the same thing over and over again, but to reiterate: A scientific theory is a scientific model to scientifically experiment with, which explains how something (such as intelligent cause) works. There is also religious theory (for example Genesis) therefore the only question is whether the Theory of Intelligent Design is a scientific theory or religious theory.

Those who need additional requirements are self-appointing themselves as judges in order to deem that it is not a theory of any kind. Claiming they cannot even understand the theory only helps show how scientifically irresponsible it is to let them be the final judge of anything.

What you have is an ill-defined hypothesis.  This means that in order to achieve the status of "theory" you must test your hypothesis, and you must adhere to the general principles of designing experiments.  Once you've done your testing and you have evidence to support the hypothesis, you publish your results.  

Your problem is that you want to go to heaven but you don't want to die first.  After being repeatedly informed that (a) you have no theory (there is no ID theory) and (b) what you do have is unintelligible due to your inability to articulate it, you insist on invoking Humpty Dumptyism in defining your terms and whining about being EXPELLED.

Your "model" doesn't constitute experimental research.  You haven't made any attempt at applying it to the actual blood and guts of biological specimens, and you haven't even hinted at having identified any mechanism(s).  

You have nothing, in other words,  but you want to be recognized as a "pioneer" in biological research.  You are a fully-developed crank, and nothing more.

Date: 2012/11/19 08:37:38, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,08:19)
Oh and (where you check) you'll find that theories are normally published in book form. There is now the internet changing where people find reading material, and areas of science which need to exchange code (not lab-results).  Demanding that a theory has to first be presented in a short science journal article is another attempt at ignoring the already existing theory.

You also apparently have reading comprehension issues, which comes as no surprise.  I don't know whether this is due to some kind of cognitive deficit on your part or just plain mendacity.  No one said anything about "Demanding that a theory has to first be presented in a short science journal article..."  
You test your hypothesis and publish the results.  Then real scientists can attempt to duplicate your results and in so doing, add weight to the accuracy of the hypothesis.  I said earlier that you have an ill-formed hypothesis because, among other reasons, there isn't even a suggestion as to how it might be tested on actual biological specimens.  Surely even you can understand why this is a problem.

Date: 2012/11/19 12:11:39, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 19 2012,11:34)
The kicker is that CSI cannot arise naturally without Intelligent Design somewhere in the process.

Unfortunately for the ID detractors, they have never given an example where this has happened and it is, in fact, mathematically impossible.

Joe Bob,

Did you know that the so-called argument from probability, aka argument from large numbers, pegs those who use it as profoundly ignorant of probability theory, and that it is, ultimately, an argument that assumes its own conclusion?

Date: 2012/11/19 14:24:48, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 19 2012,14:09)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 19 2012,14:02)
Repeat of paragraph that Jerry seems to have missed:

Keep in mind that it wouldn't work to define CSI simply as something that can't evolve, because that would produce a circular argument.

When did I define CSI as something that cannot evolve? Are you not aware of drug resistance in the mutation and hence evolution of certain organisms? Those organisms are certainly CSI.

Please understand the concept that the modern IDist holds before you attempt to debate it.

Evolution is a fact of science.

Jim Bob,

There's really no need for no hard 'rithmetic.  All you gotta do is post a copy of the specifications for something that's got CSI and we're done here.  Things that are specified do have specifications, right?

Date: 2012/11/20 09:38:20, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 20 2012,09:15)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 19 2012,12:55)

And why do you have trouble defining CSI? It is a well defined concept of modern ID thought.... is it information that calculates out above the upper probability bound? Is it specified information? Then, if it is both complex and specified it is therefore CSI...

Since you seem to think CSI is, in fact, a well-defined concept, Jerry, I have a question for you. But before I ask my question, I have to explain a bit of background.
Now, I don't pretend to be fully au courant with all the niceties of this CSI thingie, but if my limited understanding is correct,
  • Random garbage doesn't have any CSI
  • Meaningful language does have CSI
  • Converting a statement from one format to another (as, for instance, using an encryption algorithm to make a meaningful statement difficult to read) does not alter the statement's CSI.

So if this CSI thingie genuinely is the sure-fire Design-detection tool which you ID-pushers assert it to be, it seems to me that you should be able to use it to distinguish random garbage from meaningful text that only appears to be random garbage.

Background explained. Here's the question:

Which of the following character strings, String A or String B, is the encrypted text, and which is the garbage? And please show your work, so we know you're not just guessing.
Character string A:
Code Sample
={¡†¿ ¬&={‹ +ZrKU hg"Ix œgFZ" uaM?j œ?Uhg
>”H¿œ jCZrK ,MjRœ Lu"gF ZœKZ¢ g[)Zh Z"KXM
gcR"K XMgaX -KcZY [†lœX œ??U? ?waR, XmŒwM
Zvœ>Z ngo”_ v”U’T XV Xv Zuyw… y ,.! ¡‡!…&

String B:
Code Sample
jk?2J ^'VE¡ ?hS-c Z†“(# ]'6"8 0‹cWd Yfv”
BlGæB “a”?" B2#“_ 9‹g¡y £B…?J @Se&y ¬œ4Sp
…'T4? #ƒq”- 6[¢Of 1#3?} œ-§”÷ UTe…T Fdg›“
O÷iŒ. H¬^¿- ¢?Jv= ±1Q^o ‘O];v :?QE( 5qŒ3L

This one's easy.  If it's not *obvious* that something is complex and specified, it's obviously *not* complex and specified.  And Modern ID Theorists don't need to calculate things that are obvious and easy to see for anyone not wearing the blinders of hidebound methological naturalism and goo-to-zoo-to-you "science."  Any fool can figure that out, so maybe you'd just better learn a little about Modern ID Theory® before you make a fool of yourself.  :angry:

Date: 2012/11/20 10:57:05, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
I'm really, really excited because I've just seen solid evidence of the occurence of a miracle!!  

I picked up a deck of cards and browsed through it, and realized that there is only a 1:8.06582E+67 chance that the cards could be in that particular order.  

PRAISE JEBUS!!!!

Date: 2012/11/22 11:21:20, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 22 2012,11:07)
If you cannot better explain the very basics of molecular and cellular intelligence, then you are unqualified to speak for these areas of science where some knowledge of David Heiserman (and others) is required..

Gary,

*You* haven't explained anything because (beyond your problems with English) your pathetic hypothesis and meaningless model haven't been tested. You have not made any predictions and tested them using actual biological specimens.  The purpose of a computer model is to facilitate the ability to make predictions about *observed* phenomena.  That's only the first step, but you have no second step.  You've gotten into your car and started it, but you haven't left the parking lot, and you're complaining that no one here is able to understand that you're actually driving around all over the place.

What you have is a VB program that apparently runs as designed, but produces no useful output.  You've done something well that wasn't worth doing.

Date: 2012/11/26 15:02:45, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,12:16)
 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)
   
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)


... ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) ...

So you are an "evolutionist", and yet you dismiss all transitional fossils as somehow not valid, and I suspect that no fossil will ever satisfy you.

Does that mean that your idea of evolution does not include transitional fossils at all, and in fact no transition is needed? Then how did your kind of evolution happen?

Your argument seems inconsistent (and I was tempted to say dishonest).

You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

That is the classic definition of evolution. You can define evolution anyway use choose, I suppose...but the above is how a biologist that writes a 101 textbook would define it. I wholeheartedly agree with those textbooks.

Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...

That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.

And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))

Date: 2012/11/27 09:49:56, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,15:26)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 26 2012,15:02)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,12:16)
     
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)
     
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)


... ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) ...

So you are an "evolutionist", and yet you dismiss all transitional fossils as somehow not valid, and I suspect that no fossil will ever satisfy you.

Does that mean that your idea of evolution does not include transitional fossils at all, and in fact no transition is needed? Then how did your kind of evolution happen?

Your argument seems inconsistent (and I was tempted to say dishonest).

You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:

Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.

That is the classic definition of evolution. You can define evolution anyway use choose, I suppose...but the above is how a biologist that writes a 101 textbook would define it. I wholeheartedly agree with those textbooks.

Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...

That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.

And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))


So, it is a fact that man has become increasingly taller since the 1600s. He has grown approximately 1.5 inches per century over that time period. How tall do you think he will be in 50,000 years?

DARWINIST: He will be 70 feet, six inches!!!
Guy with common sense....Oh, it's doubtful that he will grow much taller as genetic makeup will eventually limit that growth.

******************************************

My wife has been on a diet. She has lost 3 pounds per week for the past month. How much will she lose if she stays on that diet for life?

DARWINIST: She will weigh exactly minus 200 pounds!
Guy with common sense: Oh, her metabolism will level all that out. She won't lose much more weight.

****************************************

I have been bench pressing and I've increased my ability to benchpress by about 10 pounds a week for the last 3 months...how much will I be able to press in 40 years?

Darwinist: You'll be able to benchpress 6 tons!
Guy with common sense..............................Well......you get the idea...:))))

Your argument has been reduced to a comic strip characterization, and you answer that with more inanity, and irrelevant inanity at that.  

Why do you accept small changes over a relatively short period of time, but not big changes in the long run?

Bonus question: If "genetic makeup," whatever that means, will prevent humans from being 70 feet tall, what is the primary limiting factor, and how will it be genetically expressed?

Edit: moar better spelling

Date: 2012/11/28 09:09:45, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 27 2012,20:45)
Statisticians didn't conclude anything of the kind. Obvious counterexample: If you shuffle a standard 52-card deck and deal out all the cards face-up, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*1068 possible 52-card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular card-sequence you actually did get, is 1:(6*1068). Since this is clearly an even smaller probability than the 1:10^50 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen', either the 52-card sequence you got was necessarily Designed, or else 1:10^50 is not the 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen'.
 

This is the simplest possible example for creationists who use the silly UPB argument from large numbers, and consistently demonstrates that the people who use the argument know nothing about probablility and statistics, or do know and are just being dishonest.

Because Billy Bob has been corrected and persists in supporting the argument, dishonesty is the only answer.

Date: 2012/11/28 11:34:06, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 28 2012,11:15)
   
Quote
If you shuffle a standard 52-card deck and deal out all the cards face-up, you'll get one of the (52! =) roughly 6*1068 possible 52-card sequences, so the odds of your having gotten the particular card-sequence you actually did get, is 1:(6*1068). Since this is clearly an even smaller probability than the 1:10^50 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen', either the 52-card sequence you got was necessarily Designed, or else 1:10^50 is not the 'upper limit odds in which anything could actually happen'.


This is a common mistake in probability mathematics. This is also not the first time I have had this postulated to me on this forum. I hoped it would go away, but apparantly it won't so I will address it.

You cannot take a random generator (example: dice, a random number generator, a deck of cards, etc.) have it generate a sequence, then reason the odds against it doing so. Why?

Because the odds are 100% that it is going to generate SOME kind of number or sequence EVERY time. There is no probability involved here in the least.

Now, if you set up your system properly.....if you write down a particular number for the random number generator to generate, or if you write down the sequence of cards you expect to appear BEFORE you deal/throw the cards, toss the dice or generate the number, that's when you can start figuring probabilities.

It becomes a whole 'nuther ballgame.

In order for this rebuttle to be relevant, you have to admit that your argument from probability assumes its own conclusion.

Date: 2012/11/29 15:57:59, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 29 2012,15:30)
Here's how I feel about it and let's look at the UPB (upper probability boundary above which any event has a 0 chance of occurance in all practicality).

That UPB is 10^-150 or 1:10^150.........First, let's let the enormity of that number sink in.......there are estimated to be only 10^80 particles in existence in the entire universe........so this is a HUGE number.

If ANY odds above this are calculated, then the event has a 0 chance of occurance in practicallity, then it doesn't MATTER what we do to that number...plug it into any formula you want..0 + 0 is still 0--0 times 0 is still 0....etc.

So it doesn't matter how many flippers are flipping coins or how long they flip them, we are always going to be left staring at a 0 as our final probability calculation.

   

Right here is where your little train leaves the tracks, and you demonstrate that you don't understand probability theory.  Let me count the ways...

1. Your argument assumes that UPB is a valid concept.

2. You can't calculate the probability of whether or not something can occur if you, at the same time, contend that it can't occur.  

3. In order to be able to calculate the probability of unguided abiogenesis, you would need to KNOW all of the necessary constituents and variables.  You would have to KNOW that it's possible.

4. Improbable doesn't equal impossible, no matter what Dr. Dr. Dr. says.

I could go on, but I won't.  If there is a one in 40-brazilian chance that something will happen, and there are 40 brazilian opportunities, it will probably happen. Unless you can demonstrate what constitutes an opportunity, and control for it, you have nothing.

Date: 2012/12/01 15:15:17, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 01 2012,15:10)
Quote (olegt @ Dec. 01 2012,14:59)
Name some names, Gary.

I know better than to make them another target of your abuse.

I only want to know why you trust the opinion of those who do not even bother to read the theory, over those who did and found it useful.

Because there are no people who've read the theory and found it useful?

Date: 2012/12/02 10:57:14, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,09:23)
The overwhelming evidence I need to accept ID is already here and all around us: look at the fossil record. Saltation has been evidenced in the fossil record ever since someone thought to compile and analyze a fossil record.

Of course, you won't get a naturalist on this board to admit it: but there is NOTHING in the fossil record to suggest that more complex organisms evolved from some more primitive common ancestor. It's just not there. There is no gradualistic evolution at all in it.

Jerry, you don't know dick about the fossil record. You're just repeating what you've heard from your brethren in the pews.  You get your science from Jack Chick.

Several years ago I read a piece from the execrable John Woodmorappe (not his real name because of his fear of being EXPELLED, allegedly) in which he listed what he claimed were no fewer than 100 "misplaced" fossils.   A gross example of a misplaced fossil would be the celebrated Precambrian rabbit.  
Knowing that he was full of shit, I picked one from his list more or less at random to see what I could find out.  What it was wasn't a misplaced fossil at all, but rather a fossil that was older than the previously oldest known specimen, by 100,000 years or so.  The stratum it was found in was correct and as predicted.  So what the idiot was saying was that if you have some fossil specimen that's the oldest known example, and someone finds an older one, it's a "misplaced" fossil and CREATIONISM WINS!!!1!!

I'm afraid that this kind of utterly despicable dishonesty is what we can expect from creationists who tell us all that's wrong about the fossil record.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that you're any different.  You should STFU about the fossil record until you can demonstrate that you're smarter than a talking parrot.  :angry:

Date: 2012/12/02 14:22:05, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,14:09)
Evolution changes populations.........but it does NOT cause new species to emerge from extant ones.

Take the ape-like creature morphing into homo sapiens....at some point in this supposed evolution, an ape has to cross the get-go line and birth a human....the species has to change in order for speciation to occur.

No one claims that new species "emerge" from extant (presently in existence) ones.  No one claims that an ape-like creature gave birth to a human. No one.  Who are you arguing with?

Date: 2012/12/03 12:17:16, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Page Bump

Date: 2012/12/03 14:51:25, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,11:11)
OK, Henry....And ...BTW, thanks for your intelligent, civil posts......speciation happens in small increments....I'm all over that...

But the bottom line has to speak at some point.

And the bottom line says:...at at SOME point...a new species must emerge...that's what speciation IS.

So, At that point when speciation occurs, the proginating species will have to have, by the very definition of the word speciation, give birth to an entirely new species.

That new species will then not be able to interbreed with it's predecessors and must interbreed ONLY with it's own...new...species....

Science says nope......that original birth of a viable (it can live), fertile, (it too can produce offspring) new species isn't going to happen.

Jerry,

Can you tell us about the exact moment when you felt comfortable driving a car?

Date: 2012/12/04 12:05:34, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Billy Bob,

Can you point out the exact spot where yellow becomes green?

Date: 2012/12/05 13:05:43, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 05 2012,12:24)
The model no longer needs each particle to be individually intelligent, still work 100% like before without Guess in the circuit and computer RAM space for each. Only need one RAM memory addressed by number of electrons, neutrons, protons, possible energy states.

Gary, this is completely incoherent.  Until you learn how to write sentences you should not be attempting to write paragraphs.

Date: 2012/12/05 15:32:55, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Gary says, incoherently:
Quote
There would not even be a computer model to submit for review, that ended up coming from email and award and excellent comments plus 5 stars from two reviewers who gave it an honest going over.


Gary, if you read the quoted sentence out loud you might begin to understand that your sentence construction skills are awful.  No one knows wtf you're prattling about.

Date: 2012/12/05 16:14:19, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 05 2012,16:08)
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 05 2012,15:49)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 05 2012,13:32)
Hey, JerryVonFtKCrossdresser, you never answered my Original Question about choice of distributions.

Gaussian, Poisson or Bernoulli and why.  Should be simple.  I could answer it in a sentence - without math!

I know you hate math.

Also, have you figured out that Queue Emm is only a framework like the word "color" and to say that Auntie Emm did something is like saying color did something?

Perhaps we need a poll, a general consensus to determine if you, JimmyBobbyFtKay-ee, are stupider than the most stupid tard to ever grace this forum, you buddy Gary's alter-ego, Joe "ice is not water" G.

Seriously, you may be the dumbest fuck to ever represent dumb fuckery and that's saying something.

However, give it your lone neuron's best shot at answering my little questions and maybe I'll post something nicer about you.

p.s.  I ain't holdin' mah breath, you miserable little peckerwood.  Ya, know whut ah mean, Vern?  L.O.L.

Not remotely as stupid as Joe.  But it's possible to travel a long, long way from "as stupid as Joe" and still not have left Stupidland.

I see the current Jerry/Gary droolings as a step towards the long-anticipated Grand Unification of Tard, as the Two Stooges attempt to merge ID and quantum quackery.  Once they've succesfully combined creationism and Choprawoo, I'm sure they'll be working with Joe on incoporating climate-change denialism, pyramidiocy and associated tinfoilhattery.  Then they'll finally have achieved the Tard Theory of Everything.

Let me guess...the MORE debates you guys so obviously lose to people, so OBVIOUSLY so, even to the less informed readers, the STUPIDER your opponents get, right??  :D  :O  :D

Yeah, you're down now to where ONLY about 10% of the students who study this Darwinism crap accept it from a naturalistic perspective.

It won't be long until you're left holding your pollywogs in one hand, your worthless PhDs in nothing in the other,  wondering why 100% of the world suddenly got stupid.

Hey, they musta all went nuts and you guys are the only sane people left!

Jim Bob,

Just a little bit up the thread you tacitly admitted that you have no idea what you're talking about, and at the same time suggested that whatever a inbred slorm is, it sure ain't gonna nullify your position.  That a person who seems to be of reasonable intelligence can lack self-awareness to the extent that you do amazes me.  It shouldn't after all this time, but it does.

Now what about that color continuum, Leroy?

Date: 2012/12/06 09:27:57, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 06 2012,08:06)
A String Theory based model would have a RAM memory with data for producing the behavior of strings.

"RAM memory" is a pleonasm.  :angry:

Date: 2012/12/06 12:01:28, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (olegt @ Dec. 06 2012,11:26)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 06 2012,09:30)
A String Theory based model would have a RAM with data for producing the behavior of strings.

Could you be a little more specific about that? What theory will be used to compute "the behavior of strings"? How would the computation be done? What will be the dimension of the Hilbert space and what methods will you use to diagonalize matrices? If it is not numerical diagonalization, will you use quantum Monte Carlo?

Enquiring minds want to know.

The theory that people at Planet Source code like so much is not what I would refer to as a sort of math embodied directional influence.  This theory works on a different imbodyment of RAM data that doesn't even need to know about Hullbrit and a striking difference between this theory and the "scientists" who want to revolve it back in to an eether-like cloud of what they want to say is a better idea that has no legs and they know it.

Date: 2012/12/07 10:38:37, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Dembski still hasn't produced the book he was supposed to write to fulfill his Templeton grant obligation from 12 years ago.

ETA: He presently lists Being as Communion as "long overdue" on his CV.  :O

Date: 2012/12/21 08:48:42, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 21 2012,07:45)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 21 2012,00:15)
Excellent, Gary!  Come back when you can articulate even one sentence about what you disagree with here.  Sure, it would probably take 2 minutes of your time and I know that you're busy doing whatever so I understand your unwillingness to spend 2 minutes detailing an argument for your case.  Carry on.

A better idea: Come back when you can articulate even one sentence of the theory I have been explaining to you.

I'm off to my day job.

Holy jebus. You've been told repeatedly by people who write much moar better than you do that YOU have failed to articulate.  I don't know why you would expect anyone else to be able to do it if you can't.

Date: 2012/12/24 08:28:04, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Gary, here's another badge for your collection.  Use it proudly!

Date: 2012/12/28 14:28:33, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 27 2012,23:52)
In an Adam and Eve moment (in time) we became human. Transitional form would be 47's which also expressed the new chromotype. Achieving 46 makes the design change reproductively final. Theory of ID can predict that a child expressing the human chromotype was like "poof!" and it's there possibly along with sudden need for clothing/fashion. The 48's are still happy with their natural fur coats, but not us 46's.

I was tempted to ask you what "chromotype" means, but in the end I was afraid you might try to explain it.

You say that "Theory of ID can predict..." How would you go about confirming the prediction?  I'm thinking that in your own special version of science, predictions stand independently and don't need confirmation or testing or any of that stuff, but...

Date: 2012/12/31 09:12:01, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 30 2012,22:21)
Your need to stop a new theory from being developed is clear evidence that your scientific method is not working.

Our need to instead develop exciting new theory is clear evidence that our scientific method is working, very well.

Unfortunately you haven't presented clear evidence of anything. What you perceive as persecution is how science works, and how it should work.  

You haven't gotten to first base because you won't listen and learn. Your communications skills are abysmal and you refuse to acknowledge that fact and do something to help yourself to get others to understand your "theory."

Practically all exciting new theories hypotheses are attacked at the outset, but in the end it's always the data that makes the difference.  I can run your program, but that's mildly interesting from a programming perspective and nothing more, and I'm talking about the mechanics of programming, not what the program is alleged to demonstrate.  I can read your "theory" but can't get past the first paragraph before getting lost in the tangled underbrush of your lousy writing.

You have no data.  You have failed to clearly communicate your "exciting new theory."  No one can evaluate your premises if they can't tell what they are. You have failed to present a method for testing your premises. How can we know whether your "theory" has any legs if we can't actually see it walking?  Your computer program doesn't help in that regard.

The question for you is not why all these meanies won't let you in the door; it's why you won't acknowledge your own shortcomings and do something about them.  The ball is still in your court, and it'll stay there until YOU make an effort to get it over the net.

Date: 2013/01/05 06:34:02, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 04 2013,21:59)
Even though it was highly controversial the Theory of Intelligent Design was properly premised for a cognitive science explanation which begins with the most basic features of any intelligence system.  Where you draw out how one behavior causes another there is a computer model possible that produces logically named (intelligence from intelligence) "intelligent cause/causation" events. Having to deny that the Theory of Intelligent Design makes sense in that context, leads to a self-defeating domino effect where soon the words "cause" and "causation" are best stricken from the scientific vocabulary. For the sake of science, it's best to accept where the evidence led, be thankful for the new perspective.

Are you familiar with the concept of confirmation bias? On the one hand, you bitterly and ignorantly reject all of science, then on the other, when you find some little tidbit that you think supports your "theory," science is OK.  What is it about "cognitive science" that makes it different in principle from any other kind of science?

Date: 2013/01/06 12:23:16, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 05 2013,18:58)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 04 2013,21:59)
Even though it was highly controversial the Theory of Intelligent Design was properly premised for a cognitive science explanation which begins with the most basic features of any intelligence system.  Where you draw out how one behavior causes another there is a computer model possible that produces logically named (intelligence from intelligence) "intelligent cause/causation" events. Having to deny that the Theory of Intelligent Design makes sense in that context, leads to a self-defeating domino effect where soon the words "cause" and "causation" are best stricken from the scientific vocabulary. For the sake of science, it's best to accept where the evidence led, be thankful for the new perspective.

 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 05 2013,06:34)
Are you familiar with the concept of confirmation bias?

Yes, I have spent years answering replies from those who only accept information which confirms their beliefs.

 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 05 2013,06:34)
On the one hand, you bitterly and ignorantly reject all of science, then on the other, when you find some little tidbit that you think supports your "theory," science is OK.
 
Just yesterday I had to set the record straight in regards to cellular intelligence research that was deceptively dismissed in order to confirm the usual biases.

 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 05 2013,06:34)
What is it about "cognitive science" that makes it different in principle from any other kind of science?

Cognitive science is the interdisciplinary study of mind and intelligence. I and others use it for investigating how intelligence works.

You tried to avoid the question I asked, but in so doing you confirmed your own hypocrisy.  

When ignorant people criticize genetic algorithms, especially those that address biological evolution, they always say that the programs are flawed by being deliberately targeted, which of course isn't true.  Your program, on the other hand, is designed to support your own "theory," which makes it worthless.

Date: 2013/01/06 18:37:44, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 06 2013,18:07)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 06 2013,12:23)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 05 2013,18:58)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 04 2013,21:59)
Even though it was highly controversial the Theory of Intelligent Design was properly premised for a cognitive science explanation which begins with the most basic features of any intelligence system.  Where you draw out how one behavior causes another there is a computer model possible that produces logically named (intelligence from intelligence) "intelligent cause/causation" events. Having to deny that the Theory of Intelligent Design makes sense in that context, leads to a self-defeating domino effect where soon the words "cause" and "causation" are best stricken from the scientific vocabulary. For the sake of science, it's best to accept where the evidence led, be thankful for the new perspective.

     
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 05 2013,06:34)
Are you familiar with the concept of confirmation bias?

Yes, I have spent years answering replies from those who only accept information which confirms their beliefs.

     
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 05 2013,06:34)
On the one hand, you bitterly and ignorantly reject all of science, then on the other, when you find some little tidbit that you think supports your "theory," science is OK.
 
Just yesterday I had to set the record straight in regards to cellular intelligence research that was deceptively dismissed in order to confirm the usual biases.

     
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 05 2013,06:34)
What is it about "cognitive science" that makes it different in principle from any other kind of science?

Cognitive science is the interdisciplinary study of mind and intelligence. I and others use it for investigating how intelligence works.

You tried to avoid the question I asked, but in so doing you confirmed your own hypocrisy.  

When ignorant people criticize genetic algorithms, especially those that address biological evolution, they always say that the programs are flawed by being deliberately targeted, which of course isn't true.  Your program, on the other hand, is designed to support your own "theory," which makes it worthless.

Regardless of your vested interest in them GA's are simply not a cognitive model, for modeling intelligence. They easily lead to failed predictions (such as seasonal beak changes in a population of finches is selection acting upon random mutation/variation, not sensory aware epigenetic regulation system where DNA remains unchanged through seasons of time). Unintelligent GA's are only useful to support your conclusions/theory that there is no intelligence in anything a GA can be made to appear to be accurately modeling.

Science itself is proving there are serious limitations to your seemingly all-explaining model. Hurling the usual insults at me will not change that.

My goodness, that is quite a projector you have there.  I  have no vested interest in GAs, but I do understand what they do.  You claim to have a "cognitive model," and you criticize GAs for allegedly failed predictions, but your own model, and in fact your whole f'ing "theory," makes no testable predictions. You've suggested that you don't need no stinkin' predictions and you don't need to actually test your silly program against actual biological specimens just because the hidebound methodological naturalists say that you must.   That means that it must not actually model actual biological specimens, which in turn means it's functionally useless.  

Prove me wrong and show your data.

Date: 2013/01/07 06:29:08, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 07 2013,02:19)
Not only are there new predictions (I will begin to test below and you can help) I have been working on showing my data.

Your version of science apparently has new and unique definitions of "data" and "prediction."  Being able to make up your own rules as you go along makes everything so much easier, doesn't it?

You're trapped in a big tautology and you're not clever enough to realize it or to be able to find your way out. Have fun in there!

Date: 2013/01/08 09:12:44, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 07 2013,23:12)
The cellular intelligence "Amoebae anticipate periodic events" paper is describing a behavior which at the molecular/genetic level would work to control seasonal finch beak design, and such that has not yet been fully scientifically explained. Limiting yourself to models and papers which do not pertain to any of this, is only isolating yourself from existing mainstream research, I am reasonably current in. With all areas of science considered, it is this forum that has a problem with "current theory".

It's good to know that you're "reasonably current" in your study of the literature. Of course, because you don't think the scientific method is worth a damn, I'm sure you apply that same standard to the paper in question.  Nonetheless,  I have a few questions for you about the paper:

What was nature and the result of your own evaluation of the statistical analyses presented in the paper? Tell us specifically how the analyses support the authors' conclusion, based on your own analysis of the underlying data.

Are the engineers who authored the paper qualified "cognitive" scientists?

Share with us your own evaluation of how this research augments the body of knowledge in "cognitive" science. Because you're "reasonably current" with the literature, you should be able to tell us about (for example) the conscilience (or lack thereof) of this research with the general body of knowledge, and what additional experiments you think should follow.

That's just a few questions that a person "reasonably current" with the literature should be able to answer easily.

Date: 2013/01/09 11:17:22, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 09 2013,09:54)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 09 2013,06:32)
Quote
Why do you have to add these features.


That's an interesting question. Even a lowly  GA would evolve useful variations.

All you need to do is believe that your SimCity GA game is a scientifically precise model of reality, and it is!

Your "model" (which is a model of nothing) was programmed by you to output what you want it to output. Do you deny this?  

There are GAs that actually do useful work--did you know that?  There's an example here.  (PDF)
Here's the abstract:
Quote
Whereas the current practice of designing antennas by hand is severely limited because it is both time and labor intensive and requires a significant amount of domain knowledge, evolutionary algorithms can be used to search the design space and automatically find novel antenna designs that are more effective than would otherwise be developed. Here we present automated antenna design and optimization methods based on evolutionary algorithms. We have evolved efficient antennas for a variety of aerospace applications and here we describe one proof-of-concept study and one project that produced flight antennas
that flew on NASA's Space Technology 5 (ST5) mission.


Does your little VB program do anything useful?  If so, what?  What does it do that you couldn't simply assert without it?

Date: 2013/01/11 06:17:15, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 11 2013,00:53)
Stop sabotaging the scientific process/method!!! Your control-freak political tactics to make it seem otherwise are no less than scientifically unethical.

Scientifically, the only way the issue goes, is whether the THEORY of Intelligent Design is a “scientific theory” or a “religious theory”.

The closest thing to a hypothesis is its premise “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

Ones here who cannot even abide by the definitions for theory and hypothesis are following a pop-science that was invented by political activists who are trying to control science, not advance it.

But when the "pop science" agrees with your baseless assertions, then science is OK.  If you're going to achieve a reasonable level of objectivity and consistency, you're going to need to throw out ALL of science, because ALL of science proceeds and advances on the back of the scientific method and methodological naturalism.  

Your arguments against accepted terminology are nothing more than Humpty-Dumptyism

Date: 2013/01/11 06:26:40, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 11 2013,05:33)
Without also having a “central complex” in the circuit it’s (as would be expected) having some trouble staying aimed, but it stills stays right here the food is at. This is normally a challenge to program in, but where the feedback is (virtually) wired in as a “Good Guess” it’s easy! That’s the only place in the circuit where this optic flow feedback belongs.

The new information seems to explain why pinpointing how neural circuits take guesses has been most difficult. I’m not yet ready to add the new information to the theory. But it’s looking like the optic flow experiments have already led to new insight, into how living things work, according to this theoretical model.

The bits I emphasized above indicate precisely what the problem is with your model of nothing.  The fact that you have programming skills and the ability to make the "model" do what you want it to do is trivial and meaningless.   You could (presumably) create a virtual insect that could knit sweaters, play canasta and drink martinis, but until you can demonstrate that those skills and attributes are present in actual cockroaches or dung beetles, it means nothing.

Date: 2013/01/12 07:02:02, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote
More specifically, fossil evidence from the science of paleontology predicted "Tiktaalik", not a theory which only predicted morphological change over time has occurred.

You're a very confused and ignorant person. Can you cite the specific predictions from paleontology? You use the past tense ("predicted") which means that these predictions happened some time in the past. When was that?  Bonus question: Why is the orthodox scientific method OK in paleontology, but not in evolutionary biology?

 
Quote
If Darwinian theory actually predicted feathered dinosaurs, then their having had feathers would not be a new discovery...

First, there's no reason that evolution theory should be able to predict that specific characteristics will appear.  This is stupid, but wait, there's more.  If a prediction is made and later confirmed, how is that the confirming evidence isn't a "new discovery"?  New discoveries are what confirm predictions, you dolt.
 
Quote
Feathered dinosaurs is another example of what Darwinian theory could NOT predict.

And a good example of what it should not be expected to predict, which you would know if you weren't so profoundly ignorant.

Date: 2013/01/12 07:04:26, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote
In my honest objective scientific opinion...


Hahaha--you used three adjectives to modify "opinion," and all three of them are dishonest.

Date: 2013/01/12 11:42:02, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
As a public service, I've taken bits of many of GG's posts and strung them together more or less randomly.  There's nothing that he has to say that isn't captured here, and the result is no more or less incomprehensible than any of the individual posts.  

Anyone who wants to understand the full extend of Gary's idiocy, poor writing skills and general confusion can just read this and get it over with.

 
Quote
What you are describing is expected when using the wrong model. Expecting me to fix that for you simply requires using the proper tool for the job. If you demand that I fix your hammer so it will drill nice clean holes in steel, then I will again have to tell you to just use the tool called a "drill". Saying how it is well known that hammers dent the metal therefore such clean holes are impossible with a hammer, only makes your argument even more absurd. The cellular intelligence "Amoebae anticipate periodic events" paper is describing a behavior which at the molecular/genetic level would work to control seasonal finch beak design, and such that has not yet been fully scientifically explained. Limiting yourself to models and papers which do not pertain to any of this, is only isolating yourself from existing mainstream research, I am reasonably current in. With all areas of science considered, it is this forum that has a problem with "current theory".

To be clear, I have to add that this is not my "criterion" for intelligence. I use four systematic "requirements".But not being able to afford proper help for such a large project is a real problem produced by your crusade to stop all scientific progress you possibly can, in theory which does not serve your unscientific politics. All you really have are excuses for living in a scientific past, while the rest of us have for years been embracing a stream of new discoveries from science, which you don't even care about and mostly ignore. The result is that we're now way ahead of the science curve with important research. Researchers can be thankful at least we find it as important as they do. Science teachers only have to teach what the researchers are explaining in their papers and articles like the 44 Chromosome Man, not something found in the Theory of Intelligent Design. It's here very real staying ahead in science, not behind like you're happy with. Once a student has that, the theory is no big deal anymore. It's then just a framework science teachers were introduced to such things as chromosome speciation, which in turn helped make their classroom more up to date than usual. Science teachers who do not know the difference between science and philosophy should not be teaching science.






You now need to have a better explanation for how “intelligent cause” works that does better with computer programmers and others who know useful science when they see it too.  The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too.  Better that than not having the support of computer programmers on up to the greatest of scientists who would be impressed by something coming out of all this, after all.  I'll next try to explain that part of it, but brings us to Kansas and Dover and is a many years long project I will do my best to sum up in a million words or less.

Come back when you can articulate even one sentence of the theory I have been explaining to you. I'm off to my day job.

Date: 2013/01/14 10:25:17, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 14 2013,09:56)
The link above that discusses the same thing is from 2007. The claims that I have been talking about water molecules being intelligent came from anti-ID protesters who have been spreading rumors in order to stop all progress in this area of science, including this theory that helps define what "molecular intelligence" is. I was not kidding about the politics seen in this forum having done very real damage to (at least Western) science.

Which do you think is moar better, Western Science or Eastern Science?  I think it safe to exclude Northern and Southern Science from the discussion, don't you?

Date: 2013/01/16 07:18:35, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 16 2013,05:08)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 16 2013,02:09)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 16 2013,01:22)
my observations, it's just plain annoying to have to listen to the same routine over and over again

Okay Gary - here's you're showing that your a bit thick and don't even understand basic biology. Mutation is equivocal - and Henry is clearly refering to genetic mutations. A necessary condition for this is *genetics*

But, have fun here:

https://www.google.com/search?....lang_en

Also, I quote-mined the truth from the above. Change the record you boring tard.

FACT: your worthless shoite dies when you do or when you give up. Interest outside of you: ZERO.

Yes, it's just plain annoying to have to listen to the same routine over and over again..

It's boring only because you refuse to listen, understand and learn.  Yours is a willful ignorance, which is the very worst kind.

Date: 2013/01/18 09:20:26, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 18 2013,08:29)
Quote (damitall @ Jan. 18 2013,03:43)
Giggles, it's really very simple.

Your virtual critters are goal-directed. You have programmed them to be so, and to learn and store the "best guesses"  that enabled them to attain the goal you gave them.

The development of life-forms is NOT goal-directed. There was never any species that was directed or directed itself to speciate by changing its chromosome number (or any other method). There was never a non-human species that was directed, or directed itself, to take "guesses" about its chromosome number in order to become Homo sapiens sapiens, yet that is one of your claims.

You sure are quick to spout-out statements to make it seem like all major biological changes are an accident, not worth investigating.

a=1
b=1
c=a+b
print c

Distilled to its essence, that right there is what you've done.

Date: 2013/01/20 09:47:07, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 19 2013,15:45)
It's turning out to be more like a flustering of the tail feathers of some evolutionary biologists, who thought their EA/GA's could not be beat for explaining the origin of intelligent living things.

Can you give an example of an evolutionary biologist who thinks that GAs are used to explain the "...origin of intelligent living things"?

Date: 2013/01/20 10:01:18, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote
In the process of forming argument against theory some at the same time argue all are "just accidents" case closed no more need for further research or our better explaining.

Example and citation,please?  
 
Quote
Automatic arguments against this and that not being important to speciation eventually leaves one without a speciation mechanism in the model they are arguing for. Serious scientists cannot take that seriously.

Mechanisms in evolutionary biology are well-documented. You have no mechanism. You have a little VB program that does only what you want it to do.  
 
Quote
The underappreciated areas of science you are now suggesting are there, and are, are others where the theory's woo is also great.

Talk about sig-worthy  :p

Date: 2013/01/20 18:36:10, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 20 2013,17:11)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 20 2013,09:47)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 19 2013,15:45)
It's turning out to be more like a flustering of the tail feathers of some evolutionary biologists, who thought their EA/GA's could not be beat for explaining the origin of intelligent living things.

Can you give an example of an evolutionary biologist who thinks that GAs are used to explain the "...origin of intelligent living things"?

Isn't it rather self-defeating to suggest that GA's have zero relevance to biology where intelligence clearly exists in at least brains?

I'm being specific in regards to the basic cognitive science required for modeling the "intelligence", which must be accounted for or the model is incomplete.

You made a false statement in suggesting that "some evolutionary biologists" claim that GAs explain the origin of living things.  If your "theory" is so great, why do you have to lie to support it?

Date: 2013/01/20 21:04:14, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 20 2013,19:06)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 20 2013,18:36)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 20 2013,17:11)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 20 2013,09:47)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 19 2013,15:45)
It's turning out to be more like a flustering of the tail feathers of some evolutionary biologists, who thought their EA/GA's could not be beat for explaining the origin of intelligent living things.

Can you give an example of an evolutionary biologist who thinks that GAs are used to explain the "...origin of intelligent living things"?

Isn't it rather self-defeating to suggest that GA's have zero relevance to biology where intelligence clearly exists in at least brains?

I'm being specific in regards to the basic cognitive science required for modeling the "intelligence", which must be accounted for or the model is incomplete.

You made a false statement in suggesting that "some evolutionary biologists" claim that GAs explain the origin of living things.  If your "theory" is so great, why do you have to lie to support it?

Then you are saying evolutionary biologists will all agree with your (not my) suggestion that their GA's have zero relevance to biology?

You said that evolutionary biologists believe that genetic algorithms  are used to explain the origin of intelligent living things.  Is this an accurate characterization of your statement? You aren't going to wriggle out of this by trying to create a false dichotomy.  Answer the question: If your "theory" is so great, why do you have to lie to support it?

Date: 2013/01/21 06:44:25, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 20 2013,22:57)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 20 2013,22:09)
So that's as close as you're gonna get to admitting you were full of crap about claims for GAs?  

And for the nth fucking time, nobody has to explain molecular intelligence until you provide some evidence it exists in the real world.  Until then you're just engaged in a variation of the Chewbacca Defense.

The well enough explains molecular intelligence, for it to be included. If you can't handle the very basic David Heiserman and Arnold Trehub cognitive model then you kissed off K12 cognitive science too, just to make it seem you're better off not knowing any of this.

A theory does not have to ahead of time prove all predictions. That's just another way to keep a politically inconvenient theory down.

Science wants/needs predictive theories. Stopping them because they make such predictions is literally "stopping science".

No, Gary. You don't have a theory, you have a lame hypothesis.  In order for your hypothesis to rise to the theory level, you have to make predictions and confirm them. There is no way to test your hypothesis, which means that it's DOA.

Date: 2013/01/21 06:46:32, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 20 2013,22:09)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 20 2013,21:04)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 20 2013,19:06)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 20 2013,18:36)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 20 2013,17:11)
   
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 20 2013,09:47)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 19 2013,15:45)
It's turning out to be more like a flustering of the tail feathers of some evolutionary biologists, who thought their EA/GA's could not be beat for explaining the origin of intelligent living things.

Can you give an example of an evolutionary biologist who thinks that GAs are used to explain the "...origin of intelligent living things"?

Isn't it rather self-defeating to suggest that GA's have zero relevance to biology where intelligence clearly exists in at least brains?

I'm being specific in regards to the basic cognitive science required for modeling the "intelligence", which must be accounted for or the model is incomplete.

You made a false statement in suggesting that "some evolutionary biologists" claim that GAs explain the origin of living things.  If your "theory" is so great, why do you have to lie to support it?

Then you are saying evolutionary biologists will all agree with your (not my) suggestion that their GA's have zero relevance to biology?

You said that evolutionary biologists believe that genetic algorithms  are used to explain the origin of intelligent living things.  Is this an accurate characterization of your statement? You aren't going to wriggle out of this by trying to create a false dichotomy.  Answer the question: If your "theory" is so great, why do you have to lie to support it?

You are way over the edge with the trash-talk like I "lie" to support the theory. Grow up.

You made a statement that isn't true. I can give you credit for just being too stupid to realize it, which may or may not be the case, but now you've been corrected and you haven't acknowledged your error.  This is dishonesty, a form of lying.

Date: 2013/01/21 11:19:54, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 21 2013,09:59)
This ID theory is predictive in regards to the systematics of intelligence that makes living things alive, so it's already providing answers where the other theory cannot, not something I have to one day prove before it can be accepted as an answer.

If you have no way of testing the predictions, then the "theory" is not "providing answers." I'm not sure that it's even providing questions.

Do you really believe that hypotheses should be accepted without evidence?  That's exactly what you're proposing.

Date: 2013/01/22 08:47:45, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 22 2013,08:20)
We have been focused on Gary's eccentric vocabulary --circuits  anyone-- and neglected to call attention to the most remarkable void in his model.

It can't do anything new. It has knobs to twiddle, but the devices being manipulated are products of Darwinian evolution. A system that can invent.

Gary, if your model is so powerful, show us how you go about inventing a new capability, something never observed before, without trial and error or cut and try.

The program is useless in terms of the science it's supposed to represent.  I think I said up the thread somewhere that GG had done  something well that wasn't worth doing.  Writing and debugging a program like that requires ability to think in logical terms, so either GG is grossly dishonest or he has a gigantic version of Morton's Demon blocking his neural pathways.

Date: 2013/01/22 11:56:28, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 22 2013,10:13)
The model is this theory is already an accurate representation of how novel new capabilities are intelligently created.

That's a completely unsupported assertion. Where is your evidence?

Date: 2013/01/22 15:46:27, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 22 2013,12:32)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 22 2013,11:56)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 22 2013,10:13)
The model is this theory is already an accurate representation of how novel new capabilities are intelligently created.

That's a completely unsupported assertion. Where is your evidence?

I'll add into the end:
 
Quote
Trial and error guessing is how the “scientific method” works. A hypothesis is a guess, which is tested. A theory is the memory text where results of hypothesis testing are added. It's no secret that scientists test guesses, in order to solve a scientific problem. This simple guess driven process (demonstrated by the computer model) is the scientific “mother of invention” that leads to the creation of novel new intelligent designs, at all intelligence levels.

I didn't ask for another unsupported assertion.

Where is your evidence?

Date: 2013/01/23 12:05:44, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 23 2013,11:58)
Wesley is unable to stick to the scientific method.

True, for certain obscure and mutable definitions of "scientific" and "method."

Date: 2013/01/23 21:15:56, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 23 2013,20:45)
Science only obliges me to provide evidence. a useful scientific theory, that puts "intelligent cause" into scientific context, that's it.

ftfy, again.

Date: 2013/01/24 17:24:32, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 24 2013,17:15)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Jan. 24 2013,17:10)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 24 2013,18:00)
Then I'll try this:

Is the Theory of Intelligent Design that I have online for download a scientific theory or is it religion?

no

That was a totally ambiguous answer. It's like asking:

Is it green or red?

Then you say "no"

Talk about my communication skills? Wow!

It was *your* false dichotomy.

Date: 2013/01/25 08:29:58, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
The whole "Are you still beating your wife?" thing and GG's ignorance of it  and reaction to it made me realize that if there's something that he doesn't understand, he automatically figures someone or something is sneaking up on him.  In Pastor Mummert style, he's under attack from the educated, intelligent segment of the culture.

Date: 2013/01/26 07:07:07, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 26 2013,00:54)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 25 2013,23:25)
The claim was that I'm part of the subculture that tried to destroy Galileo. But I am not.

It was hidebound academics who most tried to destroy Galileo's ideas, because of not being the accepted academic view (based on Aristotle).

You no longer see yourself as an academic authority on what is and is not science?

What happens in science is that predictions are confirmed with evidence, consilient evidence from independent sources.  Two instructive examples from the recent past are the possible explanation of the K-T iridium layer and the discovery that the bacterium H. pylori is a cause of gastritis and some ulcers.

In the former case, physicist Barry Alverez hypothesized that the worldwide layer of iridium at the K-T boundary was caused by a massive asteroid strike and was the primary cause of the extensive extinction event that occurred during that period.  One of the problems with the hypothesis was that an asteroid of that size would surely have to leave a crater of massive proportions.  Hypothesis = giant asteroid striking the earth; predicition = great big crater somewhere.  The prediction was fulfilled and the crater was found.  There is still controversy over the general idea, but the explanatory power of the hypothesis is evident, and research advances because of it.

In the other case, it was long thought that bacteria couldn't live in the human stomach, but Marshall and Warren found Heliobacter pylori there and hypothesized that it's a significant cause of gastritis.  It's a long and fascinating story but the salient points are that the hypothesis was almost universally rejected until the evidence mounted to a point where there was no longer a question.  The evidence included that which resulted from Marshall personally ingesting a beaker of H. pylori and providing a vivid confirmation of his claims. One of the results was a Nobel prize.

The point here is that unlike your silly little "theory" science advances on the back of research that produces evidence to support hypotheses, and the evidence is the result of predictions.  It's not unusual for new ideas to be controversial and scorned by the scientific community, but in the end an hypothesis will either be confirmed with repeatable evidence or rejected due to lack of it.  Even when confirmation isn't achieved, the work that goes into the testing of hypotheses can lead to new ideas and new discoveries.  There is a famous quote attributed to Thomas Edison and his exhaustive search for a viable filament material for his light bulb: "I haven't failed; I now know a thousand things that won't work."  Negative results add to the body of knowledge, but there can be no body of knowledge without actually doing the work.

You have no hypothesis, let alone a theory, because there are no predictions and you've done nothing to confirm whatever it is you're on about.  Furthermore, no one else is going to be interested in working on your ideas because of your risible inability to communicate them or even to acknowledge that you have a significant problem in that area.  Your characterization of the people who are doing productive work in science as "frauds" is beneath contempt.  You are a stupid little man who wants to stand on the shoulders of giants but can't learn how to use a ladder.

Date: 2013/01/26 13:31:52, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 26 2013,12:30)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 26 2013,12:07)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 26 2013,11:51)
And I must add that there are 50 pages of testable evidence and predictions galore in the theory but apologist just keep claiming otherwise.

Excellent, then please give me the page number where you provide the evidence that an intelligent cause for all organisms exists.

Page 1 is a good place to start:

   
Quote
Introduction – Intelligence, Intelligent Cause

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, a nonrandom force guided self-assembly  process whereby an intelligent entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in levels of increasingly complex organization producing self-similar entities systematically in their own image, likeness. As in a fractal, multiple designs are produced by an algorithm producing emergent fractal-similar designs at the next size scale (atom -> molecule -> cell -> multicellular).


....
....
....
....

Does the order of appearance shown in the illustration match fossil evidence?
Do humans develop from egg cells?
Do egg cells develop from a molecular system known as a genome?
Do the reciprocal causation paths shown going in two directions hold up to evidence?
Does a living genome "self-learn" over time?
When you properly program the model (shown at the bottom of the illustration) as described in theory does it self-learn over time?
Does a living genome have all four of the stated requirements for self-learning intelligence?
Can behavior of matter be ultimately modeled (as shown) with only two of these requirements?
Ecetra, ecetra, ecetra, ecetra, ecetra, ecetra, ecetra....

Please, a short answer: Do you honestly believe that's evidence?

Date: 2013/01/26 13:35:18, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 26 2013,11:07)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 26 2013,07:07)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 26 2013,00:54)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 25 2013,23:25)
The claim was that I'm part of the subculture that tried to destroy Galileo. But I am not.

It was hidebound academics who most tried to destroy Galileo's ideas, because of not being the accepted academic view (based on Aristotle).

You no longer see yourself as an academic authority on what is and is not science?

What happens in science is that predictions are confirmed with evidence, consilient evidence from independent sources.  Two instructive examples from the recent past are the possible explanation of the K-T iridium layer and the discovery that the bacterium H. pylori is a cause of gastritis and some ulcers.
....
....
....
....
....
....
....

What happens in science reality is that academic apologists keep lecturing you with demeaning sermons about what science is, instead of following the scientific method. They do not even read what they are supposed to be reviewing unless they're forced to. It's all about maintaining control of science, not advancing it.

I give GG two good examples of the scientific method working and producing significant results, both of which met with significant opposition, and he replies "What happens in science is..." and ignores the point.

Date: 2013/01/26 13:37:15, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 26 2013,10:16)
In the process of writing this theory I discovered (the hard way) why Galileo also had to give up on the "vested apologists of universities":

 
Quote
Soon, however, Galileo--flamboyant by nature--decided that Copernicus was worth a fight. He decided to address his arguments to the enlightened public at large, rather than the hidebound academics.  He saw more hope for gaining support among businessmen, gentlemen, princes, and Jesuit astronomers than among the vested apologists of universities.  He seemed compelled to act as a consultant in natural philosophy to all who would listen.  He wrote  in tracts, pamphlets, letters, and dialogues--not in the turgid, polysyllabic manner of a university pedant, but simply and directly.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty....nt.html

GG, can you give an example of a theory in science that was written in narrative form like yours?  You said somewhere up the thread that theories are usually described or introduced (or something to that effect) in books.  Do you have an example?

Date: 2013/01/26 14:26:08, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 26 2013,14:15)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 26 2013,13:37)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 26 2013,10:16)
In the process of writing this theory I discovered (the hard way) why Galileo also had to give up on the "vested apologists of universities":

   
Quote
Soon, however, Galileo--flamboyant by nature--decided that Copernicus was worth a fight. He decided to address his arguments to the enlightened public at large, rather than the hidebound academics.  He saw more hope for gaining support among businessmen, gentlemen, princes, and Jesuit astronomers than among the vested apologists of universities.  He seemed compelled to act as a consultant in natural philosophy to all who would listen.  He wrote  in tracts, pamphlets, letters, and dialogues--not in the turgid, polysyllabic manner of a university pedant, but simply and directly.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty....nt.html

GG, can you give an example of a theory in science that was written in narrative form like yours?  You said somewhere up the thread that theories are usually described or introduced (or something to that effect) in books.  Do you have an example?

All of the great theories I know of were explained in book form. Newton, Copernicus, Einstein, Darwin, Galileo.

My textbook writing style is not out of the ordinary for scientific theory, in fact that's what science teachers require, and are used to. They don't want to know about my life adventures like I'm Charles Darwin telling of a great ocean voyage to never seen before lands, they only want to know how "intelligent cause" works and how it can be modeled. I keep the theory as brief and to the point as possible to prevent it from quickly becoming a 1000 page read that takes a month to get through, which is very easy to do with an incredibly interdisciplinary theory like this.

If you need an example then take a look at any science textbook full of "scientific theory" you ever learned from, in school. Same writing style is there too.

You really don't know what a theory is. Can you give me a good reference to the Einstein book? I mean the one like yours, that has no evidence and is unreadable.

Or how about one where a theory without antecedents of any kind is described?  Where is the gravity book and the germ/disease book?

Date: 2013/01/26 17:03:21, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 26 2013,16:30)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 26 2013,16:14)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 26 2013,15:55)
The phenomenon to explain is called "intelligent cause".

Discussion of anything else is just another attempt to derail this thread.

All please try to stay on topic.

Sure, it's explained by this: Theory. Evidence for theory include:

Do humans develop from egg cells
Is the sky blue
Can ghosts be eaten after ingesting a Power pellet
Is the advancement of levels after clearing all pacdots supported by evidence

Please remember that accusations of suppression by the hidebound academic illuminati are off topic to this thread and make us laugh so hard the beverages we are drinking come out our respective noses.

Science teachers who are unable to test this high school level theory with their high school level knowledge should not be teaching science.

Since it's your theory, and it's your own, could you describe an appropriate test protocol?  I mean, as an aid to teachers, of course. You are too modest if you think that this can be done without the guidance of the master.

Date: 2013/01/26 19:14:36, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 26 2013,17:19)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 26 2013,17:03)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 26 2013,16:30)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 26 2013,16:14)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 26 2013,15:55)
The phenomenon to explain is called "intelligent cause".

Discussion of anything else is just another attempt to derail this thread.

All please try to stay on topic.

Sure, it's explained by this: Theory. Evidence for theory include:

Do humans develop from egg cells
Is the sky blue
Can ghosts be eaten after ingesting a Power pellet
Is the advancement of levels after clearing all pacdots supported by evidence

Please remember that accusations of suppression by the hidebound academic illuminati are off topic to this thread and make us laugh so hard the beverages we are drinking come out our respective noses.

Science teachers who are unable to test this high school level theory with their high school level knowledge should not be teaching science.

Since it's your theory, and it's your own, could you describe an appropriate test protocol?  I mean, as an aid to teachers, of course. You are too modest if you think that this can be done without the guidance of the master.

For in-silico testing see section 4 -"Intelligence Circuit, Theory of Operation" on page 10, and section 5 - "Intelligence Algorithm" on page 19 of the theory.

For biological systems they can watch frog or other eggs under a microscope and try to predict how long it takes to go from cellular egg to multicellular intelligence, the length of time needed to produce a causation event.

I asked for a test protocol. Do you know what that is, and what it entails?  I'm sure you do, because you encouraged a teacher to test the theory.   Or have you humpty-dumptied that term as well?

Date: 2013/01/27 16:46:29, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 27 2013,16:17)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Jan. 27 2013,15:42)
Simple question:  What do almost all "blacklisted theories" have in common?

They eventually became the most important theories in science. That’s because the more paradigm changing they are, the harder hidebound academics fight them. Therefore Galileo and others ended up in a battle where they were forced to instead address their arguments to the enlightened public at large.

History is repeating itself. And all who see no importance in trying to make sense of the theory are getting what they deserve, for having chosen the path they took...

Gary, earlier I gave you two examples of hypotheses that were initially met with scorn by their respective science communities, but eventually gained acceptance, or at least significant traction, because of EVIDENCE.

The most important theories in science, as you put it, all became so because they were supported by the evidence. In many cases there was much resistance from religion as well. While in some cases religion relented in the face of overwhelming evidence, we still have people today who fight against science tooth and nail and are impervious to all forms of data and evidence.  Science, not so much.  

You have demonstrated that you either don't understand basic concepts in science, or you do understand them and have chosen to redefine them to suit your own bigoted desires. Because you seem oblivious to multiple warnings about your misconceptions and terrible communications skills, I think you're just being dishonest.  I could be wrong about that and you might have some kind of neurological disorder, but I doubt it.  

You're not being persecuted.  You came here of your own volition and can leave the same way.  You're being laughed at, and deservedly so at this point.  You know what Carl Sagan said about being laughed at, right?  You're Bozo the Clown.

Date: 2013/01/27 17:16:58, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 27 2013,16:56)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 27 2013,16:46)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 27 2013,16:17)
 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Jan. 27 2013,15:42)
Simple question:  What do almost all "blacklisted theories" have in common?

They eventually became the most important theories in science. That’s because the more paradigm changing they are, the harder hidebound academics fight them. Therefore Galileo and others ended up in a battle where they were forced to instead address their arguments to the enlightened public at large.

History is repeating itself. And all who see no importance in trying to make sense of the theory are getting what they deserve, for having chosen the path they took...

Gary, earlier I gave you two examples of hypotheses that were initially met with scorn by their respective science communities, but eventually gained acceptance, or at least significant traction, because of EVIDENCE.

The most important theories in science, as you put it, all became so because they were supported by the evidence. In many cases there was much resistance from religion as well. While in some cases religion relented in the face of overwhelming evidence, we still have people today who fight against science tooth and nail and are impervious to all forms of data and evidence.  Science, not so much.  

You have demonstrated that you either don't understand basic concepts in science, or you do understand them and have chosen to redefine them to suit your own bigoted desires. Because you seem oblivious to multiple warnings about your misconceptions and terrible communications skills, I think you're just being dishonest.  I could be wrong about that and you might have some kind of neurological disorder, but I doubt it.  

You're not being persecuted.  You came here of your own volition and can leave the same way.  You're being laughed at, and deservedly so at this point.  You know what Carl Sagan said about being laughed at, right?  You're Bozo the Clown.

Seeing this is Sunday and the congregation is all gathered here today, I hope you don't mind explaining what (according to theory) "intelligent cause" is.

Your description would be valuable. I and others will then know what kind of evidence you are asking for.

You were asked earlier, when you advised TexasTeach to test your theory with his students, what you would recommend as a test protocol. You said that the students should look at stuff under a microscope and see what it does.  

That's not a test protocol, and there's no way to connect it to whatever it is that you're claiming about intelligent causes and "molecular intelligence."  That's because those things haven't been adequately defined.  I don't know how you can expect anyone to understand what you've babbled about.  It's YOUR job to provide evidence, or at least propose a method for gathering evidence.  You can't do either.

Date: 2013/01/27 18:19:32, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 27 2013,17:25)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 27 2013,17:16)
You said that the students should look at stuff under a microscope and see what it does.  

I did not say "students should look at stuff under a microscope". Do you recall what I did say in regard to how to observe an intelligence cause/causation event?

Here's exactly what you said:
Quote
For biological systems they can watch frog or other eggs under a microscope and try to predict how long it takes to go from cellular egg to multicellular intelligence, the length of time needed to produce a causation event.

Which is functionally the same as saying "Look at stuff under a microscope" because:
*You haven't defined "multicellular intelligence;
* You haven't defined "causation event";
* You haven't defined what purpose the prediction would serve,
  even if you had defined those other terms.

Also remember that I asked for a test protocol, and you've shown no indication that you even understand what that means. You're asking people to look at stuff under a microscope without any kind of explanation whatsoever as to why they should, or what they should be looking for or what the data resulting from the test might be used for.

Date: 2013/01/27 21:46:22, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 27 2013,19:35)
A hypothesis is a true/false statement that goes one way or another after performing an experiment to test it. A hypothesis can only change it's true/false state, that's it period. It is therefore totally and completely impossible for a hypothesis to ever be "dropped" or discarded, only a theory can.

 

Every time I think you've reached the nadir of cluelessness you prove me wrong and dig the hole a little deeper.  

You really don't know the difference between theory and hypothesis.

Date: 2013/01/28 06:36:15, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 27 2013,22:56)
Where a hypothesis is used to test a claim that something is true the claim (or theory) can be discarded or must be modified, but the hypothesis that tested it cannot be discarded or else the claim will remain the same. The hypothesis is then left standing, with the claim falling in defeat because of it.

There is relatively simple logic to how hypotheses and theories work. Where a hypothesis is discarded it's likely being used as a theory. To keep things simple it should just be called a theory.

This is so muddled that I have to wonder how you manage to dress yourself. The hypothesis is the "claim," not something different from it  The "claim" is not a theory.

Date: 2013/01/28 10:38:23, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 28 2013,09:33)
Quote
There already are scientists studying cellular intelligence. Molecular intelligence has already been slightly defined and is likewise in need of a proper definition for all of biology. This theory makes that easy too. Only problem is there are then events where intelligence clearly comes from another intelligence, which of course gets into all sorts of sordid politics that can rip a person's life apart. ???


you are crazier than a wild donkey in full rut braying at the easter full moon drunk on corn liquor makins god damn i swear

"Slightly defined."   :O

Date: 2013/01/28 12:04:29, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Joe, if you could stop spewing spittle all over the place for a few minutes, you should have a look at Gary Gaulin's most excellent ID theory.  It's right here at AtBC, and like you he has his very own thread.  He not only has a theory, but a VB program that PROVES teh ID is TRUE.   Right up your ass alley.

Date: 2013/01/29 11:01:22, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 29 2013,10:34)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 29 2013,01:15)
Whether it is deliberate or a side effect is here semantics, depending on how anthropomorphic you want to be. It's like saying "A zygote deliberately (as opposed to unintentionally or accidentally) produces a multicellular organism". Saying "The side effect of a zygote is a multicellular organism." does not seem to work any better.

I finally understand the error Gary is making. Gary is equivocating a system (and/or process depending on the day) with it's outcome.

Gary, your statement here is so totally and completely erroneous. Zygotes do not produce multicellular organisms. They become multicellular organisms through well-understood physical processes. Cells have no choice or decision in the process; they just mechanically follow the system pathways. Zygotes do not work at becoming multicellular organisms any more than sodium works at producing table salt in the presence of chloride.

Chemistry: UR DOINIT RONG!

Gary's theory doesn't recognize hidebound notions such as equivocation.  It's all in theory. Just read it and stop making a big deal about what words mean.

Date: 2013/01/29 13:47:34, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 29 2013,13:35)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 29 2013,13:05)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 29 2013,12:46)
There are no scientific questions to answer here. Just the usual nutcase arguments.

What would a scientific question look like then?

In the scientific method a good scientific question looks like:
   
Quote
Hey Gary! If what you are saying is true then in light what was earlier quoted from Wikipedia for "emergence" the first sentence of the theory might be missing a word and should read "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, a nonrandom force guided self-assembly  process whereby an intelligent collective entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in levels of increasingly complex organization producing self-similar entities systematically in their own image, likeness."

Gary, here's a short multiple choice quiz:

There are four types of sentences in English. The quoted passage you identify as a question is actually a [blank] sentence:
a) Interrogative
b) Declarative
c) Imperative
d) Exclamatory

Date: 2013/01/30 07:41:36, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
"...a nonrandom force guided self-assembly process"

There is trouble with grammar and/or punctuation that renders this unintelligible.  I can't even suggest a correction because I have no idea what you're trying to describe.

Date: 2013/01/31 07:58:31, Link
Author: Jim_Wynne
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 31 2013,06:32)