AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Kristine

form_srcid: Kristine

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: Kristine

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 = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Kristine%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2006/10/24 17:01:26, Link
Author: Kristine
Did someone say "costumes"?

A friend of ours has the ultimate Halloween party each year (her home is decorated year-round), and I'm considering going as Elizabeth Short--a.k.a. The Black Dahlia--partly so that I can correct the factual errors in that horrible flick.

Date: 2006/10/24 17:31:05, Link
Author: Kristine
[Is this costume one piece or two?]

Hey! :D  :p

I didn't even think of that!

Being that I am a belly dancer, I could certainly wear something that appeared to be one piece--and then have my upper half suddenly "float off" (as it were) to reveal my tattered midsection...

Yuck! Very good idea. Excellent.

Date: 2006/10/24 17:47:09, Link
Author: Kristine
Dum-de-dum...hey, I've written three grad papers since that fun time at TheEndofEvolution, wonder how JAD is doing on his paper, maybe I'll check out Dawkins' site--gaaa! Holy crap!

John A. Davison wrote:
It is impossible to understand any aspect of life as a manifestation of undirected processes.

Well, he sure lasted long there. :O JAD's sort of an undirected process himself, isn't he?

"Beshrew my heart, but I pity the man."

Date: 2006/10/26 16:10:07, Link
Author: Kristine
Tell you what. I'll post the Dahlia photo (I almost typed floato).

Or send me your e-mail, Dr. Lenny, and a photo :) and I'll think about sending you a BD photo!

Date: 2006/10/26 16:56:00, Link
Author: Kristine
OMnG, this is so deliciously sick, I can't believe that I thought of it...

But I'll have a photo taken of me as Liz Short...
...with my friends forcing my head into a vise, as in the film...
...and I'll e-mail it to Bill Dembski. :O

(I mix my metaphors a lot.)
It's Dembski's fault that I'm this way!  :D

Date: 2006/10/26 17:34:31, Link
Author: Kristine
Does "Shattered" apply to, um, dismemberment?

I asked him, and he said (I'm quoting), "Oh, I suppose so. It was really early in the morning."

!!! (If you're a Dahlia murder buff, you get that... and then you wig out...) ScaryFacts, what have I uncovered... ;)

Date: 2006/10/27 06:18:21, Link
Author: Kristine
No fear, I won’t call the FBI. :D

Yes, I’ve kept up—and I’m convinced that the guilty party is Jack Anderson Wilson (a.k.a. Arnold Smith).

Severed by John Gilmore is the best source in my opinion (it has the photos, and they ain’t pretty).

Date: 2006/10/27 12:48:23, Link
Author: Kristine
At this point, being new and all, I just want to interject that I didn't mean to hijack the thread...

(I almost typed threat. ?)

Cute little Cthulhu toy/costume idea at my blog. But is it? (Is it a costume, I mean, not is it a blog.)

Date: 2006/10/29 08:14:21, Link
Author: Kristine
I think for this halloween I will dress up as a 43 year old white balding guy.  With a really hot wife.  Yeah, that's the ticket.

I saw a costume with an "attached bride" head in the costume grab-room at the party last night, but I can't find an example to show you--basically a latex ugly bride head and hands that attaches to your shoulder.

Morticia and I commiserated about how heartless Hollywood can chew an actress up and spit her out, although I pointed out that at least she has a regular series. Lots of sympathy for my comeback attempt, especially from Johnny Cash.

If you're still looking for ideas, Steve, one friend of mine came as Garden Gnome Chomsky, and another as Lumberjackie O. (I coveted her red-and-green checkered pillbox hat.)

Date: 2006/10/29 08:23:46, Link
Author: Kristine
D'oh! Costume idea: Bill Dembski!

Or the Intelligent Designer.

Or "Complexity."

Or a snowflake (just visited the UD thread).

Date: 2006/10/29 10:47:55, Link
Author: Kristine
Other images taken a day later also show the dark spot near Uranus’ limb...


"Uranis is tilted 98 degrees." Hey, just come out and say it! The "blandest planet in the outer Solar System" prefers the missionary plane of the ecliptic.


Date: 2006/10/29 11:06:34, Link
Author: Kristine
Hey Heddle, given your assertion that if cosmological constants were different, we wouldn't be here, and given the fact that we, um, are here, what's so surprising about the fact that circumstances allowed us to be here?  If green jelly beans exist, would it surprise you to learn that conditions are such as would allow green jelly beans to exist?  

I think the problem is that Heddle is arguing the jelly bean equivalent; that is, jelly beans having been designed, we were, too; which makes us spiritual treats for God, I guess...

Not a very appetizing thought right before Halloween.

The problem with Heddle is, metaphorically speaking, he has obviously never crashed a party without it turning out that those hosting the party wanted him to stay. Therefore, Heddle cannot conceive of finding himself at the party called Life without an express invitation, as it were.

Where'd he run off to? Probably sitting by the phone, waiting for someone-anyone to call. There was a Halloween party last night Heddle, and you missed it. If you continue this way, Heddle, there are going to be fewer and fewer parties to which you are "privileged" to go...

Date: 2006/10/29 17:34:26, Link
Author: Kristine
He went back to his own blog, which you might like, if you enjoy terribly boring discussions of the details of christianity.

Meh, nothing like Christian "tut-tut"-erware parties--a whole post devoted to refuting "pointlessness." I'm hip. :D

Date: 2006/10/30 11:20:59, Link
Author: Kristine
I caught that. What question is he begging now?

"Slight variant of Darwinism"? That "even Gould realized"?

Is this the old "Stephen Jay minimizes adaptation" critique that creationists blew up into "Stephen Jay is presenting a radical new theory" bluff that now Dembski is "refuting"?

Just askin'. Just want to understand that devious little mind o' Bill's.

Date: 2006/11/01 11:39:46, Link
Author: Kristine
Anybody have independent evidence indicating that Dawkins actual intent was to attract fundy wrath like flies to, um, well you know?

I think it was to attract more agnostic/liberal believer butterflies to the atheist nectar, and away from the flame. ;)

Date: 2006/11/02 04:38:46, Link
Author: Kristine
Um, really? Because personally, the more I hear people like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers go nuts obsessing over the whole religion thing, the more convinced I become to describe myself as an agnostic rather than an atheist in public.

Perhaps atheism, like evolution, works through populations, mcc! Individual preferences will vary; and they will change as the Dawkins/Dennett brouhaha continue to percolate through the culture. Let's wait and see. You might change your mind.

Evolution literacy works through populations, too. One can apply the metaphor of Dawkins' gene-level arms' race to this whole evolution vs. creationism fight. They are competing strategies, but creationism doesn't lead to survival; its believers are waiting for a Rapture that won't happen. Sooner or later they'll have to figure out how to live on this planet, and guess who already has answers about that?

Date: 2006/11/04 04:35:22, Link
Author: Kristine
Well, I'm still not banned! They're only doing it to get a dig in, I guess; or (as is more likely), they're so f*ing stupid that they haven't figured out who I am yet. Or else it's because all the little christers know they'll have to come to Pharyngula to chit-chat with the bad BD girl (a real live BD, what gutter-crawling! ) if I'm banned.

It's a multiple choice question for Salome today.

Date: 2006/11/04 04:47:04, Link
Author: Kristine
Well, what WILL the next face of anti-evolution be? Straight creationism got smacked down in the courts, and creationism with a cheesy pseudo-scientific veneer (ID), also got smacked down. 'Teach the controversy' is DOA, so what's left? ...Is there any other direction for them to go?

I say, let's not wait around for them to think of one. Let's feed them one. Then we can control their PR campaign and, at the appointed time (everyone synchronize your watches), deflate it by remote control.

I have a really creepy idea for ID's next step that came to me while I was brainstorming for some fiction that I was writing under deadline. It would be fun to get the Dembster and Friends high on it and watch them try to skateboard over a lake.

Date: 2006/11/04 05:11:14, Link
Author: Kristine
Are you there, Mr. Dawkins? It's me, Bill.

I know that you personally don't believe in the Father Ship, but I want to thank you for having such wonderful foil for my tin-foil hat, and for your opposition to theism (now, that's the-ism, not theism, the-ism is a new research angle that I am conducting really scientific research about, dealing with the fact that hyphens are strategically placed, such as in phrases like "judeo-christian," in order to link two separate ideas and that therefore, hyphens occur in nature as unexpressed "gaps" between words and suffixes (the and ism) that, when properly filled, demonstrate the existence of an object that is the-ist, that is, though it has a definite article it is not a thing in itself, but awaits the final touches of a Designer, preferably one with a pastry tube) and for intelligent design more generally. In fact, I regularly tell my colleagues that you and your work are one of God's greatest gifts to the intelligent-design movement. So please, keep at it!


Date: 2006/11/04 05:49:35, Link
Author: Kristine
Salome here (bring me a wad of WAD):

The Inflateable Designer ?

Oh, I get it, kind of like a moonwalk for grownups! [Grownups?] Brilliant idea. Let's trojan[~grin~]-horse them right back.

Date: 2006/11/04 08:44:45, Link
Author: Kristine
Still not banned! (They posted my riposte to parade the harlot before the world, everyone. Yeah, that'll show me, I so hate attention. Not poisoning the well or anything, huh, Patrick?)

At least I got my "show it or blow it" dig in.

Gawd they're stupid. :angry: And so is this panty-puller:

I argued that for symmetry to exist, then the mechanism whcih codes for one side of an organism would have to have either it's [sic] equal but oppostie code for the mirror image features of an organism, or it would have to code for a converter that would convert one side to the other.

My word, what good isn't half an eyeball? Well, don't forget two-faced people JGuy. Obviously "materialists" can't get their arms around gossip.

And Billy went ahead with that "overwhelming evidence" site despite its cessation being a condition of our bet. Billy, I don't love you anymore. Get off my flying carpet and walk home.

Date: 2006/11/04 14:42:01, Link
Author: Kristine
It also takes an entire acre of Brazillian rain forest just to make ONE flying carpet.

Not if your flying carpet is actually a square of green shag cut out of your parent's 1970s living room rug. Stuff lasts forever.


I never thought I'd see myself type this but those guys at UD fight like girls.

It's just a bitch-catfight session, all emotional blackmail and little niggling redefinitions and petty asides to try and trip you up on some minor point. I read that Ballard article, and I walked on the sidewalk today, and 2+2=4. Nothing that Jehu (is that Sal posting under a moniker, no, too coherent) says can change that.

Date: 2006/11/05 07:16:37, Link
Author: Kristine
...has there been a petering out of enthusiasm that reflects what appears to be the collective decision of the public to consign ID to the trash-heap of trends that one-time adherents will be embarrassed to be associated with?

I believe that that the public is still quite enthusiastic about ID, or at least "balancing" evolution with some form of creationism. However (this is only my impression), enthusiasm at the UD site itself seems to have fallen off with the fanfare of bringing Denyse O'Leary aboard the Mother Ship. And Sal doesn't seem to be helping (especially since he tends to take two helpings).

Date: 2006/11/05 07:35:00, Link
Author: Kristine
Oh, it be like dat, uhh?

Links be broken 'n s**t.

Yo, "Teacher click here" don't work, ayyight? Like you don' know? Fool, God be over at my place, chillin' and eatin' nachos. Fool.

Date: 2006/11/05 08:49:47, Link
Author: Kristine
Ever seen a man with one leg?...This guy sounds dumber than AFDave.

LOL! Ever seen a man blog while missing a brain? No wonder he thinks evolution sucks. Jealous, that's all.

I've just nicknamed him "Box'a'rox." Box'a'rox, if you think evolution sucks, just remember that gravity is the "strongest force in nature." The sucky UD website ought to be right up your intellectual alley.

By the way, gravity is the strongest force in nature. It overwhelms the electromagnetic force to form neutron stars. It overwhelms the weak nuclear force to form quark stars. And finally, when it overwhelms the strong nuclear force, a black hole is formed. Thanks for playing. --DafTard

Date: 2006/11/05 09:30:45, Link
Author: Kristine
Yeah, that particular thread at UD was like a funny, original insult hurled from Krystal Carrington to Alexis Colby just when you thought "Dynasty" was sucking beyond repair.

if only I could be as smart as William Dembski

I must confess to wishing that I could be smart enough to make beaucoup $$$ just sitting on my cute behind instead of racking up student loans.

Date: 2006/11/05 09:38:51, Link
Author: Kristine
BTW, DafTard is my name for Dave Scot. I do not know this AFDave. Hmmm, someone introduce me? ;)

We look at UD and see a scene from the Marat-Sade

Marat-Sade! [Falls out of chair laughing, picks self up, wipes away tears.] With somnabulist Denyse O'Leary as Charlotte Corday, love it. But no one is willing to get near her, so it can't be the orgy scene at the end.

That is how I imagine it going down at UD ultimately.

Date: 2006/11/05 09:47:51, Link
Author: Kristine
It would be a good idea, I think, to compile a "greatest hits" of UD over the last year or so: all the idiocy and cluelessness, all the venom and, above all else, all the naked religiosity.  Before it gets disappeared.  A pamphlet which presented the true face of ID would be a great weapon against "let's just teach the controversy," "There is nothing religious about ID; it is a scientific theory, supported by the scientific arguments of, er, scientists doing science" crap.

I think that's an excellent idea.

Wes is archiving the site, I believe (probably why we're hearing all this "Google delisted us" nonsense from the UDers). Maybe Barb Forrest could write a book on this, too. I'd do it if someone would finance me. ;)

Or maybe we should just lobby to have the "history of UD" taught in schools! :D

Date: 2006/11/05 11:57:21, Link
Author: Kristine
So whats this MArat-Sade then?  Please enlighten me.

Ah, this is a job for Humanities Girl!

Marat-Sade (The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat As Performed By the Inmates Of The Asylum Of Charenton Under The Direction Of The Marquis De Sade) is a play by Peter Weiss (and a movie by Peter Brook). De Sade stages a play in the asylum in which he's been incarcerated of the French Revolution for a bunch of bourgeois hypocrites. Rent it and watch it--it's not to be missed. It's like Jean Genet on LSD.

Date: 2006/11/05 14:01:22, Link
Author: Kristine
LOL. I'm picturing the guy, standing outside the school, going over his plans one more time, and realizing, "I'm going to need me a brick for this..."

I guess I thought the brick was his head.

Date: 2006/11/05 16:36:08, Link
Author: Kristine
Steve, you raise a good point. Some things are moving in the direction that you suggest. The museum at which I work is digitizing its collection and objects are available online: (ArtsConnectEd) though I realize this is on only curriculum tool rather than a new art form in itself. However, one of our employees, an artist himself, had an incredible show of computer-generated art (Al Silberstein).

Tonight I met with my team regarding our presentation of the Google Book Search Project, which is unfortunately stalled due to a lawsuit. And the authors of a new biography on Houdini credited their online database for the creation of their book (food for thought about a UDiography).

There are definitely artists out there interested in the internet and in the creative potential of software, but they tend to be video artists.

Where I work I'm a little unusual, being a chick, a writer, a dancer, computer literate and interested in science all at once. I'm afraid that there are still a lot of women in the liberal arts who bat their eyes at technology without recognizing the self-sexism.

Date: 2006/11/05 16:49:51, Link
Author: Kristine
Whoa. Thanks for the link on AFDave, but I don't think I want to ride his bus all the way to his destination. Eeeeek.

since I dont know who Jean genet is either

If you did, you wouldn't call it high culture! :D

Aw, come on, rent the movie. It's a scream, but ultimately political. It's got a young Glenda Jackson.

Date: 2006/11/05 17:10:14, Link
Author: Kristine
Are you serious?

Traditional fossils or anything else don't "prove" a theory, a theory describes and explains the facts. This isn't religion. This isn't armchair football.

There are plenty of resources about the evolution of whales. However you sound like you first need to understand evolution itself. May I suggest Talk Origins.

Date: 2006/11/06 07:15:29, Link
Author: Kristine
DaveScot came to my blog to say Hi. (Actually, he called me a "potty mouth freak.") :D

Date: 2006/11/06 12:19:14, Link
Author: Kristine
I wonder how old 'students' O'leary and TRoutMac are

Must be rough being a 55-year-old freshman.

Naturally gravity "is the strongest force" to this bunch of couch potatoes.

Date: 2006/11/06 17:18:21, Link
Author: Kristine
What, snakes weren't once cows after all?

Snakes used to have cows, but now they just eat Bart's shorts.

Jim Wynne, not only was that quintisessential DafTardity, he was tardy at his tardiness!

Sorry, Blipey. I guess you just have to
post photos too. (Dr. Lenny? Are you there?)

Date: 2006/11/07 09:16:41, Link
Author: Kristine
Wow, freaky, That needs to be made into a movie

"I'm tired of the MF snakes!" Oops, think that's been done.

Date: 2006/11/08 12:01:55, Link
Author: Kristine
Oh come now .....they are far too modest, don't they make Sisyphean faux pas on practically all of science.

Ah, I get it finally. I get this whole ID ant picnic. Call me a believer!

And de angel Sisyphus roll de stone away…I mean, Sisyphus rolls the stone up the hill, and the stone rolls back down. Sisyphus rolls the stone up the hill, and the stone rolls back down. Sisyphus rolls the stone up the hill, and the stone rolls back down. (O'Leary repeat, O'Leary repeat, O'Leary repeat...)

Predictability! Hey, that ain’t random, that ain’t random at all, it’s irreducibly complex! Take away the hill…or take away the stone…or take away Sisyphus (like, if the stone rolls over him)…oops.

Crap, thought I had a breakthrough there. Back to my godless doughnut-eating.

Date: 2006/11/10 16:42:51, Link
Author: Kristine
Well, the World Peace Herald sure didn't include my comments on that article. (Just as well, since the scoring system doesn't offer any choice less than 1.)

We should trumpet the "Dead by 2009" far and wide, as well as Dembski's "Evolution dead in 10 years" (well, 9 1/2 now) and "Nobel Prizes for ID in 15 years" gaffes. These dorks count on the American people to forget, in order to play upon ever-present resentments and a perpetual sense of underdoggedness (a term I just made up). I say, keep these "promises" in the public eye, so that eventually people will squint at it: "Hey, isn't evolution supposed to be dead by now? What happened?"

Date: 2006/11/11 12:03:23, Link
Author: Kristine
F-Bomb tosser DaveTard is throwing the f-bomb my door...knocking despite the fact that I have all the lights off and I'm hiding in the bathroom...


Date: 2006/11/13 09:49:38, Link
Author: Kristine
After all, you can beat them over the head with explanations of digital program controlled factory automation and how cellular machinery operate on the exact same principles and how these things can’t possibly poof themselves into existence without intelligence involved, and they still just don’t get it.

Aside from blogczaring and being a former marine, what does DT do? Because he’s obviously not a computer scientist or information theorist. And BTW, is he aware of Dawkins’ summing up the 30-year anniversary of The Selfish Gene thus:

For example, it's a matter of fact that the genetics that we know is digital, both at the Mendelian level of the independent assortment of genes in pedigrees, and also at the Watson and Crick level of the digital information within each gene. That's a fact.

Which is of course nothing similar to what DT says about the cell being a factory or “poofing” itself into existence. (Got an unintentional point there, Davey, no, it couldn’t poof itself into existence, and it didn't. Hold that thought.)

No, I don’t see laptop farms in the future, and I don’t see immunologists employing mousetrap models to fight diseases, either.

Some little sewing circle they’ve got there. As a chick I must say (again, something I never thought I’d see myself type), there’s something effeminate about it all.

Date: 2006/11/15 11:32:25, Link
Author: Kristine
Good lord. DaveTard must be having a bad morning.

He had a bad day yesterday too. I think I've become a Corporal Kate surrogate.

ID is religious then any discrimination is quite illegal in the United States and if proven could cost the employer dearly in a civil rights lawsuit.

Oh, but I thought that atheism/materialism was allegedly a belief or a religion in itself. Well, well. The next batch of lawsuits is going to be something else.

Date: 2006/11/15 14:06:24, Link
Author: Kristine
Church lady does a "five parter" that ends with "part four".

From the introduction (which is Part 5, I guess): Peer review, also called refereeing [in some fields], is a decision-making process by which science journals decide [sic] which papers are worth the investment of resources to publish. Usually, the editor of a science journal submits the paper an [sic] anonymous panel of recognized experts.

She's a pro. :D

As Yukon gold panners might well say, no pebbles, no nuggets. So here's a test: if the new system [of peer review] really is open and dynamic, expect to hear complaints from all sides that "garbage" is now published that formerly would not be.

That's her idea of improving the quality control of the peer-review process?

Date: 2006/11/15 16:27:40, Link
Author: Kristine
Do you think Davescot buffs his love lamp to your image, Kristine?

Um...uh...YEAH. Wouldn't surprise me.

But as long as he doesn’t let his little light shine in my starry sky, fine with me…

Date: 2006/11/16 09:13:23, Link
Author: Kristine
Do you think Davescot buffs his love lamp to your image, Kristine?

Um...uh...YEAH. Wouldn't surprise me.

We've hurt someone's feelings, Richard.

Date: 2006/11/16 11:44:06, Link
Author: Kristine
I just want to say, because this has gotten way out of (into?) hand, that he’s gone and was good enough to agree to leave. I don’t know what I’m going to say to John about all this :( tonight, but anyway. GONE!

Now, back to Church Lady…

Date: 2006/11/16 12:17:23, Link
Author: Kristine
I'm not sure that I want to know. My hands are shaking. I'm seriously freaked. (Where does he get off calling my having a sig other a "lie"? What kind of a lunatic is he?)

May I ask this: am I the only woman posting at AtBC? Just wondering.

Date: 2006/11/16 12:37:30, Link
Author: Kristine
Please just ignore DaveScot

Okay. As long as he isn't weird enough to actually approach me...

I enjoy reading your contributions.


Date: 2006/11/16 14:58:38, Link
Author: Kristine
Seriously, the thought of afDave and Dembski both being married and both having procreated is enough to make me rethink the attractions of lesbianism.

Everyone picks on Dembski! :D Honestly, I don't think he's that bad. Nice smile, when he remembers to show it. Of course, he’s totally nuts.

And Kristine, unless you live in Austin, TX, I doubt you'll ever cross paths with Dave. Tho be warned, he's been known to track people down on the internet and post personal information on them when he's feeling vindictive.

There really isn't that much for him to find.

I'm not sure precisely what he got so upset about, if John isn't upset about me playing up my Dembski baiting. It's normal to have fantasies, even about people on the other side of the fence, even if you're married. Jebus, it's healthy. We're human beings.

It did occur to me that maybe he thought I wasn't a woman at all, that I was another bot?  ;) Oh, who knows.

Date: 2006/11/16 16:58:31, Link
Author: Kristine
*Not really, but you know Dembski would.

If he tries funny stuff I know how to take care of him. I've been stalked (by a fundy Christian). That guy learned a lesson when I got legal.

Blog mod is on, so I don't know what Tardo's thinking. I suppose he can force me to look at his comments held for moderation, but there aren't any yet. (I can always show them to John.) He has no right to try to control what other people say about him when he's on shaky grounds with that "liar" comment.

Date: 2006/11/16 19:03:46, Link
Author: Kristine
You should acquaint yourself with the Big Green Marker.

Oh, that's right! I forgot about that.

I'm off to Spanish but may be consulting with you on that...

Date: 2006/11/17 11:29:14, Link
Author: Kristine
DaveTard(?! on comment moderation:

Correction: That's not DaveTard, that's Banned in Kansas, affectionately known by me as Bland, and he's a semi-regular.

D(D)T hasn't shown up. I credit him with at least knowing better than to call me a "liar" again.

Date: 2006/11/17 13:00:04, Link
Author: Kristine
My apologies to Dave.

Now Dave, see? That didn’t kill Richard. Notice how it is done.

Some template ideas: “Sorry, Kristine, I just thought your ‘love lamp’ reply was inappropriate and I got pissed off, but I would never harm you or your guy.”

“Sorry, Kristine, I should not have called you a liar about your boyfriend. I admit that that sounded maxi-zoomed, ‘The Fan,’ garden-gnome-at-my-window weird.”

“Sorry, Kristine, that what I said brought up some creepoid stalker memories for you.”

Or how about:

“Here’s my photo. Admire my tanned bod, climb into bed, have a good cry, and whatever dreams may come, tally-ho, my dear, and call it even!”

And I probably would. Because Amused Muse is merciful. Because I believe that having sexual (as opposed to violent or abusive) thoughts and engaging in silly banter about other human beings is normal. Because I’m too sophisticated to believe that only atheists are sexy (although atheists are sexy). Because I’m not a prude, like some people.

(And no goatse, or I’ll be assigned another paper. Weird JAD quantumness there.)

Date: 2006/11/18 00:04:51, Link
Author: Kristine
I'm sorry to drag this up again but as I was preparing to shut down for the night DaveScot just sent me a "cease and desist" e-mail mentioning lawyers and I am really, really scared!

The irony is, he considers the statement that I made at my blog about liking to "frighten women" libelous!

That e-mail was not meant to frighten me?

This is crazy. I have to go to sleep so that I can endure class in the morning. I did not sleep last night because of all this. How can I sleep tonight?

I don't know how this is going to end but I just wanted to thank all of you for your support during this. You assured me that he wouldn't try to harm me. What a pity he doesn't live up to your expectations.

John is upstairs asleep and I am literally hyperventilating. Oh he copied John on the e-mail, too. This after telling me that John doesn't exist.

Date: 2006/11/18 03:40:31, Link
Author: Kristine
Okay, everyone, I have something to say about this.

He and I communicated again and I actually feel 100% better.

He is a person. He does have feelings. I hope he believes that I do too.

You people have a longer history with him than I do, so maybe this will put an elbow through your Picasso but I decided on my own accord to change my post--I don't believe he's out to get me and I accept that he got wigged out, too. He's just as scared of weirdos as I am and I'm going to take the high road and believe him.

At any rate that was my last post about him. Ugh! I want to think about something else for a change. Like ID, which is what this is about. (And I want to go to sleep.)

So anyway, sorry to get all dramatic--I really am an up-and-down person, but I do think there's peace in the valley.

Besides, Dembski's still my fav UD bot as you all know.

Date: 2006/11/18 12:13:05, Link
Author: Kristine
Rev. Dr. Lenny and Stephen, read my second post and let it go. Seriously.

I am aware of the comments by DaveScot raised by several people as counterpoint but we are talking about now.

I am not saying that I agree totally with his interpretation of this but it's time to move on. Yes, I was scared. No, I am not anymore. Thank you, everyone, for letting me have my Before Sunset wig out in the SUV moment.

John and I talked this morning (again!;) and he said something quite profound (he is my better half) about how writing has been for thousands of years a rather formal enterprise, being that other signals (gesture, expression, inflection) are not present, but that the internet gives the impression of a conversation when in fact it is simply unedited writing. I took that to heart.

I can't speak for DaveScot but I'm aware of those "ebola boys" statements and all I can say is that I think he's on notice about stuff like that from now on. It's up to him.

I guess I'd like to get back to UD although it seems to have become the Sal-GilDodgen-O'Leary flagship and not as much fun I admit.

Date: 2006/11/20 11:56:30, Link
Author: Kristine
Be still my heart, for Dembski posted something.

[Moran] attended a lecture I gave at U of Toronto and confidently explained to me and the audience how indirect Darwinian pathways explain the evolution of the flagellum from the type three secretory system. To this day it amazes me that people find so bogus an argument a slam dunk for evolutionary theory. Try explaining to an engineer that the origin of the laptop computer is the product of trial and error tinkering from a cathode ray tube. If anything, this analogy fails to capture the full measure of self-delusion that evolutionary theory has become.

Once again I’m left shaking my head and wondering if Dembski believes what he says.

Did Heinrich Geissler, Sir William Crookes, or Sprengel know that they were laying the foundation for Stoney’s discovery of the “electrine” (later “electron”), and did Stoney know that the German theorists (who believed that cathode rays were waves) and the British theorists (who posited that cathode rays were particles) would both be proven right (with the weirdness of Nobel Prize winner George Paget Thomson showing himself to be a wave off the old particle, Nobel Prize winner J.J. Thomson)?

Why is human invention a good analogy for a (one?) designer when anything designed still has an element of trial-and-error tinkering to it, is the consequence of at least some undirected processes, requires a lot of time (like something else I could mention), and requires a lot of designers? This is the story of Paley’s watch, too; the first “watch” was a stick in the sand. (Now, would that have looked designed?)

The more I see where they’re coming from the less I understand where they’re going with this. Perhaps ID is constrained by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: the more they redefine their definition the more they have to cobble together their flagella (like something else I could mention).

Date: 2006/11/20 12:38:27, Link
Author: Kristine
I searched for a term at UD:

Welp, we couldn't find that...try again?

"Welp?" It's in the source code. Is it by design?

It's kind of sweet. Like some rural cop looking over a segway. Weeeelp, if I could just find a windshield, I'd write it a ticket!

Date: 2006/11/20 16:34:11, Link
Author: Kristine
Was the term science?

No, and it wasn't "whelp," either. (I'm not saying because I was looking in the wrong site. Twit.)  :D

Date: 2006/11/20 16:44:42, Link
Author: Kristine
Okay, now I searched for the right thing this time. Welp, welp, welp, got "welp" again.

That means there is no Santa Claus!

Date: 2006/11/22 16:27:27, Link
Author: Kristine
*Coming down from reading the Mary Had a Little Haploid thread*

Weeellllp, (my head hurts) haploid Thanksgiving, everybody!

I'd post that at UD if they'd laugh at it, but I don't know. I already feel the Tryptophan kicking in.

Date: 2006/11/22 16:55:05, Link
Author: Kristine
Googlefight--guy stuff. Make love not war!

What else can Google do?

Huhhh? 'Cause I'm sick of all this virgin talk! (And I'm not interested in Dembski's brain.)

Date: 2006/11/22 18:33:06, Link
Author: Kristine
Kristine, you certainly add a completely different dimension to these discussions.

That's my intention! Women "add a chemical element" and all that (quoting some Good Ole Boy congressman whose name, and fortunately whose face, I forget).

There really should be some kind of warning system available for this level of mirth

Maybe we should develop a ratings system. 1/2 to 5 stars of mirth. (O'Leary doesn't add much mirth, I'm sorry to say. How about 1/2 to 5 prunes.)

I've convinced myself that they are, in fact, different people.

I do see what you mean...but come on! Dembski is a guy. He's got a kind of funny, angular, slang-dropping strangeness that's appealing. Whatever, I know you guys don't understand it.

When you do, let me in on it.

Date: 2006/11/22 21:32:17, Link
Author: Kristine
he just reminds me of some of the high-functioning Asperger's subjects I had a chance to interact with

!!! Deadman, I've had the very same thought! And I'm not being mean either because I've wondered about myself, too. For that matter, I've wondered about Dawkins. I went so far as to do some research (though one of my co-workers gently laughed when I confessed my suspicions about myself to her).

There was an article in Seed Magazine about a month ago about highly intelligent people who grok systems sexually selecting each other as a possible cause of the perceived increase in the rate of autism. Interesting stuff.

Whatever the cause, intelligent nerdy introverts suffer too much and I think the world needs more of us!  (And should worship us.) :)

Date: 2006/11/23 11:04:30, Link
Author: Kristine
JHC, they're still at it over thar:

If a supernatural God can cause this universe to exist, he/she/it/they can certainly cause a woman’s egg to develop into a full human baby. What’s the deal here?

Yeah, what's the problem? *Smacks forhead*

Is that turkey smoke coming out of my ears? This has been just Wagneresque.

Your Aspie score: 0 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 0 of 200
You are both Aspie and neurotypical

That picture at the beginning was a guy. Well, that solves it for me. Worship me, your lives will be much easier! (I guess I'll have to wing the afterlife.)

Date: 2006/11/23 23:38:02, Link
Author: Kristine
Wait, are Muslims allowed to be ID activists?

I guess so. It's all part of them (and all of us) ultimately "coming to Christ," remember.

So just what does worshipping you entail, Kristine?

I’m willing to share a pantheon. We could brainstorm.

Date: 2006/11/25 14:34:48, Link
Author: Kristine
Ah, Bill is back, and better than ever. Hey Bill, forget our little spat, climb back on my flying carpet and up, up, and away we go! All the way up to the American Meteorological Society, which in releasing a draft statement on climate change IS ADVOCATING GROUPTHINK!

(Ross McKitrick) As an economist I find it strange that scientific societies show such a propensity to issue position statements.

Wow, economists shaking a finger at meteorologists, programmers lecturing biologists, what's next? Belly dancers telling Ted Haggard's successor how to run his megachurch? (Good idea, that.) "This has direct application to the ID debate and the public statements issued by the AAAS, NAS, AAS, etc." says Bill. Oh, I'm sure they're shaking in their boots at the AAAs.

And of course I noticed this (modesty, that's Bill's middle name, fo sho):

Did anyone catch this little bit of hubris from Dembski:

P.S. If Dawkins is going to get the Templeton Prize, perhaps for once the Templeton organization should give the prize to two people. I would be happy to share it with Dawkins.

But who's going to present it, huh? Remember the Adrian Brody/Halle Berry Oscar presentation? (Um, is this a good time to break it to Bill that this is the Temptation Prize?)  :D

Date: 2006/11/25 20:44:25, Link
Author: Kristine
Gee, Bill, for some odd reason, back when the Templeton Foundation offered DI lots of money to do some "scientific research", no one at DI seemed all that eager to TAKE it.  

So how can we get our hands on that $$? Considering that the so-called "irreducible complexity" of the bacterial flagellum amounts to asking, "how much butt does a butt-putt putt?" I am sure that we could come up with testable hypotheses...

Date: 2006/11/26 12:08:47, Link
Author: Kristine
I am, however, very distressed by this endless war amongst our own.

So am I. Excuse me but I don't think that this issue (evangelical atheism versus collaboration) is all that important, or even if it is an issue. Out of necessity I "collaborate" with theists every day. I think that it's just that after having locked horns it's hard to walk away (but it can be done, I am living proof). This argument is a niggling point in my opinion between articulate people who like to tangle on abstract points but need to back off of this one.

The last thing we need is everyone who giggled at "Science curse you, United Atheist Alliance!" on SouthPark to start giggling now. This argument is painful and not funny.

It's painful enough for me to read at UD the "atheists just hate us, they want to put us all in camps, they offer the mother of a dead child no hope because they don't believe in heaven" without this added layer of bruised feelings. All I advocate for is that one should approach life without preconceived ideas and set, puritanical dogmas. I don't think anyone has ever seen reality as it is (and ironically, that puts me in agreement with Dembski's conception of evolution as selecting for survival and reproduction, not for those who apprehend reality) and I don't think we ever will until we shed, at least temporarily, all the dogmas and the thou-shalt-nots and the shame and the fear that has co-evolved with our curiosity. That's it.

(And I've had as many crushes on cutie Christians as I have on atheists, but my Christian boyfriends turned out to be all uptight and to have ridiculous fears, and it caused lots of problems. And yes, I resent religion all the more for that. They're already in their own prison camps, snapping at me for having thrown open the gate. They followed me to a certain extent into freedom because they were drawn to my joie de vivre, if I may say so myself, but then wanted me to settle down and sit in church and give up this and that part of my individuality until I ended up looking like every other church lady. I can't do it. Thanks but no thanks. Who was putting whom into a prison camp?)

Date: 2006/11/26 14:31:20, Link
Author: Kristine
WTF is wrong with tolerance? Let people believe whatever they wish, so long as they don't want to make it law or enforce it upon others.

But we're interested in how things really are, Stephen. Isn't that the whole point?

At some point, someone who believes is going to enforce it upon others. That's what happened to me. I had a boyfriend who was a Christian and spoke in tongues, all that stuff. Eventually, he started in with the "You've got to accept God because otherwise I won't see you in Heaven" prodding. If everyone believes what they want to, what's the basis for their belief? Is it true, or isn't it? If everybody believes something different, isn't that the same as nobody believing anything?

My father believed that everyone who didn't accept Jesus Christ as his/her savior didn't go to heaven. My uncle told me that if I believed in evolution I was going to ####. (Yes, he put it just that way.) Naturally, I "tolerated" these beliefs. What room was there for their "tolerance"? I believe that they were both sincere, but wrong. Am I being intolerant, then?

Fighting with loved ones over religion is just agony. I don't really care about God but I would love there to be an afterlife. I can't stand the thought not ever knowing some things, or seeing what the future holds for humanity, or never seeing certain people again (or never meeting certain people). But wishing isn't knowing, and believing doesn't make things true. That's all I'm saying.

Date: 2006/11/26 15:25:19, Link
Author: Kristine
How are things really? Do you know?

Of course not. But I know that some things aren't. Such as, there's no way I'm ever going to enjoy church or need it, no matter how much I "open my heart." (I hate what I consider to be a waste of time and I hate getting stuck with the women. I don't really get along with church ladies; they often snub me, are cruel, and suspect my morals; they aren't interested in the things that I am. And I can't stand the pop music; something wrong with Bach?) Isn't that judgemental, me hearing so often that I've "hardened my heart" when I'm the one who likes art and music and culture, who can't stand to see an animal or a child mistreated, and who is more sensitive and attentive to the details that so often escape these people? (They want to completely change me and I sometimes think they should try to be like me!;)

Just about the only thing that I am sure of is that I do not know.

I guess I would be fine if we were to all say we don't know. But I tend to say atheist rather than agnostic, being that there would then be an infinite number of things about which I would be an agnostic. (I mean, just how many things don't seem to exist?)

One problem I have is that I am, among many things, a dancer, someone who lives a great deal of her life in silence, someone who is and who does, and here we are, talking.

I am with Voltaire: "Men argue, natural acts." Ultimately, truth is action, not religious theology and not even scientific theory. It drove me nuts when my folks would sit and argue about the Trinity (I'm not kidding) on a beautiful sunny day. Is that not a form of heresy? I love science, but life is to be lived, unless, of course, one thinks that living it up is immoral. (I was even invited to join a Baptist church--can you imagine? I would have to give up dancing. No thanks!;)

Date: 2006/11/26 16:21:48, Link
Author: Kristine
I'm supposed to be writing a paper instead of blatting my brains out here, and at any rate I can't find the quote I'm looking for,

but somewhere there's an interview with Richard Dawkins in which the reporter asks him straight out if he would enforce atheism onto people or have children be taught pure atheism,

and the reporter says that Dawkins' mouth fell open and he was silent for a moment, and then stammered that he would never advocate such a thing. Dawkins was, according to the reporter, visibly shocked by the idea.

I agree that it wouldn't work, and probably is an abusive idea. (I'm not as nice as Dawkins is.)

But what drives me nuts is what's not done in religion's name, frankly much of the world's recent art, much of the world's science, much of the world's once-heretical ideas and inventions that have become gifts to us.

Religious wars are one thing, but plain old conformity and respectability is another, and to me that's living death.

As for the afterlife, I do admit that I pray a simple prayer every day, and that is, I wish I could be billions of women all at once, at least one for every guy I've ever had a crush on (which is an extensive list!;), past, present, or future.

I don't believe in astrology either but, hey, I'm an Aries, in love with being in love, and none of you are safe, BTW! (Which probably means I'm not going to heaven but if I do, Dembski's going to be really sorry that I did.)

Date: 2006/11/26 17:59:50, Link
Author: Kristine
PZ and others are NOT saying "RELIGION IS STUPID", expressedly not.

Oh, come on. He has and I have too. If you check Pharyngula for my comments you'll see I'm vehemently against religion. When I am, I'm arguing my point against another's point. A point is not a person. It's not a personal condemnation. I don't get religion--I have never gotten it--and I admit it.

Date: 2006/11/26 23:29:22, Link
Author: Kristine
Maybe we're entering a phase where the shrill extremes alienate themselves and moderation and tolerance surfaces as the prevailing modes of thought.  Boy, I really stepped fully into fantasy there, didn't I?

Yeah, you are. ;)

For what it's worth, I personally believe that people have a right to proselytize. I never like when they do it to me, but it's free speech and anyway, what's the point of believing in something if you don't think it's right and that therefore everyone should believe it, too?

So believers have a right to try to convert me and I have a right to try to convert (or corrupt) them.

So we argue, make snarky comments, and disagree. That's freedom of speech. I see that as all Dawkins and PZ are doing.

As far as I'm concerned it's nothing to do with evolution, which has some definite parallels with Christianity, in my opinion. (PZ and Dawkins would disagree with me there. Oh gasp, guess what, I think for myself.)

Date: 2006/11/27 09:59:09, Link
Author: Kristine
Kristine, You made a comment that really interests me. Just what do you think the similarities between christianity and evolutionary biology are?

How about “the last shall be first and the first shall be last”?

Well, perhaps that’s not a good example, but it seems to me that whenever Dembski talks of the improbability of speciation, I am reminded of the parable of the mustard seed, and I wonder why he does not think of this. (No, I do know after all. Dembski longs for religion to be the towering Lebanese cedar tree, which was the dominant symbol back in the Israelites’ time and which this parable ridicules, chosing instead for its symbol a seed that produces a lowly bush (like the phyletic bush?) that is illegal to plant and lacks the superficial majesty of a towering theocracy.)

A frequent theme in Judeo-Christian literature is that of the smallest, weakest, or most unlikliest of persons achieving greatness, and its seems to me that that is often the story of evolution (who would have expected a small tree-dwelling creature to become the ancestor of apes and man, or a land-dwelling mammal to eventual evolve into whales? How about mammals themselves, survivor from the age of the dinosaurs? And don’t forget bacteria, the ultimate winners in life).

I abhor the whole dog-eat-dog “survival of the fittest” crap—Darwin barely tolerated it and Dawkins has spoken against it. I think it’s a gross mischaracterization of evolution. During natural disasters (even Hurricane Katrina) it is the working-class stiffs who shake a leg and display their creativity and adaptability, not upper management. “There will be poor always” because the poor are more resourceful (dare we say, more “fit”?)!

When I get done with finals I’ll get back to working on my novel which includes a Christian main character who accepts evolution. However, I’d like to reiterate that I am an atheist, but an atheist with extensive religious training and one never entirely throws that away.

Date: 2006/11/27 10:13:03, Link
Author: Kristine
Please don't ever become a church lady.

No fear. I'm too much of a fuddy-duddy to become fundy at this point.

Date: 2006/11/27 10:41:29, Link
Author: Kristine
I see no similarity between christianity and any scientific field, bar the sort of superficial similarities or literary concordance you mention.

Well, I don’t really see any deep, scientific, or lasting connection either. But it’s the kind of thing that springs to mind when I hear Christians argue against evolution. It strikes me as ironic, since they're not making scientific arguments but literary/emotional ones.

ID is heading for its own apocalypse BTW (like so many ambitiously apocalyptic paradigms), and betrayal-with-a-kiss is what I see in Dembski's future. It just astonishes me that he can't recognize it. Literature has symbolic truths that are applicable locally--not globally--but people never learn.

Date: 2006/11/27 12:31:43, Link
Author: Kristine
More re Denyse:

She was in Minneapolis in 2004 pushing her new book. (Yes, I missed it.)

Evolution under fire?

More O'Leary.

I knew about her before she was installed at UD. She’s real (as in really unreal). I just about fell over when she was crowned blog princess.

Is it me, or has it become pretty quiet over there at UD? Several blasé posts…position statements about position statements...we don’t know our Greek, blah, blah (no, I admit I don't).

Date: 2006/11/27 16:38:50, Link
Author: Kristine
Is it me, or has it become pretty quiet over there at UD?

Like watching paint dry.

Or maybe this is the part of the B-movie when everyone is supposed to start necking!  :D

Date: 2006/11/28 11:07:55, Link
Author: Kristine
Although I happen to believe that oblivion will follow my own death, and indeed all deaths, I would be lying if I denied sometimes bolting upright in the middle of the night with the full realization of that reality, accompanied by a very cold fear...In view of that, I have enormous sympathy for those who cope with the spector of death by, in essence, denying its reality and positing an afterlife. In particular, having children and finding myself unable to even contemplate loosing one of them, I cannot fault those who have responded to such an unbearable grief by resorting to the comforting notion that death is not real.  Probably one of the most severe costs that accompany what I perhaps vainly fancy to be my intellectual honesty is that such comforts will not be available to me should I be faced with a similar losses. Part of me is sympathetic to whatever cover an individual wishes to take in the face of those realities.

A second point vis humility pertains more directly to questions of science and religion....My personal response to facts like these is one of awe and humility.

Humility also follows reading a post like this and recognizing my own experience in it (although I have no children). I find it amazing that human beings can have the same subjective experiences. Surely that is one thing that unites human beings. I do bear that in mind when I read the writings of Dembski and others like him. I do.

In light of that, let me say that though I know I am guilty of the "Religion is stupid!" fight myself on PT and Pharyngula, I was just offering what I truly felt and thought. As an atheist I like to say that I don't believe in anything that divides people, and yet I am frustrated by the sense that others, who are believers, divide themselves from me, and believe that it is I who is doing it. I don't buy the atheist = fundy believer, everyone-go-to-the-center plea for "tolerance." I want to believe in an afterlife, too, but if it is not true, going to the middle won't make it exist.

I most certainly do not hate believers, but I have come to hate what many religious beliefs do to believers. I don't hang around angry atheists either no matter how I may sometimes come off in an online forum. I can only say that, once we drop all of the baggage that we've been carrying with us since the development of consciousness in humans, we will then be free to finally see and discover what is. Logic and rationality are the beginning, not the end, of knowledge, but I see no value in stampeding to conclude the existence of a God or an afterlife at the outset when in fact this is mere wishful thinking.

Date: 2006/11/28 11:28:40, Link
Author: Kristine
They killed that comment, which is the funniest thing I've seen associated with 'the brites'.

Yeah, same old shenanigans. And Dembski hasn't answered dacook's question.

You know, the guy really is frustrating. Sometimes I wish I could really ask him an honest question myself sans snark, but he's too interested in being clever and wriggling around his position and covering his ass to give an honest reply. And people wonder why I had a tizzy at my blog? Honest religious belief I can accept, but not magic tricks and (apparently) deliberate deception.

Date: 2006/11/28 15:00:06, Link
Author: Kristine
Well said, Incorygible.

the truly nuanced, potentially pro-science religious moderates have nothing to fear from zealous atheists and everything to fear from religious extremists, who will throw the Ken Millers of the world up against the wall of infidels with everyone else.

I have said this at RedStateRabble and I'll say it again, I not only fear the religious extremists myself, I think that the ID folks should fear them too and separate from them. I found a video of Dembski debating Eugenie Scott in which he asserts his belief in a billions-years-old earth and the recent development of man. I get the impression that this is the real William Dembski, not the slick operator who will take any position in order to get a dig in at Dawkins/Darwinism. Yet he's not willing to jettison the YECs, and I think he's out of his mind not to.

As far as I can tell, there are VERY few people on the fence when it comes to evolution.

Right on. YECs are certainly not on any fence. They want to hear that the 6-day creation is "scientific" and nothing else. Already some are grumbling about the "heresy" of ID and such (whereas I have also stated elsewhere that if evolutionary theory fell apart tomorrow--but I wouldn't bet on it--I wouldn't be devastated, but would simply accept that it's back to the drawing board for science). I don't like it or the vehemence of these Jesus Camp/megachurch types. When they go after the heretics, who will that be? Atheists like me, or the Dembski's? I am seriously scared that Dembski thinks he can tolerate the YECs the way Weimar Germany tolerated the Brown Shirts to beat up the Reds. Sometimes I fear that someone will get hurt and for heaven's sake I told DaveScot this.

I would never harm someone to defend my belief but other people are willing to do so to defend theirs.

Date: 2006/11/28 16:33:41, Link
Author: Kristine
In recent years, however, Hogan's preferred theories have tended towards those widely considered "fringe" or pseudoscientific. He is a serious proponent of Immanuel Velikovsky's version of catastrophism,[1] of Intelligent Design over Darwinism,[2] and of the theory that AIDS is caused by pharmaceutical use rather than HIV (see AIDS reappraisal).[3]

Ideology increasingly drives science....Many areas of science in which the public is told there exists scientific consensus are in fact riven with controversy and poorly supported by evidence. In Kicking the Sacred Cow, James Hogan unmasks such pretentious. (Dembski)

Oh, come on. This is the kind of thing that makes me mad. I don't believe for one second that Dembski denies the HIV-AIDS link (I think I read somewhere that his wife is a nurse?), but he's willing to praise this nutjob while simultaneously giving himself back-off room ("But I never explicitly said that I endorsed this or that" etc.) a la Jonathan Wells.

This level of cleverness just isn't displayed by everybody, and it angers me to see some well meaning people buy into pseudoscience that--okay, let me get this straight--isn't not unendorsed by an ID theorist who doesn't deny evolution but also isn't convinced that random mutation and natural selection completely describe the mechanisms of evolution in a different way than Eugenie Scott isn't convinced of same. (Got all that?)

Not everybody is this clever, okay? (My own head is swimming.) And some of us, who have contact with people who aren't necessarily abstract thinkers and who draw conclusions that these smart people who used big words are proving God and maybe also showing that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, get really frustrated trying to point out the intricacies of this shell game.

ID is the perpetual drawing of a frame, not a picture--a frame around a void! In the same way that rich people want socialism for themselves but capitalism for everyone else, IDers seem to think that they can always have sound science for themselves (even if they have to go to Singapore for medical treatments in the future after science education is gutted in this country) but magic spells and prayer for the rest of us. Is that what they're after? And why?

Date: 2006/11/28 16:44:52, Link
Author: Kristine
Ah, I remember the morning that I read the news! We were staying with John's mom Kate in Portland, Oregon, and I jumped up and down and screamed. (Kate said, "I thought you saw a spider!") I bungled a joyous e-mail to PZ from Kate's computer and toasted the ruling with a latte. In fact, that's what I want. A big ole latte.

And a slice of cutie-pie from a big ole cuddly panda!  (And deny everything afterwards...) The anniversary is close to G.O.D. (Global Orgasm Day), isn't it? :D

Date: 2006/11/28 17:48:00, Link
Author: Kristine
The struggle to save the ship will go on for a while, and meanwhile there will even be academic wine-and-cheese parties on the deck. In the end the ship's great firepower and ponderous armor will only help drag it to the bottom. (Dembski)

In this witty allusion to the Titanic, Dembski seems to forget all the low class, expendable, "unwashed masses" (his pet phrase) who were locked in the lower cabins and went down with the ship.

Intelligent design will be triumphant when all the poor/working class people of the world are told, "Say two prayers and don't call me in the morning." If I thought Dembski would give an honest answer I would ask him, Do you care at all about people like me? And if he said no, I would ask him why.

He likes to count himself as one of the "unwashed masses," but I doubt that he grew up around people without health insurance or who had missing limbs and such, as I did. I am the first person in my family to get a college degree. I don't think he cocktail-waitressed his way through college and had to put up with the sexual harassment that goes with the job.

No one likes to talk about class in America and no one is talking about how this is a class war. Wine-and-cheese parties on the ship's deck, indeed! I'm doing okay for myself now, but I'm willing to bet they're awash in cash at the good old DI.

Date: 2006/11/28 18:45:24, Link
Author: Kristine
Ah yes, Jehu. The one who couldn't understand why I got so ticked off that Wells would yank together two different statements separated by paragraphs in a scholarly article and portray them as one quote. The clown who told me, "This [UD] blog is not a journal" when I said that I could never get away with that kind of quote-mining in a white paper or scholarly journal.

Uncommon Descent is not a scholarly journal! Well, d'oh.

Well, they can't point to ID ones, can they?
Welp, obviously not. They don't need to match our pathetic level of detail.

BTW, that "Take it elsewhere" post about people no longer being able to deny common descent at Uncommon Descent (bwa-ha!;) is gone. Here's what I get:

"Easy, tiger. This is a 404 page.
You are totally in the wrong place. Do not pass GO; do not collect $200."

So cute. I could just eat them up! Roooaaaar! Easy, tiger.

Date: 2006/11/28 22:57:33, Link
Author: Kristine
Wasn't that Phillip E. Johnson using the battleship Titanic metaphor

A Bismarck metaphor would probably be more appropriate

Ah, my apologies to both Dembski and the Titanic.

I still wonder what comes after this supposed "death" of evolutionary theory, though.

We know what they're against. What are they for? Water and bread crusts in a dinghy?

Date: 2006/11/29 12:02:48, Link
Author: Kristine
Thanks for the link, djmullen.

Can anyone tell me when UD was first launched?

Date: 2006/11/29 23:45:51, Link
Author: Kristine
Are you quietly asking if Kristine is one of my sockpuppets?


I go to class (College of St. Catherine, Intro to Library Science, 701) and my existence is questioned? No way. I introduced everyone in class to Ms. Dewey tonight! (I'm their weird techno geek girl.)

I appeared in this film

And this one. (It's pronounced Butte, not butt, BTW. Someone actually called it butt.)

August Berkshire of MN Atheists has seen me, too.

I used to write book reviews.

And Rev. Barking Nonsequitor has met me! Ask him! I'm supposed to sing in his upcoming skit.

####, dudes! Are you kidding? Want me to come over there and friggin' dance for you? (Oh, yeah--that's what you probably wanted me to say. Okay, I'm naive. A certain lurker is probably laughing his ass off right now too. Well, if he's good he'll get a belly gram too, someday. If he wants one. I'll never make Playboy!;)

And I don't talk about orgasms that much! I'm a doer.

And I think Dembski's a cutie-pie. But I already live with a cutie-pie. Are you a cutie-pie, Steve_h? What do you look like? Are you real? Hey! I demand proof! :p

Date: 2006/11/30 00:34:10, Link
Author: Kristine
an attempt to entrap an ID big wig

And that's a laugh, BTW. Dembski is married and from what I've heard of Mrs. Cutie-Pie, the minute she steps into a room that I'm in no one is going to look at me anymore. I haven't seen her, but Wes says she's pretty.

Always a milkshake, never a martini, story of my life. :D

But I bet Rev. Dr. Lenny Frank believes I'm real. Don't you, Rev. Dr.? And Lou, of course.

Date: 2006/11/30 09:24:02, Link
Author: Kristine
me thnks she doth protest too much

Okay, fine. Thus sarcasm doth make sock puppets of us all.

Hello, everybody! I'm really WAD. Now you know. Boy, I sure pulled the wool over your eyes. :p

But WAD is the sock-puppet of...Corporal Kate! Figure that out.

It's sock-puppets all the way down. We were discussing (in another thread) the nesting hierarchy, weren't we?  :)

Date: 2006/11/30 10:04:34, Link
Author: Kristine
Ms. Dewey caused a laughing-jag in class, but everyone (except for one guy) pronounced her "annoying." Said guy said: "Some of us like to be ordered around by hot babes with batons." There's always one.

Ms. Dewey is my sock puppet from now on.

don't let Skeptic bother you.

Oh, I'm not upset, I like a good scrap, and I enjoy bad literary allusions to boot.

Write a grant proposal.

I need help! My running total is three testable hypotheses (glob. org. day, "athelicious" pork, and sock gods).

Date: 2006/11/30 11:20:50, Link
Author: Kristine
"I'm Kristine, and so's my wife!"

Throw quantum physic to the dogs, I'll none of it.

I'm Spartacus!

Lou, did you see what your Ms. Dewey said about me?

Date: 2006/11/30 11:37:01, Link
Author: Kristine
Oh, Ms. Dewey! Keep your paws off my honey-bunny!

Date: 2006/11/30 12:01:01, Link
Author: Kristine
I'm not sure what that has to do with Saturn, but it was funny.

That could be a reference to Sun Ra.

:O  Now she's sharpening a big ole knife. "Let's get down to business." She doesn't like me, Lou, and I don't like her!

Date: 2006/11/30 16:21:32, Link
Author: Kristine
I guess it does. Sorry, Lou and Kristine.

*Haploid naked dance*

But how come people don’t believe me until they check my boyfriend’s blog or PZ’s?

HUH? Shouldn’t evidence be gender-neutral?

Date: 2006/11/30 16:44:49, Link
Author: Kristine
Maybe you're just too good to be true?

Oooooh, smooth talk!

Anyway, no apologies needed—though of course, if you want to grovel, Amused Muse is accomodating. *Wiggles fingers to indicate “more compliments”* Assume the position.

But I must leave you gents for a while…my take-home final, my final paper, and my presentation are all due this Saturday…gotta work. And thank you for the link to the article on Wells, whoever that was, and whatever thread that was (augh, mindfart). I’m referencing the article in my paper.

Ta ta! :D

Date: 2006/11/30 22:13:17, Link
Author: Kristine
Something was telling me not to stick my head in the hornet's nest and apparently that will not happen.

This from someone who's an agnostic about my existence.


But seriously, Rev. Dr. Lenny how can you go away? We've only just met... Drop by my blog sometime, huh?

Did you gawk at my photos at least?   ???

Date: 2006/12/01 13:28:37, Link
Author: Kristine
Re: O'Leary post

Uncool film wins in Toronto

Well, I replied at UD so let’s see if it appears. I meant it as a sincere attempt at dialogue. (My computer seems to be fritzing, too.)

I’m more confused by Denyse than ever considering I agree with her about the breathtaking vacuity of shopping malls and most popular Hollywood films. I hate shopping malls and haven’t set foot in the MOA in years. My ‘hood is full of little churches holding festivals all the time and guess who’s polka-ing with the Christians every year? As for Hollywood, I can’t watch that crap. Our tastes run toward independent films, art-house stuff, documentaries, and silent movies.

This film intrigues me and I agree that it should be released in America. I also recommend a small independent film (but it’s in French) called “Jesus of Montreal”. So what’s Denyse talking about when she rails against the materialists? Me? Well, I suppose I am a materialist according to one definition (naturalism), but then she ascribes to materialists qualities that I don’t have. Jeepers, isn’t it possible that there are some things that make us “materialists” human? I like pretty rainbows as much as Bill Dembski does. That a rainbow has a natural, as opposed to supernatural, explanation doesn’t detract from it for me. (I certainly preferred the company of the sensitive boy from Bible study than the louts who, once released, ran around the church grounds in search of small animals to torture.)

If there’s anybody who I don’t feel I have anything in common with, it’s the former high-school jocks who, I suspect, picked on both the fledgling ID advocates and upon art-science geeks like me in the school hallway, and now have become insurance salesmen who don’t give a crap about either science or intelligent design! ;) Those are the materialists in my view (literally, because jocks tend to not age well), not nerdy-geeky opponents like me of nerdy-geeky creationists.

Date: 2006/12/01 14:27:47, Link
Author: Kristine
Hey, my comment appeared!

Despite the fact that my $%#&* computer is totally wigging and I got a strange Wordpress error several times (a 'puter with 'tude, just like Ms. Dewey).

Anybody else having problems with pages loading, either at UD or here? 'Cause I'm about to lose my mind.

Date: 2006/12/01 15:29:04, Link
Author: Kristine
Kristine: Yep, and on a couple of other sites, too. Curious. Maybe it's the RAP-TURE!

What, all the MAC-ies got sucked up to heaven, leaving us PC users behind? :D

Date: 2006/12/01 16:03:58, Link
Author: Kristine
Denyse O'Leary strikes me as a less vitriolic and less coherent version of Ann Coulter. Just substitute "materialist" for "liberal".

At the risk of violating Godwin's Law, I say: just substitute "materialist" for "Jew" and you get the reason why I though this post deserved an answer despite what I think of a blog like UD.

I was willing to lose an argument for the sake of human consideration and to regard an opponent as a person. I ask the same of Denyse O’Leary. I am tired of her dehumanizing tactics.  I’m not sure what O’Leary is trying to accomplish other than to whip up hatred when she waves this “materialist” flag in a manner that makes it sound like her infidels are just a bunch of nihilists who hate puppies and small children and everything nice. Is that what they're reduced to? I thought that after Dover it was "back to the lab."

Date: 2006/12/01 16:53:01, Link
Author: Kristine
They have no labs. That's the whole problem.

Arden, certainly I know that! And I knew it when I asked Dembski in an e-mail about that in the process of proposing a bet to him. No reply. (That’s rude, by the way.)

Whenever I ask a sincere question about this stupid fight about this vacuum called intelligent design, I get a whole lot of nothing. Well, I guess that’s appropriate—ask a nothing question…

But I’m losing my patience on the theology front, too. I happen to be very well-schooled in Christian theology. After all, when I had to go to Bible study every week so that I could be confirmed, I went—I didn’t sneak out and do drugs and get a tattoo and get preggers and be the drain on American morals that O’Leary would accuse me of being (she who’s probably never had an emotion that wasn’t sactioned by the church). They didn't know I was an atheist. I was alone. That's how I know that I was one. Yet I got confirmed. Them's the rules, when you live in your parents' house.

I must be one #### of an actress because despite the fact that I asked the most challenging questions in Bible study the pastors thought I was fabulous (compared to the rest of the girls who thought it unladylike to have an opinion, and the boys, most of whom just slumped in their chairs until they could escape to go torture small animals).

It’s all very well for the folks at UD to long for the right people to show interest, but—hello, Dembski, O’Leary & Friends—who happens to be showing interest is me. Here I am! Showing interest! Has anyone answered my post at UD today? No. Of course, I have major problems with ID, and I make that clear, so why respond to me? Even when I’m making an effort to articulate my problems with this stuff in a mature, respectful manner?

When Dembski talks about the degradation of once-perfect design (the latest explain-it-away tactic) it sounds like he’s describing his own lost dreams for intelligent design theory itself. Well, I can understand that—we all have dreams that don’t pan out. My own life is largely a disappointment to me. But it is simply not fair to project one’s own dashed hopes into a globalized theory about how everything was designed and that design is “degrading.” The world is always ending for somebody--but it's always beginning for somebody else. Apocalyptic dreams are selfish--more selfish, even, than "selfish genes."

/rant off

Date: 2006/12/01 18:45:49, Link
Author: Kristine
Phonom: BWAHAHAHAHAH! That is hysterical!

And frightening!

I truly believe most of them would live completely differently if they lost their faith.  They fail to see any reason for moral behavior beyond eternal punishment.

Then I am truly sorry for them. But then the question becomes, who are they to tell anyone else how to live?

I don't need a sermon to tell me how to love someone.

I think I need an atheist sermon about how not to fall in love with someone. If I had never fallen in love with any sweetie-pie fundies then I would have been spared a lot of heartache.

[Hello, UD lurkers, are you reading this?]

Date: 2006/12/03 19:44:56, Link
Author: Kristine
Indeed, the only way to gauge the extent to which one person loves another is by what that person is willing to endure for the other. Without the cost incurred by suffering, love among fallen creatures becomes cheap and self-indulgent.

Hoo boy, this sounds familiar.

"Love among fallen creatures becomes cheap and self-indulgent"?

What a crock. And how sad.

He mentions a family illness too. This is the third time I've heard of it. Well, I'm truly sorry that he's having problems (is it his son, do you know, Wes?) but I don't believe that suffering, while inevitable, is our lot in life. I wonder if he's trying to justify something to himself that's painful. 'Cause I've seen that before. :(

This kind of thinking becomes a vicious circle, unfortunately: suffering builds character, etc. My father thought that, and at the end of his life thought that he had to "suffer as Christ suffered" (his very words) and didn't want to take his medication until his pastor talked him out of that kind of thinking.

Date: 2006/12/03 20:44:45, Link
Author: Kristine
What do people make of that "TalkOrigins Delisted by Google" post?

Date: 2006/12/03 23:08:20, Link
Author: Kristine
I cannot answer your question because no one knows how many times life was created, how many Creators there were, how many front loadings took place or when they took place.


The universe is the result of a (or several) brainstorming session between creators, who all then died off--am I understanding this correctly?

So who front-loaded the front-loaders? Perhaps someone has already asked this...

"Got that?" [No.] "Write that down!" [Okay..."I can't answer your question..."] I love it so! [But what "it" is, I'm not quite sure.]

Date: 2006/12/04 16:44:28, Link
Author: Kristine
I don't agree that UD should take down the post about Talk Origins (haven't we had enough of info disappearing there?) but they should probably warn people about those hot links (although all one has to do is pass the cursor over them to know the risk).

As I’ve said elsewhere, it’s a brave new world with electronic communication and I think that we (and those blaming Wes) need to not point fingers; this is a discussion that information scientists and librarians in the technical services field need to have. Google provides a great and valuable service, but no matter how well their algorithms are written or how transparent their indexing methods are there will be problems with uninterrupted access to information if librarians, and that includes corporate librarians, don’t try to get their arms around the plethora of copyrighted digital information. Unfortunately, even with the advent of RDA (new cataloging rules) in 2008, these issues will probably remain unresolved.

Date: 2006/12/04 17:36:17, Link
Author: Kristine
I read some of Dembski's article and I can say it didn't do my soul any good at all.

Nor mine. *Switching from librarian to writer mode*

Jesus did this, God did that. Apostle John did this, Saul/Paul did that. Paris Hilton did this, George Clooney did that—it’s always somebody else, not us, never us who write things, as it were, in the book of life, but of course it is us. Religion (or at least Dembski’s religion) is like the first form of television—making people live through the stories of others instead of regarding themselves as creative entities in our own right, when of course we all create something just by existing.

I actually see a certain amount of poetic ability in Dembski; however, creativity, even explored within a religious framework, puts one inevitably in conflict with highly rigid religiosity and puritanicism, and so what dies on the cross, in my view, is Dembski's imagination, over and over again. (Ironically he talks about pain when, quite frankly, seeing someone regard his humanity as “sin” is painful for me to see.)

I think that it is high time that we tell our own stories, instead of rehashing those of the ancient Israelites.

*Switches to must-produce-yet-another-paper mode*

Date: 2006/12/04 21:08:28, Link
Author: Kristine
Sorry that I missed this from VMartin:

Since the folks here like nice english, I dug out something from prominent writer and former scientist Nabokov on mimicry - of course attitude is antidarwinian one -

Hey literary giant: Nabokov's real point was that mimicry involved deception, but not necessarily strict duplication.

I'm afraid that he may have anthropomorphized his butterflies and perhaps attributed intentionality to them, but it hardly stacks up to intelligent design, as in G*d. Nice try.

Date: 2006/12/04 23:19:07, Link
Author: Kristine
I. just. wrote. 7. dang. pages. of my paper. And some ranting woman was thrown out of the library tonight while I was trying to work. Speaking of which:

U-Denyse would like to underscore that "mind and brain appear to be in different dimensions," providing comfort to those who would like to retain some sort of dualism.

Dualism like stupid/not stupid?

This is exactly the third time I managed to make out what Denyse has said. Good for me. I'm on a roll.

So, does U-Denyse think that the water in a waterfall occupies a different dimension than the action of "falling" committed by the waterfall? Or doesn't it take order to make a...waterfall? Duh, Denyse. Consciousness is an action of the brain; it's not floating around in another dimension any more than the "falling" of the water is. If there's anything in another dimension, it's Denyse's mind-brain.

Date: 2006/12/05 09:19:21, Link
Author: Kristine
Plus, after the water has dispersed, evaporated, etc. (after the Fall)


Falling water is sinful, but steam is angels. I got it!

I wrote that down! :D

Date: 2006/12/05 11:58:38, Link
Author: Kristine
I mean, who ever saw a dog breeding with a cat? Have any of you ever seen a 'dat'?"

No, but I’ve seen a cog!  :D

This hit my funnybone too, from the My Day Job thread:

Does Dr. Dembski read these blogs?

Well, he posts there, doesn't he? I assume that he reads what he writes. (If he doesn't it would explain a lot.) I think poor Douglas meant "these comments," and specifically, the questions directed at WAD.

And that's a good question!

It's kind of like Waiting for God(ot) over there. Poor Douglas was up at 4:25 a.m. wondering.

I, the nice girl that I am, even told WAD about a broken link on his page--like a hangnail! It drives me nuts!--and it's still there.

Maybe dat cat reads dis blog?  :)

Date: 2006/12/05 15:37:48, Link
Author: Kristine
To call any mutation “random” requires that you demonstrate 1) the unverse is not entirely deterministic

Well, that's interesting because I've seen video of Dembski insisting that intelligent design does not make the universe deterministic. Anyway, who besides B.F. Skinner (no biologist, he) pleads for determinism anyway? Dawkins doesn’t, despite the consequences that people attribute to the “selfish gene” argument.

Date: 2006/12/05 21:06:19, Link
Author: Kristine
Lolita is one of the landmark novels of my youth.

Mine too!

Got that? Love it down.

I write it so!

(Someone help me.)  :D

Date: 2006/12/05 22:05:45, Link
Author: Kristine
A comment that wasn’t worth saving  

I thought Jesus loves and saves all the little comments.

It would be nice if PaV and others had at least a rudimentary understanding of evolutionary theory, at least catch up to the scientific literature circa 1859.

First they'd have to recognize that their (and my) hero Isaac Newton (the real one) said that, in order for his theory of gravity to work, action at a distance was required.


Date: 2006/12/06 10:37:05, Link
Author: Kristine
Checkin’ out the “womens’ programs” at the SBTS site (‘cause they got women’s studies of a sort, don’t cha know):

Women in this generation need women teachers who are not only committed to the importance of studying God's Word but who are also formally trained to do biblical exposition. Woman-to-woman teaching is the biblical method of choice (Tit. 2:3-5).

Gaaa. In other words, no matter what Kristine would study there (just hypothetically, people) she would in all likelihood be tutored at no extra charge in The Female Hate Stare 101. Because all I have to do is walk into some situations where there are a lot of women (especially a church) to rub other women the wrong way. Don’t know how I do it. I get along much better with men; always have. (And that means men of all stripes; I’m a conservative magnet. I dated more conservatives in college than liberals.) Why? Beats me.

I can remember who made the comment here about us all being malajusted at 17 (moi , guilty! I was the biggest dork!;), and some of us are still malajusted misfits :) but I would just die in this environment. People go where they feel wanted and it’s a mystery to me how someone would reject an educated father’s acceptance of evolution and run to this kind of cloister, while at the same time I rejected my working-class father’s creationism and, without any real intention to do so, ended up a bohemian. When I watched Dembski’s sermon it brought back memories of church that weren’t as unpleasant as I expected (I wanted to be accepted by the people in my congregation as much as anybody else), but also reminded me how many hours I sat there knowing the Bible upside down and backwards yet also knowing that I was not one of these people, that I didn't believe this stuff, and had no one else around who was like me. So why am I different? Would anyone at UD say that I was designed that way?

Doubt it.

Date: 2006/12/06 13:50:13, Link
Author: Kristine
You asked for it, Louis:


Are you confident and pretty with big tits? That usually does it my experience.*


/spunk maximized

You already know the answer to two--you just want info on the third. Well, sorry!

/spunk background  :D

I know all about Em Are Ess degrees, but they must have some female graduates. I wonder what their First Lady would make of me.

Lou, did you really go to Bob Jones U? *Horror film shriek*

I'm going to crank-call Louis tonight after class. That okay?

Date: 2006/12/06 15:47:29, Link
Author: Kristine
I've always wondered if you were pretty.

You be the judge. I must say, I'm tired of the MF snakes on this MF plane(t)...

So, I think I’ll go float in another dimension with the UD steam angels, like TerryL:

My favorite Chesterton quote: “The falsity of religion disproves the existence of God no more than the existence of a forged five pound bank note disproves the existence of the Bank of Scotland.”

Ahem. The falsity of Piltdown Man disproves evolution no more than the (all together now!;) existence of a forged five pound bank note disproves the existence of the Bank of Scotland. Which I've never seen by the way. Turn about is fair play…

How many snarky evilutionist steam angels can dance in a bead of sweat on WAD's upper lip? Is he hoist by his own petard from heaven by a golden chain or an iron one? If a man makes a statement about intelligent design in the woods of Waco and a Minnesota woman isn’t around to hear it, is he still cute?

Date: 2006/12/07 12:43:02, Link
Author: Kristine
[Warning: length]

Unlike Lou I never was a preacher but I was the best student in my Sunday school/Bible classes, even when I wasn’t buying it anymore. (And why were the bored, disinterested students the ones who have hung on to the faith?)

I was talking to a co-worker who has a similar background about how it drives us nuts when believers violate the spirit of their religion in following the letter of scripture (i.e., charlatans). I think that atheists who had a religious upbringing never quite discard that concern for the spirit of what we’ve been taught; I wish the UD folks would consider motivation for our “materialism.” If the church really wants only mediocre minds and lukewarm conformists, that is definitely the message I received. And if it wants people to lie, then who occupies the moral high ground?

Re: Myths. Dembski said in his sermon that moral pain was more important than the physical pain. Whatever you think of that opinion, I haven’t been able to forget it and it did raise a few questions in my mind. Therefore, for the good of his soul, I would ask Dembski, if I could, what sacrifice he would be willing to make in the name of something else he spoke of, love of one’s neighbor. Specifically, I would like him to state yea or nay whether he subscribes to some of the loopier beliefs espoused by his colleagues (denial of the HIV-AIDS link, global warming denial, etc.) and if he would be willing to sacrifice these, at least, in the face of their possible detrimental effect upon other peoples’ lives—and speak out against them.

Also he should speak out against those arguments for intelligent design that he knows are mere creationist restatements. Why would he not do this, if there is scientific evidence instead? ;)

I understand how difficult and frightening it is to sacrifice one’s deeply-held notions and endure the subsequent moral pain of uncertainty, but it seems to me that Dembski is talking about a choice that a lot of us have already made—but he doesn’t see that, since our choices took us away from Jesus. Well, I’m not asking Dembski to give up Jesus; I’m willing to step away from that position, though I retain all the objections to religion that I’ve stated previously.

I’d be willing to draw the line behind the ones that I’ve previously drawn; would he be willing to draw the line somewhere? Pseudoscience has real consequences in people’s lives. So does valid science. Isn’t the pursuit of science an expression of love of one’s neighbor?

Date: 2006/12/07 14:34:17, Link
Author: Kristine
Bad hair day?

No, not at all. Why?  :p

I think maybe some church lady might be giving my comment the hate stare.

"Let her comment, Denyse, let her comment, we'll just ignore her. Shhhh. Then when she leaves the table to go to the ladies' room, everyone leave! And stick her with the bill (not that Bill). Wah-ha-ha-ha!"

I'll just put it on my NASA charge. Billions of $$ worth of baby back ribs. ~smack!~

Date: 2006/12/07 16:34:00, Link
Author: Kristine
I couldn't reconcile "God is Love" with "No man cometh unto the Father but by me".  The short answer is they go to ####.  There is no "Age of Accountability" in the Bible.  That's a feel-good church doctrine to appease the masses.

Wow. At least when I finally had the courage to ask about how God could be so mean, killing the Egyptian first-born for what their parents had done, I was told (because my church wasn’t fundy, although some people were) that God sends all children to heaven no matter what they believed, because they were children. But I had already bought out of Christianity at around age nine or ten, anyway. That’s pretty young. Considering that I continued on alone in this for years, I raise the “design” question again.

I'd certainly be interested in reading and commenting on them.

So would I.

Date: 2006/12/07 17:22:43, Link
Author: Kristine
Don't enable me Lou! Oops, too late.


Was that “crank” call last night good for you? Because it was confusing for me. You sounded like a woman—well, a woman imitating a man, anyway. And you’re so bitter about the Smithsonian. Did you have a film showing there that got yanked?

And when I asked for your address, you got all defensive: “I have a dress! I have a couple of dresses! Okay, they’re in my closet at my place in Canada, but still!” So you live in Canada?

Um. That was you, Louis, right?

Uh-oh.  :D

Date: 2006/12/07 21:20:10, Link
Author: Kristine
About half an hour ago, I deleted all the files on the TalkOrigins Archive.

Oh darn it, Wes. That's so frustrating. I'm sorry that you're still having problems although you say that the content will be restored, so that's good news.

That archive is one of the best resources I've ever come across.

Date: 2006/12/07 22:07:50, Link
Author: Kristine
What ? and give up the rapture of his ridiculous rabble of radical right wing reactionaries.

That sort of idolatry does not come cheap.

The Dorian Gray of a southern baptist school of tombstone writing has done a deal to get where he is.
For everlasting adulation by his followers he had to perform a miracle.

And what a miracle!

Yes, that's right, k.e. Color me stupid, but that's what I ask. I'm not asking him to quit his position, but at least condemn the "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" crap. Condemn Jonathan Wells for saying it. Post it at Uncommon Descent and turn the money-changers out of his temple. Draw a line somewhere.

Here's why. To show me how wrong I am, about everything. To save five nurses and a doctor detained in Libya and facing the death penalty for "deliberately infecting" Libyan children with AIDS. Because HIV transmitted by dirty needles doesn't cause AIDS, you know.

Because Dembski knows all about sacrifice, you know, and how the so-called moral pain of a transcendant god is worse than the physical pain of being an innocent nurse or doctor tortured in a Libyan cell, whereas I, a materialist, need moral instruction from him, because I don't have any values or beliefs, being an atheist. Yeah.

Yep. A miracle! #### right I ask this of Dembski. He wants to teach me something about love thy neighbor? Go ahead, Bill--teach. Because idolatry does not come cheap--that's for sure.

(He should thank his God that I'm not in his philosophy class.)

Date: 2006/12/08 17:08:02, Link
Author: Kristine
Nothing empirical should be ousted. Only the just-so stories and interpretations that are the evidence + atheistic (or anti-ID) materialism masquerading as science.

Blah, blah, blah. Poor Rudyard Kipling.

Naturally I don't get an answer from the perpetual 29-year-old (hey, I'm going to be 29 years old again soon, too!;), but may I say--

I'm tired of the just-so stories about "Just-So Stories"!

You guys must think I'm so naive. Well, guilty. Nothing I post there does much good. Okay, fine, I'm on record at least--and Dembski says he's not a creationist--I'm holding him to it. Whatever, I know it's all a feint.

Date: 2006/12/08 20:06:30, Link
Author: Kristine
Here's a question for you to ask him, then:

From the DI's Wedge Document, listed under "Five Year Objectives" of the intelligent design movement:

Oh, there's already a rationale, all prepared. The Wedge Document is just an urban legend of Darwinists to whip up hysterical fear in the populace. It doesn't say what "we" say it says (although anyone can read it for him/herself). :angry:

He's a lithe contortionist, all right, Bill is. But I'm a persistent little gymnast myself.

Date: 2006/12/08 21:07:11, Link
Author: Kristine

Mine too!

Got that? Love it down.

I write it so!

(Someone help me.)    

Er, help you do what, exactly?  

Surprise me!  :D

I still think Martin is JAD.

He isn't enough of a skirt-chaser to be JAD. (Or else he's been burned where it don't show.)

Date: 2006/12/09 10:37:49, Link
Author: Kristine
Bad Kristine, bad. She belly danced off the edge of the earth again.

Sorry but I want to know! No, I don't really expect an answer, but if they're going to wave the ghastly materialist flag, I get to wave the ghastly Jonathan Wells' HIV-theory flag. They want a big tent, big enough to cover the whole earth? I get to dance in it, then.

This stuff affects peoples' lives. Destroying science in the name of science will hurt people. Don't they see that? Do they care at all?

(And I'm proud that I slipped in the Tripoli Six over there.  I'm living my values, at least.)

And they need to lighten up over there BTW. What a bunch of stuffed shirts.    
sadly this is a perfect example of an atheist who has not used logic and reason to arrive at the inevitable conclusion that logic and reason are meaningless in the atheist’s world.

I'm supposed to wear sackcloth and ashes because I'm an atheist, or I'm not a "true" atheist? Sheesh. I guess assuming I ever get my fiction published I should ban my own books, or I'm not a "true" writer. Or maybe I'm talking to a bunch of baptists and what I really need to do is adopt the American abbreviated burkha (blouse, skirt below the knee, sensible pumps) and cover it up, and never move certain areas of my body ever, ever again. You whore, Kristine!

Date: 2006/12/09 11:54:25, Link
Author: Kristine
However that appears to be the same with all anti-IDists (ie IDiots)

Anti-IDists are IDiots? What?
How many times have you been banned?

Rub it in, Zachriel!  :D

I think they have a soft spot in their hearts for me, I really do.
they think that they can erect any strawman of ID they want and then attack that strawman as if it really meany something- and the sad part is they really think they did attack something real.

Real like HIV-AIDS, Jonathan Wells?!

This is obviously a sore spot at UD. It also happens to be something I am seriously concerned about. They're engaging in semantic tricks while evolution encroaches upon people's lives.

A succinct review I found of Dembski's book, which I do intend to read, finally, over break. The review sums it up: "My main disappointment, however, is that Dembski is not interested in understanding life and evolution." I'm hip.

Date: 2006/12/09 13:37:49, Link
Author: Kristine
I have now been challenged to "prove" that life is its own meaning. (Huh?) Well, I'm kind of busy at the library working on my take-home final right now, so I'll just send a distress call:

Anyone out there up on their math? Because I'm not--and math is the only realm in which one "proves" things. :D

But seriously, this is a joke--right? This cannot be real.

It's performance art--gotta be.

Date: 2006/12/09 13:55:51, Link
Author: Kristine
"a bit of street theater"

Ah, yes! Thank you!

I do believe that I could make my case in an interpretive dance...any ideas how I do that at UD? I am willing!

Date: 2006/12/09 14:33:21, Link
Author: Kristine
Oh Yes... a lap dance...
*clutches dollar bills excitedly*

Hold it right there, gadje! :D "Think a gypsy dances for coins?" (From the film Latcho Drom.)

Let's take it off-site, Richard.

Here you go.  ;)

Date: 2006/12/09 14:51:40, Link
Author: Kristine
Okay, how many of you guys went rushing right over there?  :D

Kristine - Got a 404, might want to check the link.

"Easy, tiger!"

I meant to send you to a 404, toots. I looked up that page especially. Of all the posts at UD, that's my absolute fav!

Punt!  :p

Date: 2006/12/09 22:52:19, Link
Author: Kristine
I think you're the closest they ever get to a girl that they don't have to inflate first.

The Inflatable Designer is female?
According to that guy at UD logic and reason are meaningless to an atheist. I didn't realise we need a belief in God to make logic and reason meaningful.

Yeah, well, I just sent in my last post at UD. Swan song about how life is to be lived instead of sitting around coming up with all these %^$# purposes for our lives that I worked so hard rebelling against in my dog-kicking small town! Because where I grew up, girls weren't supposed to be dumb but they also weren't supposed to be too smart (and certainly not writers, dancers, or actresses). Because here in Minnesota, an "interesting" life is a nice way of saying "you're soul is devil's barbeque." Because I was not a hit in my hometown.

Which was this center of nowhere, by the way.

North St. Paul snowman sums it up: white,

Yeah, #### doesn't seem so bad.

Date: 2006/12/09 23:12:31, Link
Author: Kristine
Oh, BTW--Christmas time in Minnesota means that it's someone-stole-the-baby-Jesus-from-someone's-nativity-scene-on-the-front-lawn time of year again.

Usually the poor baby Jesus is recovered. Once, it was found on some lady's kitchen table while she was being busted for drug dealing.

This dim x-mas bulb chick was sorting her drug money at the table next to the Savior. The cops asked her if the baby Jesus was stolen and (ScaryFacts, you'll appreciate this) she denied it. I learned about this at work, and I asked, "Did she deny it three times?" :p

Not-shiniest-star on the Christmas tree chick was arrested and Jesus was returned to the custody of his front lawn. The guy who stole it is still loose. True story.

Date: 2006/12/10 10:53:35, Link
Author: Kristine
Would you believe me if I told you that I graduated from high school at North High in North St. Paul (go Polars!. . .or something).  

No way!

"Hail, Polars, one and all, we're there for you/
fight, fight for North St. Paul/we'll see you through..."

or something. What year? I hope you didn't know me then for the big (well, little) ugly dork I was...I almost won "shyest" for my class except not enough people knew my name...  ;)

How come you still get to post at UD anyhow?

Beats me. In my experience people don't give up easily on trying to save me.

[Quoting no one in particular from N. St. Paul]: "If you just try hard enough, Kristine, you can become a totally different person! Like everyone else. Because you're special! God loves you just as you are, and He can change you, every atom!" Wow, that's not confusing or anything, right?

BTW, isn't Waco, Texas where Dr. Pepper was invented? Appropriate. Be an original! Drink Dr. Pepper! (Like everybody else.)  ???

Date: 2006/12/10 12:21:45, Link
Author: Kristine
News flash: Atheists don't give away their money. Atheists don't believe in charity. We're a bunch of horrible monsters.

Got that? Write it down! :angry:

So why don't they line us up against a wall and shoot us already?

I hereby take my leave of this thread, because I have no further interest in visiting UD or reading what they have to say. I don't need their crap. Besides, I have a final to work on.

Just unbelieveable. If I want emotional abuse I'll move back to good old North St. Paul.

See you guys.

Date: 2006/12/10 22:35:30, Link
Author: Kristine
Okay, okay...people want me back. Well, thanks.
The trick is to not get mad at their inanity.  The trick is to laugh at the foolishness that gets displayed.  To laugh at the sheer utter tard that spews forth from them, and realize that they don't even know how tardalicious they are being!  That just makes it all the better.

I think I have a pretty good sense of humor but when I reply seriously (and with too much personal detail, because I'm a naive idiot), I feel like a fool who has poured out her guts, obscenely, in front of others, only to be shot down. The supreme irony is that I'm waiting to hear if my sponsor child in the Philippines survived the typhoon.

No one over there believes in God any more than I do, I have concluded. Religion is just a way for them to win an argument by any means. However I do believe that Dembski is sincere about his faith but he's obviously not involved in that blog.

I hear that Denyse may be leaving, too (from a notoriously unreliable source).

Date: 2006/12/11 11:20:26, Link
Author: Kristine
To spend more time with her 48 other blogs, perhaps.

:O  I blogged about the pinched schoolmarm behind this little nugget without even connecting it to Denyse! She's behind Christianity.caca? DO'L!

Date: 2006/12/11 19:16:02, Link
Author: Kristine
Good luck on the final anyhow.

Thanks mcc, I'm two brandy-cokes from being finished. :p

I've heard that the instances of men wearing goatees and the sale of pitchforks have been on the rise in the last twenty years.  Perhaps, and I think Denyse might be able to come up with the supporting article, it's due to the a movement away from Christian values as men fall victim to the control of Satan.

Yeah, the sale of pitchforks coincides with the explosion of belly dancing in the late 1990s--early 2000s. Way to expose my evil plot, Steverino!

Geez, no wonder. They're onto me at UD.  ;)  (I really mean it, I can't look. I'm not going over there. Are they discussing unicorns again? Grown people, for pity's sake.)

Date: 2006/12/11 22:51:42, Link
Author: Kristine
The unrelated discipline of religion, gives additional insights to Q4:  Without any challenges, the world would be hideously boring and meaningless (Gil on self-refuting argumentation). Hmm, isn't he describing Heaven there?

Okay...yes I'm weak...peeking at Gildodgen's assertion:
If I were the perfect designer I would invent a perfect world in which nothing could possibly ever go wrong or present any challenges or adversity. But then my world would be hideously boring and meaningless (and there would be nothing to learn, because learning takes effort, and effort means challenge and adversity), so I would no longer be the perfect designer of a perfect world.

Dang that's brilliant. Just Nobel Prize stuff. Bring on the bad design, then!

Is he describing God here? Dembski says that God is perfect. Uh-oh, He must be bored, I wonder what He's doing. Gee, it's so quiet--and we know He's up there!  :p

Date: 2006/12/12 11:02:17, Link
Author: Kristine
God is perfect at all times. Except when He's not. But even then He's still perfect. Got it?


I mean, check please! Because I’ve eaten enough bull**** now and I think I’m going to barf. (No wonder obesity is a virtue.) :p

is prevented or inhibited by the moderation policy there.

I’m not prevented (and I’m certainly not inhibited!;). I stalked away from that thread, and haven’t gone back to see if one person stood up for me (probably not) because it just pushes my buttons to have the “without God you’re evil” crap thrown at me again by a bunch of finger-shaking prudes.

I must say if they want to pass themselves off as interested in “the science” they should make a concerted effort not to sound like some of my Sunday School teachers, who certainly never inspired me to want to be like them.

Date: 2006/12/12 15:25:01, Link
Author: Kristine
Okay, I changed putz to schlemiel. Satisfied?

Well that brings up an interesting question: How many hypocrites called Jesus a “schlemiel” for not overthrowing the Roman Empire and getting crucified instead?

Just a little theological question to the Reverend from ghastly unsaved Salome here.

Oh, and that whole thing about “render unto Caesar.” Render what? Rend one’s garment in whining grief, as they are doing? If they’re going to make Judge Jones into a modern-day Herod, it still doesn't change the fact that Dembski made a bet about the outcome of the Dover trial and now has to turn water into that flask of scotch. He’s the one who issued the challenge. Sacrifice, man. It’s good for the soul.

And depending on who he wants to share that scotch with [wink!] it’s a whole lot more fun than O’Leary’s dreary wailing and turning water into brine.

Take that cup away from me! Know what I mean?

Date: 2006/12/12 17:34:29, Link
Author: Kristine
Holy crap the navel gazing is just unbelieveable.
“What would JESUS do?”

I’m guessing NOT side with the ACLU on anything.

Including the defense of Oliver North? Tad Jude?
He is Dr. Dembski...But yet again, this demonstrates the personal hate and prejudiced dislike of anti-intelligent design hacks...blah

It’s DR. Dembski, not MR. Dembski. Dr. Dembski has TWO PhDs...

Got that, Hooligans? You called him "Mr.!" What an insult! You must be a terrible person! But as I learned so quickly, calling him "Dr." (because he has doctorates) won't earn you any kindness, either.

Excuse me but I believe that Dr. Dembski has three Ph.D.s? (Yes, three more than I have, I admit it. I'm working on it. I do quite a bit of charity work and perform free for kids BTW.)
Guys, guys.  Let’s calm down about all of this...We have NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Judge Jones simply cut-and-pasted.  

Kudos to Matteo for showing maturity. Guys! Any women left over there, or did you scare them all away?

Date: 2006/12/12 18:52:00, Link
Author: Kristine
*Sigh* I finally had the nerve...

kharley, you are carefree and that’s how young people should be but keep in mind that the reason you can be carefree is that a lot of people aren’t.One of those days you will have cares, and life is not going to seem an adventure. You will likely find broken trust and heartache in love or business or law or politics.
When that should happen, rather than give in to disillusion, remember that Jesus’ sacrifice was real and that He loves you.

Can you believe this s***?

Just how "young" do you think I am tribune7?

You better go talk to God again. I think you misunderstood what he told you about my age, my past, or my responsiblities. As a matter of fact, when I was younger I had a lot of cares, the kind kids shouldn't have. For pity's sake I have a partner, and a mortgage, and student loans, and a whole wagonload of cares.

Smug little punk.
It’s not impossible, but it’s impossible to justify consistently.

It's not impossible for me not to be a horrible person, but it's impossible for me to "justify" it consistently! Thank you, WinglesS. Your generosity is overwhelming.

It's like trying to talk to an apple. After a while you just want to bite into it.

Date: 2006/12/12 22:23:44, Link
Author: Kristine
That barrel of puppies at UD:
You will likely find broken trust and heartache in love or business or law or politics.

Already got an inexplicable unrequited jungle-fever crush on their bespectacled creationist wizard, what else do they want? I'd sure like to evolve into a superlioness on an island with him as buffalo. R'arr! (Great link, Seizure Salad.)  :D

Date: 2006/12/12 23:47:24, Link
Author: Kristine
If I mix tofu and chicken, am I safe...?

Date: 2006/12/13 09:42:48, Link
Author: Kristine
It must be the devil-may-care pose you strike

And all that bathing in the coffee from discarded styrofoam cups at the Baptist chapel. I recommend it.
Crickey. Doesn't it hurt your neck to always be sitting like that?

Dude, you are talking to a belly dancer!
That Flash animation...Golly. That was... impressive...I can tell you that not everyone in the lineup is a member of the ACLU.

Yes, considering that at least one of them is not an American. Sick is what I call it. And I don't get why they're picking on you either, Wes. Geez, someone's mother was involved in this?

Well, Douglas over at UD at least has one hand still protruding from the quicksand:
Kind of cute, but the farting noises tended to drown out the points.

POINTS? You know, "he who smelt it dealt it." Ease up on the baked memes over thar, OE! Or at least light a couple for bipartisan sake.

Date: 2006/12/13 12:54:05, Link
Author: Kristine
Pffft @ scotch.

Dang, y'all! Like I know the big diff when we're still distillin' our own up here! (He's an engineer, natch.)

You know, this whole fart thingie is part of a larger theory of theirs, that talking came before laughing instead of visa versa. (So...God started talking, and Adam-n-Eve started laughing? Yeah, that's orthodox.)'s so simple: First came the fart.
Then came the laugh.
Then came the words, "Wasn't me."  :p

Date: 2006/12/13 16:37:29, Link
Author: Kristine
Who was the woman in the hat?

I believe that she is Barbara Forrest, historian of science, who testified at Dover.

She has an account of meeting Dembski before the trial. (She had to work her wiles.)

Date: 2006/12/13 23:57:49, Link
Author: Kristine
From the secret ID lab article:
Last week I learned that following his communication with New Scientist, Weber has left the board of the Biologic Institute. Douglas Axe, the lab's senior researcher and spokesman, told me in an email that Weber “was found to have seriously misunderstood the purpose of Biologic and to have misrepresented it”.

BWAHA! After intelligent design being "misunderstood" by everyone else, turns out that they "misunderstand" their own stupid theory! :p

So that's what they're doing in the lab: studying their own theory, trying to figure out what it is! What can I say; I am brilliant.

And when they finally discover something (bottle of single malt, perhaps?) they'll keep that secret, too.

"No one [hic!] understands me!"

Date: 2006/12/14 10:45:00, Link
Author: Kristine
Re the Judge Jones fartimaton, pegase adds a flower to the UD comment bouquet:
Does anybody have sent a message to “Jones” about this funny animation? It might be interesting to have his reaction.

Good idea, since it was so funny to see Jones' (what's with the quotes, BTW?) reaction to ID in the first place!  :D

And after Jones' renders his opinon about their opinion about his opinion, they'll get all mad again.

"Nobody [fart] will give us a [wind] break!"

Date: 2006/12/14 10:51:16, Link
Author: Kristine
Uh, I just thought of this: why would they want to know his opinion on the animation? He'll just copy down whatever the ACLU has already written on it (which of course they have, because they're not busy or anything). And slip Jones another payment. Yeah. :angry:

Date: 2006/12/14 12:18:43, Link
Author: Kristine
they probably all discuss it on their Double-Secret Creationist List (You know, the one where you're prohibited from discussing the age of the earth.)

And if HIV causes AIDS.
"Regardless of whether the science cuts any ice against evolution, one of the virtues is that it could provide a kind of model for how religiously motivated people can go into the lab."

To do what? Okay, they're in a "lab," but who wants to bet that they'll never come out again?

Wow, Steve Fuller is really full of it. And these people really do not get it! They have created a parody of sciency stuff to look really sciency, but they have no methodology and nothing to work with, and in the meantime true research will leave them in the dust of their Genesis.

ID Dudes. Read this. I am a chick. A chick gets this science stuff. A chick friggin' belly dancer lit-nerd gets it, and you don't. Embarrassed yet?  :angry:

Date: 2006/12/14 17:39:39, Link
Author: Kristine
Well I took Steve B at his word and pummeled him before I read that addendum. WTF? Does Dembski really think people at PT actually believe that stuff? If people like Steve B do it's because they have a self-aggrandizing mental illness and need a justification, but the regulars at Panda's Thumb? Come on.

At any rate, Fross at UD pulls on the reins:
It should be pointed out that no PT’er agreed with this troll and instead they pointed out how incorrect he was. So let us celebrate the rare instance where both sides agree. (that killing UD’ers is wrong and can’t be justified using a scientific theory of evolution) cheers

Cheers, Fross.

Date: 2006/12/14 22:45:07, Link
Author: Kristine
*Ring! Ring!*

VMartin: Hello? JAD, it's for you. It's the guys [hey!] at the Slippery Floor Saloon.

[Better than sticky, I say.]

JAD: Tell those worthless uncredentialed lesbos that I'm not home.

VMartin: He says he's not home. *Hangs up*

JAD: We have them on the run, Martin!

Date: 2006/12/15 11:34:27, Link
Author: Kristine
You know, I had some respect for Dembski untill now...Now he just seems like a sad, desperate little man, trapped in his maze of lies beyon hope of escape, doomed to be nothing but a worn-out performer, doing his same old shtick to raise the morale of the troops in an already lost war. It's sad, really.

My sentiments exactly and it is sad. I am paradoxically reminded of some advice given to me by someone on the other side regarding the company we keep; it seems that when Dembski was traveling around and debating scientists he was at least associating with them, but now he increasingly isn’t, and it shows. That Bible college seems to be the kind of place people go to lick their wounds and feel safe—well, we’re all human.

It’s never too late for anyone, though. And were I to pontificate again on the meaning of life I would say that even dead-end ideas like intelligent design help to make finding the right path possible for other creationists. That whole “kill the unfit” thread is absurd because if everyone passed on their genes no one would (because we’d all be extinct), and so death shapes life, and adventurous pseudoscientists at least show other people where not to go. In science, nothing is proved absolutely but at least we can determine what isn’t true, and perhaps in his way Dembski will help to do just that.

(How’s that for some homespun atheist nihilism! Just in time for the holidays.) :)

Date: 2006/12/15 17:19:00, Link
Author: Kristine
Hey, this link doesn't work, either! No fair!  

Arden, let it download. It's worth it. :D

Notice the little *burps* at the beginning of each new statement? I guess those OE baked memes are just coming out of both ends!  Next time I sit through a Dembski baptist chapel sermon, I want him to burp his entire speech! :p

" *fart!*!"  :D

Date: 2006/12/15 17:32:10, Link
Author: Kristine
BTW, what teen-agers sit around saying:

"Dude! 'We will enter an order permanently enjoining defendants from requiring teachers to denigrate the theory of evolution!' I cannot believe that any judge would rule this way! What a dweeb!"

"Yeah, Dude! 'The breathtaking inanity of the board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop, which has now been fully revealed...' So, like, okay, people lied and ID died. That's no excuse."

Oh, yeah. Bring on the TV series: My So-Called Designer!  :D

Date: 2006/12/16 15:11:50, Link
Author: Kristine
It’s a pity the mother doesn’t have to take a “character” class. If she did she might have enough character to write “under God” instead of “under dog” when quoting the United States Pledge of Allegiance.

Reality check: "under God" was added in the 1950s. I think the greatest generation had lots of character.
So dembski shows us that the design inference shows us who the designer is. Nice one.

But remember also that (all together now) we're not supposed to ask "Who designed the designer" because the question is absurd! That it is.  :D

Date: 2006/12/17 13:20:21, Link
Author: Kristine
Kristine you are witty.

Because I still have my wits.
So I would not ridicule prominent writers as Nietzsche or Nabokov who ridiculed darwinism.

Then quit associating Nietzsche or Nabokov with your ridiculous ideas. Nabokov especially were he alive would have a lot of fun ridiculing you. Read Despair and see yourself in the character Hermann (especially appropriate here for choosing and failing to pass himself off as another character in the book).

Oh. By the way:
If Truth is a woman, what then?
—Friedrich Nietszche :D

Date: 2006/12/17 13:49:52, Link
Author: Kristine
Jehu clown, clueless again:
If they make a big deal out of this, it will only succeed in painting Darwinists as a bunch of curmudgeonly old men who can’t bend but break under the weight of new ideas – and evidence.

Dawkins is a "girly man," I am (remember me?) a man. I wrote it down, but I didn't get it! :D

Date: 2006/12/17 22:15:38, Link
Author: Kristine
Let me suggest you all read your Old Testament ...and Jehu’s respectful treatment of Queen Jezebel (throwing her out a window and letting the dogs lap up her blood).

Oh, no wonder the modern Jehu at UD is the way he is.

Why does Dembski even bring that crap up? It's creepy.

Once or twice I've seen the snake-oil salesman seem to believe what he was saying. It's puzzling. Of all the IDers, Dembski's the only one I credit with enough intelligence to know that he's a con artist, but sometimes I wonder if I'm overestimating him.

I've wondered this too, but it's all beside the point now that I think he's gone off the deep end. It's stopped being funny for me. Bill Dembski, honey, please get some help. I am serious.

Date: 2006/12/18 10:00:14, Link
Author: Kristine
Brilliant analysis, stevestory.

For those of you who complain that there is a display of some kind of un-christian like display which in some way hurts Bill or ID; hey folks, this isn’t church, this isn’t the preachers corner. The ID movement isn’t the standard bearer for christianity.

I don't care a fig about how "christian" it was. No, I thought it was the standard bearer for science, UDudes. Right? And does this reflect well on a “scientist”? Does anyone see “dogmatic” Dawkins sinking to this level? Always on the Dawkins, Dr. Bill. Smoke of another fire there. Is Dembski rebelling against another father figure (since his own father was a professor who taught evolution?). That’s so transparent it’s almost cliché. Why is he always trying to “save” Dawkins?

Meanwhile, russ gets all OT (that’s Old Testy-ment, off-topic at any time in the real world):
Kind of harsh words from Jesus, would you agree? It seems to me that when enemies of truth then lead others astray, it is acceptable to use harsh rhetoric or ridicule.

Oh, that’s wonderful, just great. Enemies of truth, are we? So bring on the witch-burners. Well, I predict that tactic will backfire, too, just like the JJSoL fartimation (which is still backfiring even with the rear thrusters removed).

Date: 2006/12/18 10:03:22, Link
Author: Kristine
Oops, I should have said NT. That was a bad slip! :D

I'm losing my religion.

Date: 2006/12/18 10:20:29, Link
Author: Kristine
still think there's a third possibility, that 'VMartin' is neither a surly young dimbulb from Bratislava nor Dohn Javison, but someone like DaveTard, Paley, or O'Brien with WAY too much time on his hands, doing some piece of low-rent performance art.

I'm not sure about that. I can't see those people referring to Nabokov and Nietzsche and Heidegger et al., even to misrepresent them.

"Perfect woman"! *Sneer*  :angry:

Date: 2006/12/18 12:50:28, Link
Author: Kristine
I see the JJSchLaw as an instrument of grace to bring Dawkins and others to their senses (if such a thing were possible).

To our senses?

I thought "with God all things were possible." ;) No, Bill the Baptist has to do it all himself. Just how far gone is this man? Does he think he's one of the apostles now?

He's already got competition in Minnesota. I wonder what he'd make of Tinkerbell here.

Some time ago UD posted a heavily-edited piece from Root of All Evil? in which Dawkins recounts the story of the scientist who, faced with contrary evidence, changed his mind, prompting his students to applaud him. "When do we get to clap our hands raw for Dawkins?" crowed this post, and there was Bill D. in the comments, waving a pom-pom and blowing a kazoo, and apparently not caring that he was tacitly endorsing young earth creationism because the post ripped Dawkins for not even considering Ted Haggard's stupid young-earth assertion. (So closed-minded!;)

Bill Dembski, here's your chance. When do we get to clap our hands raw for you? (*Prediction: never.*)

Date: 2006/12/18 15:18:00, Link
Author: Kristine
Ken Miller responds to Dembski

OUCH! That's gotta hurt.

At least Miller can hand it back.I guess now we'll find out how much of a sense of humor Dembski really has. (Quoting the OT, haha, what a riot. Not holding my breath.) Will Miller's grace bring the guy to his senses? Stay tuned. (Same bat channel...)

Uh-oh...I sense a Jack Chick parody coming on...a little reworking of This Was Your Life.  :p

Date: 2006/12/18 15:54:44, Link
Author: Kristine
I’ve never, and I mean never, encountered an atheist who didn’t place their faith wholeheartedly in Darwin.

You met me, didn't you? (But I just go in one port and out the other over there.)

Yawn. The old "It's just another faith" razamataz. Same old, same old, back to routine Darwin bashing. I guess the JJSoL was a blowout. Ppphhhhttt.

At least things seem to be back to normal after the Old Testy moment. Crap, scary!  :(

Date: 2006/12/18 21:24:15, Link
Author: Kristine
Holy farts, I never thought I'd read writings from Richard Dawkins on Uncommon Descent! A duel? I must have been a really good girl for Santa! (How?) I will never understand how I can have a crush on both, but I do, and this is awesome. (Of course I know who's going to win, but this Salome is also a sucker for losers so don't worry, Bill the Baptist. Now put him against the ropes, Dawkins. But don't hurt him.)
I want to suggest that in this postmodern age the flatulence actually serves as a sophisticated rhetorical device that mirrors the subtext of flatulence that runs throughout Judge Jones’s decision.

Ah, good old postmodernism. Gives one an excuse for anything.

May I suggest that in this postmodern age my interpretive dance "Uncommon Descent into the Snake Pit" actually serves as a sophisticated rhetorical device that mirror the logical contortions that run throughout Bill Dembski's rants.

Date: 2006/12/18 21:38:57, Link
Author: Kristine
Actually *cough* there are not a lot of degree-holders in the sciences who think of becoming librarians, in both academia and industry.

There seems to be a real need for them. (It's apparently so hard to fill the open positions they'll even hire those with a B.A. in the humanities, something I'm hoping to exploit.) A lot of government institutions, such as the Smithsonian, don't even require an MLIS degree.

These are not "shushing matron" positions, but good paying and fulfilling jobs if you like to work with primary sources and other literature, and doing text and online research for others. One speaker who visited my class described being a reference librarian in chemistry (she did not have a science degree either, so had to undergo some crash training), and it sounded like fun to me.

Just putting that out there.

Date: 2006/12/18 23:36:56, Link
Author: Kristine
Perhaps you should look at the work of Spiegelman and others on evolution of RNA molecules in an RNA replicase environment. They have found that, repeatedly, if you ’seed’ such a solution with an RNA molecule, it will converge on a particular size and form of ‘optimal’ replicator, sometimes called Spiegelman’s minivariant.

Dembski (quoting Goodwin):  
But the interesting result was that this evolution went one way: toward greater simplicity.

Oh, come now, Bill. This is hardly a damning riposte. Dawkins is talking about replicators--of course this would decrease the complexity. (Perhaps this very phenomenon gives certain structures their "designed" appearance by streamlining them and shedding repetitive features? Hm?) He outright says that "in real life of course, the criterion for optimisation is not an arbitrarily chosen distant target but SURVIVAL. " He's not talking necessarily about complexity in this particular case.

That the best you can do?

Date: 2006/12/19 12:22:59, Link
Author: Kristine
All I want for Christmas is my toot underneath:

Whoopie!  :D

Date: 2006/12/19 17:33:01, Link
Author: Kristine
Let me ask some christians that may be here, "What was God's purpose in creating man?"

Then after you've pulled an answer out of your butt, like say "He wanted souls to harvest," ask yourself, "And why would God want to do that? What's the purpose of it?"

"Life started on Earth because some ancient alien race decided to pan sperm all over it."


"So that intelligence would arise."


"To make more planets inhabited by intelligence."


"Good question."

I know the answer: so that intelligence can market interstellar party novelties! Don't pull the answer out of your butt, place it under!

And that's the truth. *Raspberries*  :p

Date: 2006/12/20 12:26:02, Link
Author: Kristine
Well, I think the “blasphemy challenge” by Dawkins is silly, and obviously designed :) to provoke outrage. Dawkins is a rabble-rowser, no doubt about that.

However, that whole “unforgiveable sin” line by the church does foster some pure-obsessional behavior, which is a subset of obsessive-compulsive disorder (“I’m not going to think it…I won’t think it…I just thought it! OMG, am I damned now?” etc.) that is truly painful for a believer, and ultimately destructive emotionally. It can be cathartic to think the terrible thought and then realize how ridiculous it all is. (Anyway, the holy spirit is the “sustainer of the world” and that’s the one thing I as an atheist can get behind, even in just a symbolic way--sustaining the world. Absolutely.)

I can understand why the guys at UD are upset at this, but do some actually believe Dawkins is sending people to ####? What? Come on. Don’t they ever question this whole gumball-machine, eternally-damned factory?

Imagine on judgement day that was you in the video and it was being replayed. There’s nothing to gain and everything to lose in this. Please join me in a simple prayer for the young victims of this stunt.

Being damned for all eternity for thinking? Well, what can I say? Murderers and rapists, going to heaven, and thought-criminals, to ####. Just nuts. Bad theology. And I’m the one who had all of that Bible study.

Date: 2006/12/20 12:44:55, Link
Author: Kristine
Ah! Thank you for the correction.  ;)

Date: 2006/12/20 16:42:43, Link
Author: Kristine
There is no magic sentence that gets one irrevocably damned.

Well, I’m glad to hear it because people are being taught just that! “All you have to do is say it once, or think it…” All this attempted mind-control leads to is one of the most common forms of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder that there is, the pure obsessional—the fear of one’s dark thoughts (and, fed by the fear/fascination, the obsession to commit the thought again and again in an endless loop of misery). Great technique.

Even Tammy Faye Baker wrote about being unable at times to think the thought, then being terrified that she had damned herself. I remember going through this as a young girl and it sucks. Poor superstitious Dembski is having a predictable wig-out about it (I hope this isn't picked up by Fox News, uggghhh), and here's someone at UD:
I am sure Oxford professors have more important things to do than taking on all the various false gods. Taking the major one on and making Him an example is far more efficient and safe. Harrumph.

Yeah, just remember, ID doesn’t tout the Big G as the “major one” designer! Harrumph.

However, I do think people have as much right to ridicule Allah or Shiva or whoever. The whole point is that there is no such thing as thoughtcrime.

Date: 2006/12/20 20:56:07, Link
Author: Kristine
Larry Moran banned.

Larry Moran // Dec 20th 2006 at 9:03 am

I’ve posted a message aboout your abuse of the term “Darwinism.” Denyse OLeary Never Learns. Why do Intelligent Design Creationists insist on making fools of themselves every time they open their mouths? It ain’t rocket science. Modern evolutionary theory is not called “Darwinism,” it’s called “modern evolutionary theory.” Duh!

Comment by Larry Moran — December 20, 2006 @ 9:03 am
7. DaveScot // Dec 20th 2006 at 10:59 am

Larry, why do Darwinists insist on calling ID creationism?

You’ll need to answer on your own blog because you’re no longer welcome on this one.

Comment by DaveScot — December 20, 2006 @ 10:59 am


Date: 2006/12/20 21:05:47, Link
Author: Kristine
(Oops. Two copies of the banning for the library. Dang server!;)
Based upon Dave’s earlier post. I offer a proposal….

Maybe utilizing OverwhelmingEvidence, this site and others blogs. Start your own YouTube Reply to the “blasphemy…” site.

Except, respond to them with love. Have everyone send greetings, prayers, words of love, songs of joy, from Christ teachings and the Disciples.

This goes everything against my original leanings, being a man… yada, yada. But what I’ve learned since coming to Christ is this is exactly how his philosophy works.

Being a woman, yada, yada, I cynically think the next generation of flash animations is going to be something else.
But we already have messages of love for the lost.

Date: 2006/12/20 21:59:25, Link
Author: Kristine
Gaaack! When you guys figure women like this out, let me in on it! Okay?
That’s so vulgar.

Oh, what now, Denyse? OMG what happened. It must be something awful. Really, really terrible.
In my (Roman Catholic) tradition, we sing the Creed every week. It is much more genteel, and makes a good deal more sense than yelling “I am a Darwinist.”

Okay, you got me thar, but who the heck yells "I am a Darwinist"? (Especially after you met Larry Moran?) Are you talking about people being tortured with a vise? "Say you're a Darwinist! Say it!" Egad.
It is true that our Christian doctrine of the Trinity is incomprehensible, but that in principle does not make it false. Any proper doctrine of God must be incomprehensible. (Free unsolicited advice: If you are interested in religion and run into a sect with a simple, comprehensible doctrine of God, grab your hat and wallet and car keys and run.)

I presume that she means out of the church.

Do you get that, people? If it starts to make sense, make like Sybil and split. (That explains a lot.)

Freud: "Denysewoman--what does she want?"  :O Danged if I know.

Date: 2006/12/20 22:09:04, Link
Author: Kristine
No-lady Lolita here wonders how many other personalities there are that share the body. Maybe only one of them knows and has interacted with Kazmer Ujvarosy. It would seem that JAD is not the personality in possession of all the memories and thus is not the memory for The Others.

I wonder which personality plays the piano. (Ardalion? Humbert Humbert?) Well, without hypnosis I guess we'll never know.

Date: 2006/12/21 09:19:39, Link
Author: Kristine
They need a few weeks to figure out how to spin it.

Well, Dembski loves George Bush so much, he’ll just ape him ;) and say, “Sticking Cobb County was never our policy.”

Date: 2006/12/21 12:29:38, Link
Author: Kristine
After mulling over the recent blasphemy challenge brouhaha, I have a concern I’d like to express. Spiritual matters aside, I want to draw attention to the potential psychological ramifications of committing such an act as the challenge requires. As long as the person remains an atheist (or at least a non-Christian), I see no problems. However, what if he or she were to come to believe later in life that Christianity is true and that he or she had committed a sin for which no forgiveness can be attained and for which the penalty is eternity in ####?

That people’s beliefs can change as they go through life is true. That people can and have converted from atheism to Christianity is also true. And I submit that if an atheist were to come to believe that Christianity is true and that he or she had committed a necessarily damning act that this has the potential to cause traumatic psychological distress. I find it especially bad that the people who are doing this are targeting the most impressionable members of our society—our youth.

Let me make it clear right now that I do not oppose the rights of people to express their beliefs (or lack thereof) on YouTube or anywhere else. I think that even the choice of a person to blaspheme the Holy Spirit is one that he or she should be free to make. What I do oppose is a public campaign which encourages people—especially young people, whose capacities to assess their worldviews and to make informed, responsible decisions based upon them are generally not on par with those of adults—to commit an act which carries with it potentially disastrous psychological consequences. I hereby request that atheists who read this voice their displeasure that such a campaign is being conducted.

Larry Moran:    
I’m very concerned about Christian youth, especially if they recite the Apostles’ Creed or believe in the first few commandments. What if they convert to Hinduism when they become adults. (gasp! )

Won’t this have “potential psychological ramifications?” Maybe we should be careful about forcing young people to say things in church that they might regret later on?

Nah, such concerns don’t bother religious people. For them, logic and consistency isn’t such a big deal.

No wonder we call you IDiots.

I let this through in case anyone was wondering why Moron got banned. -DaveScot  
Comment by Larry Moran — December 21, 2006 @ 7:30 am


Date: 2006/12/21 15:39:47, Link
Author: Kristine
No, I've purposely blocked you twice. We maintain a zero tolerance policy on OE. Bill has specifically told us, the moderators, that OE is intended as a safe haven for students interested in ID. As in, not Darwinists. If you want to make your arguments try them on UD where the moderation policy is more lenient.

Was that subtle irony? I guess I can't see it.

No, no, it's not ironic at all. This isn't censorship. Remember, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it isn't a duck! Michael Behe would call this--deduction!
Good luck trying out your argument at the Jehu mill, firebird. May you rise from the ashes like a phoenix and fly ("Impossible! What good is half a plane?")  :p

Date: 2006/12/22 18:53:49, Link
Author: Kristine
Great Scott!  
Forrest needs to sit down, shut-it and then get back in the kitchen and fix me a chicken pot-pie.

…did i say that out loud?

Oh, har de har har. :angry: And he has his own cheerleader: FTheKids (allegedly a woman).

Pot-pie. Kettle-pie. Poop-pie.

Did I [it's capitalized, twit] just say that out loud? (Well, I typed mine.) Is my cat a feline? Is ID in the toilet?

Rev. Dr. Lenny, I've joined with you. ID is dead. (shrug)  :D

Date: 2006/12/23 03:01:29, Link
Author: Kristine
The chip on the shoulder of WmAD is truly huge. Even now he continues to surprise me

Me too. I have become quite concerned.

It's so obvious that ID is going down, and that should hardly be a surprise to him. There's no substance to this stuff, but he's driven to make it a personal defeat, as if his entire future was yoked to this 1990s "adventure," and to seek out people to blame, instruct, and punish (or "save"). I really don't know the guy at all but I certainly get the impression that he's changed. I don't know how I can say that except that his writing has become suddenly shrill and boring, and he certainly never bored me before.

And I've seen this kind of behavior before, unfortunately.

Date: 2006/12/23 14:43:14, Link
Author: Kristine
From the good fairy evo-genie...or if you prefer, from the little sister that you never had (ah, quantum opportunities missed!;) :

Merry Christmas, happy Hanukhah, shimmying Solstice (past), and a jolly old Darwin/Mendel New Year!

(Don't forget Mendel.)  :D

Date: 2006/12/23 15:14:48, Link
Author: Kristine
Dembski's Jan. 2006 lecture at the University of Kansas:

Link didn't work for me.  ???

BTW I've watched cute stuff preach that "Reach of the Cross" sermon about ten times! You guys shouldn't enable me.  ;)  (Don't worry, the theology's not sinking in any more than it did with Bible study. I have quite the immunity built up.)

Date: 2006/12/24 12:20:58, Link
Author: Kristine

I don't know that I want to visit UD again--at any rate lemme think about it. We're on our way out...

And Juju--there's no such thing as an ex-harpy. Just warning you.  :D

Date: 2006/12/24 15:50:12, Link
Author: Kristine
Okay, I'm home again, and I'll deliver the card-link if you want. I'm writing a cute poem to go with it. Just tell me if you've all written your greetings, and Christmas harpy here will flap on over to bring them the bundle o'joy.


Date: 2006/12/24 16:34:59, Link
Author: Kristine
Thanks. Best Send it before Jebus' B'day.
Done! Let's see if it appears.

Here's the poem that I whipped out rather quickly for them:
"Dear WAD and gents and ladies:
Completely off-topic, but affectionately meant, with visions of shimmy-plums and everything.

A holiday card to UD from AtBC [snip linky]

And I wrote a poem for you.

(Some inaccuracies, but that’s poetry for you.)

T’was the night before Christmas
and all through the world,
not a creature had evolved yet,
not even a bird.
The stars were all hung
from the cliff-tops it seemed,
but the roiling oceans
bubbled and dreamed.

The pre-Cambrian children
were snug in their sludge,
with visions of mollusks
and trilobite fudge

When, what with a patter
three kingdoms arrived
bearing the gifts of
two more, to make five!

On Cambrian! On Ordovician! On Silurian goo!
On Devonian! On Carboniferous! On Permian, too!
From the lowest prokaryotic to the tallest dinosaur—
now dash away, dash away, from the meteor roar!

So up the food chain the mammals grew,
with a brain-cage of goodies, and you and me, too.
And as Homo erectus was turning around,
Down from the tree St. Nick came with a bound.
He was covered in hair, from his head to his foot,
And his elves were all tarnished with ashes and soot.
A bundle of sticks he had flung on the briar,
And looked like he was about to invent fire.

His eyes—how they twinkled! his dimples how merry!
His cheeks were like breadfruit, his nose like a berry.
He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,
Making footprints in the creek bed, then turned with a jerk.
And laying his finger alongside his nose,
he startled the primates with his Ho Ho Ho!s

He sprang to a branch, and brachiated like mad,
and away his elves followed, for none had been bad.
And thanks to this we have speech to describe this sight.
So happy Christmas to all, and to all a good night!"

So happy Christmas or Hanukhah or whatever, all you crazy people at AtBC!

Date: 2006/12/24 17:34:00, Link
Author: Kristine
I hereby resolve to forgive them, for perhaps they know not what they do at UDoodle when they excuse Wells' Dadaesque "citations" and his HIV-don't-do-AIDS jive, and when they make their angry knife-in-the-back flashing farts and happy-diploid claims n'such.

I shall try to blind them with science and humor, because ranting and hurling my jingle-skirt in a huff didn't work.

Moreover I do already have resolutions to read certain books and papers, write certain writing projects, get certain grades, survive certain upcoming workplace projects, and show up again finally at certain dance classes.

Plus I have a resolution that I renew every year, which is to try not to get impatient at other people in the mall, to not shove past them or mutter anything under my breath, to take a deep breath and remember that nothing has to be in that big a hurry, to be in the mall (if I must) but not to have the mall be in me.

Date: 2006/12/25 21:32:38, Link
Author: Kristine
I'd like to think maybe one of the moderators secretly sniggered at it, though.

Of course I have no evidence that anyone sniggered at it or even looked at it. Bah humbug.

Other people liked it! So there.

Did Dembski just say something like,    
If Kitzmiller vs. Dover [sic] wasn't enough to sink ID, this surely will?
Well, news to me that ID didn't suffer a fatal blow in Dover. What's he been grousing about then, and on Christmas? I had a great Christmas (and you know that we "Darwinists" are unhappy and increasingly shrill because evolution is gasping its last). I got a great present. Visit my blog to see what "Everyone @ UD's Little Sister" got!

It's mine. You can't have it. I don't have to share. I'm telling Mom.  :D

Date: 2006/12/26 16:27:40, Link
Author: Kristine
So is ID science or story telling?  

Close- It's story telling without actually telling the story.

Tricky science, ID. Can be really flustrating for anyone with an IQ south of 150.

Easy, ducks. Simple as pie--oh, er, cake. (Cakewalk?) Go here and scroll down.
Imagine this bit of dialog:

(I hand you a piece of cake.)

YOU: What a wonderful cake! You must give me the recipe!
ME: There was no recipe. My wife made the cake.
YOU: Of course there was a recipe! Just tell me what it is.
ME: I tell you, there was no recipe. My wife made the cake, and
that's final!
YOU: But surely she puts in eggs and flour and sugar. How much of
each did she put in?
ME: There is no recipe! Do you doubt my wife? Are you calling my
wife a liar? Listen, I'm telling you, my wife made the cake!
YOU: Well, how long did she bake it in the oven?
ME: Are you not listening to me? My wife made the cake! There was
no oven, there was no recipe, there were no ingredients! My wife made
the cake! See, she wrote right here in this note, "Dear Richard, I
made this cake." Proof that there was no recipe!

:)  Take away one part of that cake and it ain't worth putting candles on. Get it? I don't care if it's bread, then. Take away one part of that bread and it ain't...I don't care if it's crepes! I don't care if it's fry-bread, or fried eggs! Dammit! Butter-cats are irreducibly complex!
Buttered cats are REAL power plants- they're REAL I tell you!

But if it's Schroedinger's cat?

Date: 2006/12/27 09:41:12, Link
Author: Kristine
7) Publish new Anti-ID Crowd Only Dictionary of the English Language.  Sample entries: LIE n. 1. Any statement uttered by a creationist  2. Any statement uttered by an ID "scientist"  ... ERROR n. 1. Shorthand for copying mistake irregularity ... er ... copying difference in DNA transcription.

I'm working on a lil' handbook for parents right now!  :)

8) Tighten up tenure rules even more so people like Behe don't get tenured.

Done, at least in Dembski's case at Baylor.

9) No more court cases.  Way too much media attention on the controversy debate ... er ... well, just way too much media attention PERIOD.

I can see why you don't want more court cases, being that they've been so darned beneficial to ID.

10) Get Richard Dawkins to shut up.  He's helping the enemy.

I shall personally deliver the message to Dawkins that he needs to carry on, being that I shall be on a ship to the Galapagos with him in 2007!
Neener, neener.  :D

Date: 2006/12/27 10:49:41, Link
Author: Kristine
Kristine read my piece and thinks I don't want more court cases and that I do want Dawkins to shut up. Funny!
Dave read my piece and thinks I really spent time thinking about what the blibbinblabble he wants. Too funny! :D  (Did you get that he had three smileys in a row, Kristine? That means three funnys! That means hahaha! Not hahahahahah or ha!;)
1) Figure out a viable mechanism for Macro-Evo since RM+NS is dead.  Synergistic Epistasis maybe?  Soft Selection perhaps?

Ah, cut to the chase, let's just find out who the Designer is. Now, I wonder who the Designer could be? Maybe (a la Dembski) a time-traveling biologist? Hey, I know a biologist who has a wife (companion) who used to travel via Tardis. Gosh, what was his name, I can't remember now... I think I'm going on a trip to the Galapagos with the guy. It will be cool to meet the Designer! I'm sure Dembski would love the idea, too.  :p I'll send him a postcard.

Date: 2006/12/27 14:20:42, Link
Author: Kristine
All my posts here will be right on topic-UD and ID.

Moi aussi. Pardonez-moi. UD, ID, we all scream for Dembscream.
The location of the eyes of a house cat are exactly where two holes in the fur are located.  Chalk up yet another win for Intelligent Design. (fart).

Not so fast, torts fans! *burp* (Please excuse me, Judge Jones, cutie.) This cat wears glasses!

Refutation of design. Pud 'em up! Pud 'em up! Raa'arr!

(Meow! Prrrr...)  ;)

Date: 2006/12/27 14:43:23, Link
Author: Kristine
I would think that the best way to deliver it would be e-mail (possibly a pm) to a "contributer" over there. Maybe that was how it was done. I don't know.
Nope, it was off-topic. But, where the heck was I supposed to post it? I wasn't going to send it to a Denyse thread, that's for sure. (And I noticed another off-topic comment there later. Boo.)
BTW I e-mailed a contributor about his broken linky. It's still there. I don't think he likes me very much (I wonder why!;). I supposed I could have asked my FratSis to deliver the card, but she doesn't want to get banned (even though she never comments there anyway).
But nobody even wrote me back to say that tHEy liked the poem. ??? So, Christmas harpy flapped, and flopped.

Date: 2006/12/27 14:59:25, Link
Author: Kristine
I was criticizing me. Maybe I shouldn’t have written that poem—but I was so proud of it! Pooh. :p

Date: 2006/12/27 15:03:01, Link
Author: Kristine
Poor JAD. He's obviously nuts and I do really feel sorry for him.

It was amusing for a while but then he started in with the nastiness (and from what, may I ask, was I supposed to "bleed to death"? Don't tell me. I don't want to know.) :O

Date: 2006/12/27 17:29:26, Link
Author: Kristine
Next time, Christmas harpy will *fart*. If that's what they want.
But what those jokers really deserve is an SBD*, and I don't know how to pull that one off.  :D

*delivered anonymously by definition

Date: 2006/12/28 09:45:33, Link
Author: Kristine
Ever hear of a “humanzee”? Some would hail the hybrid of a human and a chimpanzee as a crowning achievement.
Because chimpanzees are our closest genetic relatives, hybrids have been attempted. According to recently unearthed documents [emphasis mine], Joseph Stalin hoped to produce half-man, half-ape super-warriors, but the project came to nothing. The disgraced chief scientist died in the vast Soviet prison system.

*Sigh* Fact-check on the Stalin invocation? Anyone?

Considering that we share almost 99% of our genes (and we are the chimp’s closest living relative, you can look at it that way), I don’t how one is supposed to achieve a “half-man, half-ape” (at least she didn’t call the chimp a monkey) considering that would be less of a hybrid, but don’t let numbers break your stride, Denyse.

I would hail the hybrid of a noun and a verb to produce a comprehensible sentence to be a crowning achievement in Denyse’s case. I’m pulling for you, dear.

Date: 2006/12/28 15:34:44, Link
Author: Kristine

37. Joseph // Dec 28th 2006 at 2:36 pm

Just about any argument can be pruned down to two choices- A or not A…

Comment by Joseph — December 28, 2006 @ 2:36 pm

What a Tard!

OMG! (Yes, I just invoked a creator, but I don't care.)

Solve for A (area), Joseph. Does A = a? I hope you don't think so.
Wha? I mean, how... *Disbelieving splutter* What am I doing, being a secretary when these guys are running around playing "scientist"?

Date: 2006/12/28 15:54:42, Link
Author: Kristine
Bill the Baptist would merely reply that only squares get into the square of the hypotenuse equalling the sum of the sides' squares. Here's one for JanieBelle:
Let A = red pigment
Let B = blue pigment
Let C = A + B

C = ...

A or -A?
Hurry up and figure it out Joseph, and report back so we can know what to wear to the square dance tonight. *shimmy* *fart*

Date: 2006/12/28 21:06:35, Link
Author: Kristine
Nevermind my ramblings.

My brain is hemmoraging from listening to several straight hours of Alvin Pantinga lectures over the last several days.

Comment by jb — December 27, 2006 @ 10:40 am

I don't know who Alvin Pantinga is, but I can tell that the evil one speaks through him.

Here's Alvin Pantinga. He's giving a speechy with Santa's little helpers.

"Dude! Watch me cast this spell! It's gonna be cool!" Poor jb, no wonder he's hemmoraging.

New puzzle: Where's Dembski? (I found him.)

Date: 2006/12/29 13:52:37, Link
Author: Kristine
ID — The Board Game
by William Dembski on December 29th, 2006 · 2 Comments
You know you’ve arrived when you’re the topic of a board game (look for “ID — The Movie” next).

Dr. Dembski. This is no “trivial pursuit.” Much more than a topic in a category, it appears to be a battleship version of scientific theories!

Doh! You sunk my theory!!!

Hmmmm… Clever. Bold. I like it.
Comment by Michaels7 — December 29, 2006 @ 2:33 pm

BOLD! Bwahah.
Oh, dear innocent little Bill. He apparently doesn't know about drinking games, and...and...strip poker!
Dude, I sunk your bacterial flagellum.
Knock back a shot of malt and remove something! (Let A=clothes. It's A or -A, remember.)
This game appeals to my sick mind. I'm looking forward to the movie.  :D

Date: 2006/12/29 22:51:53, Link
Author: Kristine
*Tries, cannot come up with anything witty to say about the Tree o'Life thread, slaps forehead*
Back to the Game o'ID (about to explode as well):
12. ID is not against “evolution.”

It depends on how you define evolution. The way the people understand evolution is trully against ID. Of course, Darwinists will present the “soft” definition that no one disagrees with (”change over time”), but the “heart” of evolution, and the way people understand it, is “design without a Designer”. THAT is what ID is strongly against, since ID finds empirical evidence for true design in nature and in the universe.

Secondly, the fact that this game is endorsed by Ken Ham, the president of one of the largest YEC ministries in the USA, shows once again that YECers have no problems with the scientific theory of Intelligent Design. (ID is neutral on the age of the earth, afterall)
Comment by Mats — December 29, 2006 @ 7:27 pm

Jeepers. Okay, lemme get this straight:

Evolutionary biology is not science. ID is science. ID is not against evolution.

YECism is not against ID. ID is silent *fart* on the age of the earth. Therefore YECism is not not science.

Yep. We have achieved maximum rationalization! Sophomores don't get to play the drinking game with me. Go to bed, go directly to bed little boy Mats, do not pass Go, do not collect shimmies.

Date: 2006/12/29 23:48:54, Link
Author: Kristine
Oh man, I don't think he deserves something that harsh!

No mercy! (Door)Mats gets not even one hip-bonk for having proposed Will Ferrell to play Judge Jones.
When’s the computer version coming out?
Comment by jb — December 29, 2006 @ 1:59 pm

A board, some dice (I thought God "did not play dice"?), and a bunch of cards. That is the computer version, jb!

You're dealing with YECs, man. That's what happens when you play with people who have no age-of-the-earth preference. Don't like it? Don't go back.

Date: 2006/12/30 18:55:34, Link
Author: Kristine
Dembski turns to yet another quote about how Evolution will soon be history. This time the quote's by a guy who's been dead for 16 years.  
How long's this scientific revolution gonna take? We're gettin' bored over here!

Dembski predicted in April 2006 that evolution would be dead in ten years. I keep a countdown at my blog. ;)
The whopper, in the case of Darwinism, is this: all organisms, including ourselves, are the result of a blind, purposeless evolutionary process (namely, the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation) that at no place required the services of God or any guiding intelligence.

I just watched a debate online between Dembski and a Professor Silver at Princeton (Dembski's book is still out at the library, arg) and I do think I am finally beginning to understand--though not to agree--with what he's proposing (he was a lot more engaging and less stiff in this venue by the way...I really do like the guy.)

I saw that he could articulate the difference between "design" as biologists use it and his "design inference" (though I do think he's often guilty of conflating the two for a general, less discerning audience), and that he actually did have a good grasp of problems in evolutionary biology. What he fails to understand is the difference between "purpose" as biologists would use it, and his "purpose" inference or belief in God. Bill Dembski believes sincerely in God. (All right, Bill, dear. I will not pick on you for that.)

But if he thinks that chance is merely a mechanism within design (for that's what this whole "chance is an illusion" claim is about), as the shuffling of cards is the utilization of chance within a larger, purposeful context, why can't he also accept that the purposeless of mutations, or chemical reactions, or environmental change, is just a precondition (c'est la vie) which a thinking being accepts and purposefully remolds to his or her advantage? In other words, does one make a sculpture from another, already finished sculpture, or from "formless" clay? Believing as he does in God, can't Bill Dembski come to see purposelessness as a form of raw material for the construction of his own life's purpose? Why can't he see purposelessness as another mechanism within his religious belief, and quit trying to make God (whom he describes as transcendant to science anyway) a scientific hypothesis? It's a losing proposition, and the accusations that he heaps upon "Darwinists" are statements about himself, because he refuses to recognize that he's placed himself in an impossible situation. If one is religious, then the whole design inference is without purpose!

Date: 2006/12/31 00:49:18, Link
Author: Kristine
Gack! Anything goes at UD--they're endorsing ("No we're not endoring, we're not, we're just 'letting the chips fall where they may,'") Young Earth Creationist Grand Canyon flapdoodledry!

Once, the glance of irreducibility was a sign of theistic seduce-ability, but now, goodness knows...anything goes!

And despite the ID drinking bored game, everyone but the emperor has on clothes!

Is it too much to ask that the Princeton preacher step in and tell the kiddies, esp. that breathless Marilyn Monroe imitation FTK, that it's time for bed? Oh please, oh please. For pity's sake, the YECs are running the asylum.

Maybe I need to come up with my own flash animation...

Date: 2006/12/31 13:16:47, Link
Author: Kristine
From the same OE linky: "I was reading Of Pandees and Peopledums, and..."    
The Tasmanian Wolf looks remarkably like the regular wolf you and I know of. It’s about the same size, has a similar diet and even has the same kind of fur , jaw structure, teeth and behavior. Anybody can see that these two animals are examples of the same kind of creature. But if you ask an evolutionist where this creature might be placed on the “tree of life”, they would place these two very similar creatures about as far from each other as could be and yet still both be considered mammals. That’s sort of like somebody from Kentucky claiming that their next door neighbour lives in New Jersy!

JHC! Anybody can see that the Tasmanian Wolf is a marsupial!

You know--like the wombat and the kangaroo? It has a pouch.

Twit! :O

Bag of hammers anybody? I've got a "dumb as" that needs work.

How about, "dumb as an armchair surrounded by nail clippings"?
"Dumb as a bag of hookless bras"?

Date: 2006/12/31 23:27:42, Link
Author: Kristine
hblavatsky | Sun, 2006-12-31 09:30
...I propose a new taxonomy, or rather a heirarchy which seeks to explain the dominion of the intelligent designer.  At the very bottom of the heirarchy will be the microbes, plants and simple organisms. All the way at the top will be the intelligent designer, or possibly some kind of supreme being...

Doesn't that mean that the microbes would wind up eventually eating the intelligent designer?

Rather like the fate of Polonius.  :p

Speaking of taco-supreme beings, it's approaching midnight and I've got the munchies. If God dwells within us, as some people say, I hope he likes nachos, because that's what he's getting!  :D

Date: 2007/01/01 12:40:42, Link
Author: Kristine
I thought at first this post was a parody, but the author worked too hard supplying all the links.

Date: 2007/01/01 12:58:46, Link
Author: Kristine
*Giggle! Snort!*
Cutie waxes optimistic about ID. That's the spirit, Bill! ID going out with a bang and not a Darwhimper is better than all the embittered grousing lately.

I have to admit I'd love to see the [unlikely] Dembski/Forrest debate, but the way my schedule is I'd probably have to miss this event, too (unless people want to visit Minnesota? Huh?).
He concluded that if these tiny, one-celled creatures were enlarged to the size of dogs, we would readily see them to possess conscious choice, perception, memory, intelligence, and emotion.

But can amoebas fetch? Shake? Roll over? Cool!  :D

Date: 2007/01/01 14:02:13, Link
Author: Kristine
From Bill's blog:  
Here are three things in particular I’m looking forward to in the coming year:

A new ID friendly research center at a major university. (This is not merely an idle wish — stay tuned.)

I wonder if this is the upcoming news that Wes referred to earlier?
It's currently 68 degrees and warming here on the North Carolina coast.

Not a snowball's chance in ... well... North Carolina on New Year's Day, Kristine.

Oh, pooh. The uncommon descent of Minnesota's temps has not happened this year. We've been looking more like Portland, OR--although it finally snowed last night!

The colder the weather, the warmer the evo-shimmies! (And we do have summer.) I can't tempt anybody to come up here, not Dawkins, not Dembski, not anyone. Shucks. (Denyse was here, but thankfully I didn't know who she was then.)

Date: 2007/01/01 19:07:16, Link
Author: Kristine
Mats: Actually, I would like Forrest to have Eric Rothschild there (head ACLU attorney in the Dover case) and an attorney of my choice there as well. Then Eric can do the deposition of me that the other side has been crowing about, and our side can finally implement the Vise Strategy on Forrest. What fun. Let’s be sure it’s all video taped and made available online. I’m up for it Barbara — how about you?

Comment by William Dembski — January 1, 2007 @ 4:52 pm

Wha? He wants Eric Rothschild to cross-examine him? *shimmy* I'm beginning to sound like FTK myself: "Debate in the midwest! Yes!" And no one is asking anyone to shovel snow (though I'm good at thowing snowballs down collars, so beware, Bill).
It's the Dembski part that makes it a twisted thing in this case.
Oh, come on! Quit picking on the poor guy. His ideas are whack, but he's a sweetie tweetums. (When he isn't quoting from the scary testes-ments and ranting about Judge Jones. Well, and about Forrest, and Dawkins, and making angry flash animations. And--doing various other whack things.) I do have quite the thing for Dawkins, too (and a real guy in my life).
It's a chick thing involving pirate costumes, a mainmast, and a long piece of rope... uh.. not that I'd know anything about that...

And the feather--don't forget the feather. Most important part.

He has his sick methods of inquisition (vise, Darwin dolls), and I have mine.

Date: 2007/01/01 22:49:31, Link
Author: Kristine
Anyway, the lawyer to bring for a deposition by Dembski is Stephen Harvey.

Any idea who it is that Dembski wanted to retain for the Dover trial, and if it's the same person he apparently wants to bring to the proposed debate with Forrest? Dembski seems so confident. My curiosity is aroused.  ;)

Date: 2007/01/02 12:37:59, Link
Author: Kristine
Oh, I know that the Dembster is bluffing. He’s a dembskream. He kills me. Suddenly it’s an obsession with Forrest. Why Forrest, all of a sudden? Why didn’t Dembski show up at any of the readings Dawkins recently gave in the U.S. to challenge him, since he’s trying to “save” Dawkins and all that? Why was he avoiding Dawkins?  Does he avoid anything that starts with a D? ;)

And no, I don't see a lot of respect for women's brains over at UD. ("Go make me a pot pie." "whining like a girl," etc.)

Check out that Baptist seminary at which Bill teaches and read up on their ideas of the "submissive" wife. (In my experience, there is no one so controlling and exacting, at least toward other women, as all these "submissive" women.)

Date: 2007/01/02 15:13:42, Link
Author: Kristine
Here is a man whose entire ID career has been an exercise in evasion.  Getting a straight answer out of him is like pulling teeth.  

As I know very well.
Super-secret ID center at an unnamed university coming up, details on the 10 p.m. news (but on what day?).
"It's always tease, tease, tease..."  :D

Date: 2007/01/02 16:42:38, Link
Author: Kristine
Sal, go make me a chicken pot pie.  :angry:

Date: 2007/01/02 23:50:00, Link
Author: Kristine
2007 — Buckle your safety belts!
by William Dembski on January 1st, 2007 · 19 Comments
...I expect 2007 to be a bang-up year for ID...

Safety belts are worn for protection in a crash.  So WAD's admonition seems appropriate.


*Shimmies, giggles, and snorts* And get a helmet!
Here's how it will probably play out. Yeah, evolution moves slowly, and aimlessly, and she ain't a spring Eocene chicken anymore (and no one knows why she's crossing the street), whereas Dembski drives a hawt convertible and is always one stop sign away from a church buffet (and as you know I take the bus, like a good evo-diva)--but wait, the old girl Evolution has still got surprises mutating up her mothballed sweater sleeve...!

Date: 2007/01/03 09:44:57, Link
Author: Kristine
("Raucus?") So, which one am I, Denyse? A "drag queen," or a "male old lady"?

Can anyone tell me what "a vast cackle" is? (1. to utter a shrill, broken sound or cry, as of a hen. 2. to laugh in a shrill, broken manner.  3. to chatter noisily; prattle.) Does she mean gaggle, perhaps? (1. to cackle.  –noun 2. a flock of geese when not flying.)

This is a journalist? :O Well, maybe when she's not writing.

Date: 2007/01/03 10:16:05, Link
Author: Kristine
Does anyone have any personal information on Denyse?  Has she ever been married?  Does she have kids?  

Here's the shimmy, I mean, the skinny. (Arden merits a shimmy.)  ;)

Date: 2007/01/03 16:07:53, Link
Author: Kristine
In the years since, she has written for....a magazine for truckers.

A quick perusal of the LexisNexis database shows a lot of blurbs in the Trends, Personal Finance, and Innovators sections for a magazine named Profit, also a lot of articles in the Wheels section of the Toronto Star, plus articles such as “Holiday on a Trimmed Budget” for the Sunday edition of the Star. Also an article on design for the Catholic News Times in 2005, articles on faith for Quill & Quire, an article on radioactive pollution for something called Alternatives, a number of articles for Canadian Bookseller, etc. Not much science to speak of, but a lot about cars.

Date: 2007/01/03 21:44:38, Link
Author: Kristine
Re "image of an evolutionary chicken crossing the road"

That'd be poultry in motion.

Poutryetic justice! (There is some speculation that the video was staged, but then it's just an illustration; as a regular pedestrian I can tell you I've seen some pretty stupid, mean drivers.)

And while I knew about your injury, Lou, sorry to hear it still troubles you. What a prescription drug maze! ??? Take care.  *Shimmies*

Date: 2007/01/04 09:54:27, Link
Author: Kristine
Looks like Wes isn't afraid of midwestern winters! (And neither is Massimo Pigliucci, for Darwin Day.) I’d love to be able to swing by this conference.

Meanwhile, an incredible mass of stagnation is approaching our starship from the UD galaxy at an increasingly ho-hum rate. So say hello to Shalini, who gives ID a bang-up job herself. (They must be tired from partying so much.)

Date: 2007/01/04 12:50:36, Link
Author: Kristine
Sal: "All the obsevered plumes"? Did they dig them up and look.

You know—I ain’t a spring Eocene chicken myself anymore, and I’ve seen a lot of stuff in life, but I have never seen anyone like Sal Cordova. :D

Either this dude is just being obstinate, or he is a nearly comatose moron. Unbelievable. This has got to be a joke!

Maybe it’s because I grew up in such a sexist environment, in which men who actually did know something would launch a, “Okay, girl, explain how a magneto system works,” “prove” that women were inferior to men. I honed my wits against such cheap shots, only to encounter ID proponents like this. Unbelieveable.

And FTK has to be an atheist sock puppet, too. I just can’t believe it. *Jaw drops*

Date: 2007/01/04 14:51:32, Link
Author: Kristine
At 7:23 AM, aka...Forthekids said…

Send me an email, or don't. It's up to you.

Merry Christmas to you as well!

What a close minded, book burning *$#%! (Did I just say that out loud? Whoops! It's not that I don't like FTK, it's just that she is such a stubborn 'ol cuss.)

What a close minded, book burning *$#%! (Did I just say that out loud? Whoops! It's not that I don't like PZ, it's just that he is such a stubborn 'ol cuss.)

Oh, she went on mom-strike, good for her. And good thing that her sons apparently aren't old enough to order her to "go make us some chicken pot pies."  :D
Ms. E. Chicken, I knew AFDave. AFDave was a punching bag of mine. And Sal is no AFDave.
But they could be brothers.

Brood brothers?  ;)

Date: 2007/01/04 16:18:50, Link
Author: Kristine
UD is, of course, OK with ID in the UK, but just FYI, it ain’t PC to CC all the fundies, WAD. (Oh, come on, Bill, wasn’t that cute?)

*thunder clap* No!
19. Emkay // Jan 3rd 2007 at 8:49 pm
Wormherder/antg: “. . .Don’t forget the most ground breaking research was done by theists.”
Including also Galileo Galilei and Nicolaus Copernicus . . .
Comment by Emkay — January 3, 2007 @ 8:49 pm

And Charles Darwin. (He didn’t land on the Galapagos, take a gander, and become an atheist then and there, dears!  Ix-nay on the od-gay Emkay if you don’t know this fact.)
27. littlejon // Jan 4th 2007 at 3:42 pm
Woooooah. “Well, if you believe in God you cannot accept NDE, unless you are not aware of some facts or unless you are ignorant”
Bit strong, surely? I would say that every Christian I know here in the UK has no issue with NDE - along the lines of “that explains the body, God explains the soul” - essentially the line of the Church of England & Catholics.
As regards schools, at GCSE (equivalent to 12 grade) “teach the controversy” tends to mean Darwin vs Lamarck, or details - Out-of-Africa vs multiple evolution of H. sapiens, for example, weighing up the evidence for sapiens / Neanderthal interbreeding…
Comment by littlejon — January 4, 2007 @ 3:42 pm

Heh, heh. There is a Robin Hood.  ;)

Date: 2007/01/04 18:17:32, Link
Author: Kristine
I *heart* Jack Chick

I *fart* Jack Chick. :)

Date: 2007/01/05 11:56:46, Link
Author: Kristine
Retrieved from the Babel library.    
I have heard that a single monkey typed the entire manuscript to The God Delusion. Has anyone verified that?

Comment by mike1962 — January 5, 2007 @ 8:42 am
It was a girly monk.

Comment by DaveScot — January 5, 2007 @ 8:51 am

Dutifully filed by the girly secretary. I wonder if Jorge Borges was a "girly man" too.

Date: 2007/01/05 12:46:25, Link
Author: Kristine
Didn't I post earlier about jungle-fever crushes?

And I never thought creationists were "monsters," especially because I grew up surrounded by them. (For pity's sake my father was a 6-day literal creationist Republican to the day he died.)

He's a doll, Tatiana! *Sigh* Hope you don't mind that I have a couple fantasies about your hubby. Cute stuff creationist. (I just like to oogle men, what can I say? No harm intended.)  :p

Date: 2007/01/05 14:55:24, Link
Author: Kristine
Unspeakable blasphemy!

I happen to be a huge fan of Borges. One can’t study Library Science without being so, can one?  :)
So, take the example posted above by DaveScot. My intuition is that an intelligent being would never consciously settle into his lab chair and design such a creature. For me, such a creature has no hallmarks of design. It has adapted and evolved and adapted and evolved over millions of years…Why do I think this? Because I can’t seem to make the connection between creatures like this and God. And it’s not because I have trouble with the morality of using another creature as a doomed vessel for hatching eggs. It’s just plain bizarre. And I have trouble with a bizarre God.

But like Darwinists, intelligent design proponents want me to ignore my intuition that the wasp is a product of evolutionary processes. They say the seeming bizarreness of God has been addressed by tortured theologians for thousands of years or something to that effect and the fact that it is designed is the basic point.

You see, for me, the appeal of intelligent design is that it squares with common sense. I can understand the intelligent design argument that the universe is bathed in a conscious God that was an continues to be involved in the universe. But this kind of example leads me to think otherwise.

Now, I bring this up because it is very, very important. I have talked to a number of scientists, medical researchers, physicians, many of which are brilliant people. You know why they reject intelligent design? Because of intuition. They can’t draw the connection between this wasp (and thousands of other examples) and an intelligent designer. It just doesn’t make sense.

Comment by Barrett1 — January 5, 2007 @ 11:30 am
Barret1: Theological arguments demand theological responses. In this case, Colombo does an excellent job of explaining creatures like this in comment #16.
Well, of course there is a reasonable rejoinder in Christian theology along the lines that the wise Creator designed useful contrivances in nature which were later corrupted by an evil will. The Creator (God) permitted certain corruptions only, such as would stand as useful illustrations for His highest (earthly) creation - mankind - so that they might learn from nature lessons they would not willingly receive from His explicit revelation - the Bible.

If we would but apply a small fraction of that blessed gift - imagination - to the world of nature, we might be enlightened as to our awful, anesthetized condition, and seek Him who loves us and made us for His good pleasure.Comment by Scott — January 5, 2007 @ 11:45 am

This I call the "I'd crawl a mile on my knees for Bobby Knight" argument. Once you start groveling, you have to continue, because to stop in the middle of some meaningless pursuit of "meaning" would be to admit, well, it had no meaning in the beginning.

And also that you hope Coach (who is what this "designer" really is to these guys) won't throw you out of the game. Punch you out, maybe, but not sideline you.

Date: 2007/01/05 20:28:03, Link
Author: Kristine
Hey! :O  UD can use me as a reference (or a reference librarian), but won't post my poem? It's a plot.  :(

Crap, and there's Jehu with the conspiracy theory. No wonder his namesake threw women out of windows. Not sure how I feel about this...especially after this comment:  
4. Rude // Jan 5th 2007 at 6:06 pm

Why is it that so many who enjoy the reach of our tolerance tend to loath us so? What has happened? Just about all the liberty enjoyed in the world today bears some stamp of “made in America”. Were it not for the American soldier those elites who denounce us would be under fascist or communist rule. And where do they think all this tolerance was pioneered and grew and developed and exported? Was it nurtured in the benevolent arms of socialists? And was it under the watchful eye of atheists?

Comment by Rude — January 5, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
The article was about people not hating each other, no? (Oh, it's no use.)

Ahem. Okay, now that I've got people's attention, allow me to brag about the distinguished guest who visited and commented on my post about Sal's salvos at Good Math, Bad Math.

Date: 2007/01/05 21:09:14, Link
Author: Kristine
Remember also that news thrives on "drama." Editors know which side their foccacia is cheesed. Thus the cheesey compulsion to keep the kicky drama going by not squashing the "alternative" view. An article slamming creationism/ID for its lack of credibility would turn people off, even if they all agreed with it--but worse, it shuts down reportage on further debates and "controversies."

A lot of "news" is just plain gossip and theatrics, meant to provoke more "news."

And many editors and reporters are just so confused about the issue that they fall back on the "these people say/those people say" format. Most of my co-workers accept evolution, but if you ask them why, they probably haven't thought much about it since high school (being that this is an arts organization).

Date: 2007/01/05 21:24:06, Link
Author: Kristine
And of course it's always entertaining when the fundies add yet another court case to their unbroken string of losses.
Oh, yeah, my thought exactly! :D

He won't file. He'll just keep "thinking" about it. As I said in another thread, a lot of the "news" is gossip and rumor. Gossip and rumor can sell issues for months. Then he'll enter the realm of the urban myth. (Maybe people will even come to believe that he did file and lost to those elitist louts in the court system!;) He'll get on threaten to sue them, too...

Gee, I'd love to work at the Smithsonian, Richard. And I'd love to have a Ph.D. in mathematics, Bill (now I'm plugging through Trig for Dummies, gawd how humiliating). And I'd love to have someone else pay for me to study Biology, Jonathan. Yeah, you ID dudes are so oppressed!  :angry:

Date: 2007/01/05 21:50:13, Link
Author: Kristine
Hmm, video of the shimmies, you say . . . . .?


I need some time to recover my pride.

When I lurked at UD and saw the hit tip (what, no hand kiss?) for the creationist monster exploding, I wanted to go to bed and pull the covers over my head (except that there's a creationist monster in our closet...) :D

Date: 2007/01/06 14:29:59, Link
Author: Kristine
Thursday, January 04, 2007

Preventive Maintenance & Global Warming: Reversing the trend
6H2O + 6CO2 ----------> C6H12O6 + 6O2

That's right- photosynthesis. We make artificial plants- that is massive structures (as space allows) run by solar power that suck in the air via man-made stomata, mix it with water and mimic the reaction that is photosynthesis. Then have the O2 exit other man-made stomata.

Place these facilities near factories, cities, yada, yada, yada
Then sell the sugar...
posted by Joe G @ 10:44 PM   0 comments

Nice idea Joe. In other words, you looked at the hardiness map (that's with an 'h';) and rubbed your hands together at the thought of planting southwestern plants in your garden and seeing no frost for fruit trees. Hate to snow on your arctic jungle, but...
What the hardiness map doesn't track, however, is the other side of the equation: the minimum nighttime summer temperatures. These also seem to be rising, with the potential of stressing and sickening northern and high-elevation plants such as rhododendrons, pines, spruces and smokebush, to name a few. (Washington Post)

Not to mention that a certain designer with an inordinate fondness for beetles may give you the birthday present they've been asking for at UD ("Where are all the BIG BUGS!"). Oh, and diseases usually contained to the tropics spreading to northern climes, and other nasty things.

So what are your artificial plants going to bear? The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge about Evolution?

Date: 2007/01/07 16:42:23, Link
Author: Kristine
I think I might have to move to Canada or something. I think this country is too small for people like me if Dembski and DaveScot are here, too. I would hate to be squished out of a country I once truly loved, but that might be what it has to ultimately come down to. My faith in the United States and its citizenry is at an all-time low and may never recover.

You don't even have faith in the Christmas Harpy?  ;)

Poor jujuquisp. I've had my moments, too. I'd slap the UD website if I could.

Funny how my situation is the mirror image of yours--my boyfriend barely registers interest in these online discussions (although he's versed in science and evolution and, appropriate for the son of a pastor, an atheist).

Date: 2007/01/07 16:47:40, Link
Author: Kristine
Why, Nick's just a young-un!  :) Good luck in grad school, Nick!

Date: 2007/01/07 23:17:55, Link
Author: Kristine
The conversation is now in the toilet at the I-married-a-creationist thread.

Well, as I have it on dubious authority (JAD) that I am not a lady, I'll go ahead and say that I don't care what a man does--if he stands, fine by me. But I never understood all this pride in men about being able to rester debout. Sitting allows women to, er, shall we say, differentiate two functions at the same time!  :p

Date: 2007/01/07 23:52:21, Link
Author: Kristine
Oops! Double standard!

The interest listed on your profile isn't creepy?

Date: 2007/01/09 09:45:21, Link
Author: Kristine
Are you kidding me?  
Sometimes when I think about it, the estimated age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years, if the number of species that existed is about 5 billions, then we are talking about a new species every year!
And for a new species to appear every year, that’s alot of work for RM to do, and also ignoring the stasis in the fossil record.

Comment by IDist — January 9, 2007 @ 1:04 am

And sometimes when you don't think about it, the number of people attending sports events around the globe proves that the universe did not have sufficient time to get them all in the door one at a time! There's 6.5 billion (no "s") people on the planet today, more than the number of species, so that proves that a miracle occurred, because they would have been born one at a time, too. Right?

Moral: Don't think too hard if it results in not thinking. :angry:

Date: 2007/01/09 12:56:54, Link
Author: Kristine
Isn’t all that true of any kind of basic as opposed to applied research? I mean, nobody died when astronomers thought there were canals on Mars, right?  (grendelkhan)

Yeah, about that--we "always recognize design" except when we get it wrong--and er, mistake undirected natural processes for "design," such as Mars canals, and a face on Mars, and also, oh I don't know, other mistakes like chewing gum as proof of Allah, for example. (Who says atheists never pick on Islam?)

Date: 2007/01/09 16:48:46, Link
Author: Kristine
(Altabin @ Jan. 09 2007,15:33)
Jaysus, do you people never sleep?

Well, I creeped out the topic starter and gave him nightmares.

It was the least I could do.  :)

Date: 2007/01/10 11:19:49, Link
Author: Kristine
But what I can't understand is why he should be prepared to condone the stifling of pertinent questions on his blog.

Febble, maybe because you made such a coherent statement about NS as an algorithm and plausibly located it within an ID paradigm. I think it is your alternative view of ID that is the real threat.

The possibility that I, an atheist, could find you said really fascinating (and I do), as I find Wes's views fascinating, could be the what really burns them. I'm always glad to see someone who can describe evolution within a potentially religious framework without caricaturing evolution. Apparently the guys at UD are not glad to see this.

They're so focused on the "you can't teach a Darwinist anything" crap at UD, this "they can't be a good person unless they think as I do," "they'll never change their minds until they look down at their lifeless bodies" rhetoric, because they have to control every aspect of their movement. It's their way or the highway--even though all of us have something to learn from you.

Not for nothing do I often make the comparison between the personalities in the ID movement and the personalities in the surrealist movement, for this stifling of not only dissent, but certain types of agreement, really drained that movement of its brains, too. Surrealism’s legacy exists because of the brilliant people (Duchamp, Desnos, Artaud, Eluard, etc., etc.) who broke from Andre Breton (brilliant himself, but tragically a control freak who squandered much of his legacy) and went their own way. This is a lesson too for everyone at UD. Frankly, I give Dembski, at least, more credit for intelligence than other people do and he should jump at this chance to converse with you--but he won’t, not because you’re wrong, but because he’s stubborn.

Date: 2007/01/10 23:46:37, Link
Author: Kristine
What you might want to do is check out your local library (or EBAY) for Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells.
Alot of libraries don’t carry it because the Darwinists have done a fine job of blacklisting the poor man.
Comment by a5b01zerobone — January 10, 2007 @ 12:44 pm

Oh, sure! Librarians have so much power. More than likely the book is not on the shelf because some nimnuss never returned it, like he never returns Dembski’s #### book which I had resolved to read at last (I am losing that resolve, except that I’m pursuing a theory about him).

Maybe Jonathan Wells should challenge Barb Forrest to write a book. Oh.

Re: Dembski
This was a thread started by Dembski, soliciting comment from UK readers.  Then, once a UK reader actually starts commenting and discussing Dembski's own work - in critical but unflappably polite terms - he gets DaveScot to boot her without even making a single reply himself.  Honestly, put yourself in Dembski's place. If someone criticized one of my own articles in such a way, I would be flattered, and would attempt to answer in the same manner.  I wouldn't get a judge to slap a restraining order on them, or alert the FBI, or whatever the analogy is to sending in DaveScot.

Dembski does this all the time: makes a post (often a cut and paste, without even daring to express his own opinion), then goes completely silent, letting his handlers do all the work.   He's a complete chickensh*t.

But I have no argument with that. Chickensh*t he may be; but chickensh*t like a fox. I have put myself in his place. What you described is a brilliant maneuver, and I’ll bet that he is flattered. How do you know what he really thinks? In his silence he just sits back and lets us speculate about what's going on in that head of his, and if someone makes an assertion, he has an out: "I never said that. I never said that at all." That’s sly—that’s really smart—and he’s probably having a good laugh to hear people call him dim. You know what? I think play-dumb little Baptist Bill knows precisely what he’s doing.

I thought he was a moron too until I did some research on him. As long as people underestimate him, he gets to play this little game and get away with it. Someone needs to penetrate the stealthy, I-believe in-an-old-earth-but-am-open-to-a-young-earth, I'm-not-opposed-to-evolution, I'm-fun-not-fundy force field.

I’m working on it.
There's more than ONE shimmi-er here, ya know.  

I knew it! ;)

Date: 2007/01/11 00:16:19, Link
Author: Kristine
A bottle of single malt scotch for you.

And a hand...uh--yeah. A big hand for Ichthyic!

You behave yourself, Richardthughes!  :D

Date: 2007/01/11 11:10:09, Link
Author: Kristine
Hey, WAD—about that university president thingie: a post office box doesn’t cost that much, does it? :D

“Dissolve the Biology Department,” arh, arh. Good pun, fingerpuppet-master. (Why not just take over an engineering school and hire some of these biology-understandin’ engineers? Because Jesus didn’t really like hanging out at the creek with poor John the Baptist anyway—that Temple cleaning had more, you know, oomph.)

You know, I’d love to see WAD do it. I really would. (Yes, I know he’s bluffing! But let me have my fun!;)

I just love WhAckeD. There, I said it. :p

Date: 2007/01/11 20:45:50, Link
Author: Kristine
"Oh, yeah, Barbara?  The jerk store called, and they're running out of you!"

Barbara: "Aw, Bill, too bad for you. You'll just have to go into the can and do the job yourself. Kristine says she's busy." *Winks at Kristine*

BONK! (Sound of Bill, with help, falling out of tree.) :p

Date: 2007/01/12 10:33:44, Link
Author: Kristine
We're supposed to make articles disappear because antievolutionists use non sequiturs?

Yes, indeedy! Because their gaps are filled with God, don’t forget.
Kristine I've been quietly enjoying your ....ah....(strains brain) ...snake taming, girl 'Eve' just so you your work. :D

Thanks. Glad to know that all that Bible study and my English degree paid off. This is what it’s come to—biblical puns and tortured allusions in between work, school, and pounding away at fiction no one will ever read. :)
Kristine, an intelligent female of the species H. sapiens is desirous of a mate. Obviously she considers various options but notices one specimin who seems to stand out somewhat. Like the peacock's tail, Dembski's tard is enormous and showy, demonstrating that he must be an especially "fit" individual to have managed to attain reproductive age with such an enormous burden of tard. Obviously this is not a conscious decision.

Alternatively it is possible that Kristine, being as I said an intelligent and discerning member of our species can consciously "see which way the wind is blowing" and wishes to provide her future offspring with a decently tardalicious genome so that they too will be able to better find mates and produce tardlings.

Hahaha! All right you guys. Lemme set you straight. (I’ve told John that if he wants kids, he can have them. I’ll be the father. I’d be better at that than a mother.)

I’ve seen birds pick through birdseed to eat the ones they prefer, when by all accounts they should just gobble what’s there, and likewise, this is a predator-prey thing. Moreover, my cats toy with rather than eat mice. Dembski, a particularly delicious and evasive little morsel, has caught the harpy’s eye.

In other words, not Eve. Lilith.

And the one I really have a thing for is Rev. Dr. Lenny. (Where are those photos by the way, Doc? I upheld my part of the bargain.)

Date: 2007/01/12 15:53:01, Link
Author: Kristine
Poor Arden Chatfield. I think somebody needs shimmies. *Shimmies to Arden*

Bob O’H, I’m going to take that as a complement. And welcome to my good friend, Rev. Chimpy! I made him laugh again. Now, see? That’s what I’m really after—making you guys laugh. And cringe. (Hopefully at the same time.)
Hey, where's Church Lady?  Don't get me wrong, there's been some fine tard in the last few weeks 'n' all - but I need a drop of the hard stuff...

Yeah. Kinda forgot about her. I headed right on over to Post-Darwinist to peep. (Not the one I want to peep at, BTW.) Oh, no. No. She invokes Kazmer Uvjarosy. If there’s anyone I can stand... Nuttin’ on Mindful Hack since December. Hmmm. She did stamp her foot about the Judge Jones School of Farts thingie… Has the cuckoo flown away to lay her eggs in yet another nest?

Will Batman get his own university? And will Catwoman sneak into his office at night and switch his keyboard from QWERTY to DVORAK? And put a whoopee cushion on his chair?

And what evil deed is the Penguin plotting now?

Date: 2007/01/12 17:49:57, Link
Author: Kristine
Hey--UD has new duds. I think I'll check it out...

Yaaaaa! What is with the big long flagellumy thingie in the graphic? What is this, Dune? Looks like a tapeworm.

GilDodg is hawt!  :D

Date: 2007/01/12 17:58:53, Link
Author: Kristine
And I must say that that pic of Dembski isn’t flattering—he looks stressed.

Bill, please remove that one and substitute another.

And clean up that broken link on your Baptist school web page like I told you.

Straighten up, Bill. This is the big time. (Momma help.)  ;)

Right here, Dr. Lenny.

The video is coming. I plan it to be a (wait for it) flash animation. RM+NS+BD. It's a quiz.

Date: 2007/01/12 23:50:39, Link
Author: Kristine
Scroll down and you'll see me, appropriately unshaven.   (Taken, alas, with an extremely crappy digital camera.)    

Hey, thanks! And don't apologize! Great pics. Vikings. Raa'ar! (Arden, let the link load.) :)

Arden Chatfield. Do I detect some, er, jealousy maybe?  :D I'm flattered.
Wow Lenny..rape and pillage much?

I wanna get in on that gig... ;)

Date: 2007/01/15 12:01:08, Link
Author: Kristine
Steven Hawkings thinks we must colonize space to ensure the survival of mankind. I think we must colonize space so that  IT CAN ALWAYS BE FRIDAY NIGHT SOMEWHERE
I just read in Astronomy about a newly discovered Jupiter-like planet that revolves its sun in ten hours! Man, that's just beggin' for shots.

So maybe the flagelly thingie on the new UD is the tequila worm. (I don't want it.)

Hey, Bill. Got one in my basement just waiting for you. He he he. Teleport down anytime, baby. (Hmm...ID, teleportation... *weighs with hands* Which is more likely?)

Date: 2007/01/15 16:39:18, Link
Author: Kristine
THE CAGE EXISTS! IT'S IN MY BASEMENT! I've got it all prepped with sensible ties (that's suit ties, you with naughty minds), pretzles, DVDs of The Twilight Zone T.V. series, and blankies.

So anybody who wants to beam down, perhaps dressed in a Viking costume and kicking down my door... (what a brave soul!;).

even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

No net evolution?
That in particular galls me, for "no net evolution" is exactly what they have a problem with. Evolution doesn't "go anywhere" in particular; it has no "goal." So they complain when a clear example of evolution has no goal.

That would be like me complaining that a remote control showed clear design, as if it were something that the UDudes weren't asserting anyway. Would that be playing fair? Or it would be like me pulling a Behe: Even biblical scholars acknowledge that Moses was not swallowed by a big fish! Well, d'oh. :angry:

Date: 2007/01/15 21:59:02, Link
Author: Kristine
these folks use projection like white on rice.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAH! Oh, my dog! (No, I don't have a dog, nor a Tasmanian wolf, either.)
Well, certainly stubborn, dogmatic Darwinists have been excluded from the site recently because they merely spout their talking points and won't answer the tough questions. But it's obvious that Darwinists are not ejected because they are Darwinists. From my perspective, seems Darwinists are welcomed on the site as long as they are students and even more importantly, as long as they are willing to actually have a discussion.

Hey, ah, TroutMAC. Look here.

(Hey, I appear suddenly as "Anonymous." What up?)

These intellectual wonders really shouldn't trumpet the work of Carolus Linnaeus:  
Linnaeus was also a pioneer in defining a now discredited concept of "race" as applied to humans. Within Homo sapiens he proposed four taxa of a lower (unnamed) rank. These categories are, Americanus, Asiaticus, Africanus, and Europeanus. They were based on place of origin at first, and later skin color. Each race had certain characteristics that were endemic to individuals belonging to it. Native Americans were reddish, stubborn, and angered easily. Africans were black, relaxed and negligent. Asians were sallow, avaricious, and easily distracted. Europeans were white, gentle, and inventive. Linnaeus's races were clearly skewed in favour of Europeans. Over time, this classification led to a racial hierarchy, in which Europeans were at the top. Members of many European countries use the classification scheme to validate their conquering or subjugation of members of the "lower" races. In particular the invented concept of race was used to enforce the inhumane institution of slavery, particularly in the new world European colonies.
In addition, in Amoenitates academicae (1763), he defined Homo anthropomorpha as a catch-all race for a variety of human-like mythological creatures, including the troglodyte, satyr, hydra, and phoenix. He claimed that not only did these creatures actually exist, but were in reality inaccurate descriptions of real-world ape-like creatures.

Date: 2007/01/15 22:17:54, Link
Author: Kristine
That does it.        
Ha, ha. Joseph challenges Lenny to a physical fight.        

This is funny because "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank is a pencil-neck geek who would get throttled in any physical altercation.

However Lenny and I am on the same page- ya see I want a fight. And if Lenny feels up to it I will start with him and work my way through the evolutionitwits like a hot knife through butter.

What say thee, Lenny?

I declare a shimmy-off.

Date: 2007/01/16 12:23:53, Link
Author: Kristine
She wouldn't know scientific data if it was stuffed up her pu$$y.
And I'm a potty mouth? What a class act. Think I'll just avoid that thread (I almost typed "threat").
We can find disease and death and so many other things which are not what we would subjectively consider perfect. So we see a dichotomy here on earth, beauty and astounding perfection and the degradation of the same. This is not some new idea which a few evolutionists thought up of in their dorm rooms over pizza one beery night. For many christians the answer is original sin...
No kidding.

Back in my day, it was controversial to mainstream disabled children into public schools. Parents weighed in objecting to "gross" handicapped children, and pontificating, "God makes only perfect children." (I had just gotten my first pair of glasses. Hey, what do you think about that, Bill D? Oh, you probably have no opinion as always.)
for hindus it’s individual karmic reaction or justice, for many muslims and jews it’s believed that there is a purpose but that purpose is known only to god. all of these mainstream religions teach that the earth and life as we know it on earth, is an example of what the designer has to offer us if we can live up to our full potential.

Ever heard anyone say, "If a car hits you, it's your fault"? I have. Ever heard anyone say, "People born without hands were thieves in earlier lives"? I have. Ever heard anyone say, "Women who are actually smart are uniquely called to resist the temptations of worldly greatness"? I especially heard that one.

I regularly come into contact with a great diversity of people (unlike many of the wind-bags at UD) and I've heard just about everything, and all these nonsensical "meanings" and "purposes" start to look like random verbal mutation when you hear it enough.

Date: 2007/01/16 12:49:06, Link
Author: Kristine
BTW, look at those storms across Texas. The Designer sure is mad about Dover. After all, bad aim doesn't mean no aim. (Always a day late and a dollar short, huh?) And these stupid fools are fighting about the origin of the hamburger. We all know it's from Texas--just like George Bush. ;)

Date: 2007/01/16 14:35:33, Link
Author: Kristine
She wouldn't know scientific data if it was stuffed up her pu$$y.

Let me just put in a request that people here not descend to JoeG's level.

How did I descend to his level by quoting him?

Date: 2007/01/16 16:57:53, Link
Author: Kristine
Kristine is a foul mouthed, tone lowering, hip shaker who's much worse than Joe G.

Now that's more like it. :p

Date: 2007/01/16 19:26:22, Link
Author: Kristine
The only thing keeping Kate from stooping to Joe's level and giving him a permanent stoop is Janie.  Janie wants her to finish the porn story first.

He needs to back up off Kristine for his own good.

Oh, no, no. JoeG was picking on Occam's Aftershave. And I got all prickly and protective. (Not of JoeG.)

Date: 2007/01/17 12:43:24, Link
Author: Kristine
Eeeee-aaahhh! Get a load of this pant-load:
I am currently reading Dr. J.C. Sanford’s book on the human genome. The notion has previously occurred to me more than once that humans have been deteriorating genetically for quite some time, but it never occurred to me that this could be investigated or quantified. I am excited to see what he has to say about it. (I emailed my PhD physicist brother, who has a very dry sense of humor, about Dr. Sanford’s thesis, and he just today replied; “Regarding the deteriorating human genome, I’ve been saying that for years. We’re interfering with Natural Selection by treating the sick. All this health care will one day kill us.” I think he was joking. (He’s read Hoyle’s Cosmology textbook, BTW, and no longer believes in the Big Bang.)

I think I’m losing my mind: Lamarkist B.S. (one does not pass down a cold to one’s children’s genome) and another Big-Bang denial in the same paragraph. This cannot be real. This is a joke, right? Uncommon Descent is just another Onion-esque parody. Dembski’s laughing his ass off at me wigging out at this stuff. (“Sal! Write something about how parabolas have two focii, and watch Boom Boom freak again.”) Right? Please tell me…

No. It’s not a joke. For one thing, have a gander at the mawkish book cover. (There is something definitely wrong with men who like sentimental glop like that. I think I’m going to barf.)
Here is some excellent tard courtesy of some guy named Kazmer.
I know this Kazmer. Alas, poor Kristine. She threw her cookies, she threw them well. :p

Date: 2007/01/17 16:22:33, Link
Author: Kristine
TroutMac comes clean about Creationism and ID
These folks are so bankrupt that they're playing games with the language so as to cover their tracks. They talk out of both sides of their mouth, twist definitions to suit their whim for that moment. They hope that the ignorant will fall for their charade just because they call themselves "scientists" and this, they think, gives them credibility enough to make any claim they want. The problem is, many people are ignorant enough to fall for it. They're not about explaining and clarifying evolution… anything but that. They want to confuse the issue - while appearing to have explained something - as much as possible. We just don't understand because we're not scientists like they are.

Well, change "evolution" for ID and it's accurate!

Absolutely. But what gets me is that this seems such a sincere statement. He’s wrong (and I’ve certainly never called myself a scientist), but it creeps me that he may actually mean what he says. If that’s true, there’s a major problem here beyond the amusement factor.

For pity sakes, I don’t want to mislead anyone, and no scientist that I know wants to, either! I don’t associate with liars. Science is our greatest hope to answer certain questions (which is not to say that I expect it to answer all questions, such as what Captain Ahab’s true motivation could be, or when in the film Psycho Lila Loomis figures out that her sister was probably murdered, etc.).

What’s going on with these people? I’m beginning to think that this has nothing to do with ID itself. ID is an excuse to feel personally lied to and picked on by the people who are curious about how nature works, who want to cure people’s diseases and improve their lives. At times I am just dumbfounded at what I read at UD, the ingratitude toward scientists, the paranoia. Where is all this anger coming from? Because if it’s based in a sincere belief, then something is really, really wrong.

Date: 2007/01/17 20:47:31, Link
Author: Kristine
How come none of you mentioned this Kazmer Ujvarosy guy until recently?
Because I'd toss my tiramisu.  
I can't believe you would hold out on me like this.  The man is an absolute gem.  I'm still trying to decide whether he's another invention of Lou FCD.
He's real, if you want to call him that, and interacting with JAD. :O Enjoy.

Date: 2007/01/18 09:08:06, Link
Author: Kristine
Awww, the kitty and the puppy get along! Now we need more of that stuff. A total love-in. Evilutionists marrying creationists, Coulter the “apple” of Demb’s eye…wait a minute. Ann Coulter and Dembski… I’m getting jealous here… Dammit! Where she at? I’ll kill her!

I’m waiting for the bottle blond (and I’m not talking hydrogen peroxide) out by the bicycle racks. She doesn't misunderstand you like I do, Bill.

No mercy! :D

Date: 2007/01/18 12:45:45, Link
Author: Kristine
Hmm… I wonder why one has to sign in to view the video archive at Dembski’s Bible College… :)

(It’s not going to be Coulter kicking my ass, it’s going to be Bill’s wife.)

I see that the president of said ID grist mill, Paige Patterson, is going to deliver a 12-part spring sermon series on the Last Days, and that the first sermon, set for tonight, is (wait for it) “When Lambs Intimidate Lions – Isaiah 11.”
That dog’s days are numbered, yo! :D

I hope the Last Days don’t come before we hear about this ID Center in a major university. I’m so excited, I tell ya. ;)

Date: 2007/01/18 14:19:28, Link
Author: Kristine
Unless (shock horror) WAD is wrong with his prediction of the soon-to-come fall of "Darwiniasm".

Date: 2007/01/18 17:11:26, Link
Author: Kristine
That's just OK.  The real screamer they came up with is "Darwiniacs".  Just about fell off my chair reading that one.

I’m a darwiniac, darwiniac, you should know,
and I’m dancing like I never danced before—

All we are is dust in the darwind… (Dardust?) And over at UD they’re having dargasms over alleged darchasms… I follow my darwhim… (Darwill she or darwon’t she?) Oh, Darwhatever.

The word is like "Smurf" to them, I guess. :p

Date: 2007/01/22 22:11:09, Link
Author: Kristine
*Aaa-chooo!* Oh, excuse me, UD. Actually I'm not contagious (in fact, I don't even have a cold, just a fever, but you know I like to be dramatic). Did you UDudes miss me?  :)

*Crack of thunder* No.

Geez, thanks all the same, Bill. But did someone mention poetry?
These punctuations in the RNA-to-protein translation process have unexpected consequences: They can change the timing by which nascent proteins fold as they elongate and peel away from ribosomes. This means that two stretches of mRNA that differ only in synonymous codons can translate into two proteins that have identical amino acid sequences but different three-dimensional shapes. Such differences can convey important, even grave, biological and medical meanings. It’s akin to the way the same hand can fold into an affirming thumbs-up gesture or into a shape involving the middle finger that conveys another sentiment altogether.

Now that's romantic. You give me feev-ahh! But I really think this is more of a Gertrude Stein "As a wife has a cow a love story" poem rather than "My love is a red, red nose" kind of poem. Which isn't going to rouse the OE kiddies much. ("Gertrude who?")

Oh. Rose. *Cough* :p

Date: 2007/01/25 23:26:34, Link
Author: Kristine
Um... Okay, first off: what are the two fuzzy, breast-like things on the front of ID Minister Sal-vation? A really bad plastic surgery job, or a reach-up chest grab from the Cookie Monster? I think I'm going to wig. :p

Now, 'bout the new book Richard mentions:    
In Flock of Dodos, the reader will discover ominous parallels between Billy Joel's greaser anthem Uptown Girl and chief intelligent design proponent William Dembski, the wholly non-Christian origins of the United States, the goofy history of the creation science movement, secrets of a happy marriage to anti-feminist icon Phylis Schafly,

Okay, yeah, that is nasty. Oooh. Ow. I'm going to have nightmares now.  
stunning evidence that William Jennings Bryan might not have been all that bright, the the three interesting things that occurred in 2004, and the true nature of the millennia-old Conspiracy of Nonsense that threatens the very fiber of Western Civilization.

:D So what were the "three interesting things that happened in 2004"? Anyone?

Bill, man, now you're going to take on National Lampoon and a sociologist and put them out of business as well? Don't you pay those people no never-mind. I think you got your hands full already. When is this ID-friendly center at a major university going to be announced? Did I miss that?  ;)

Date: 2007/01/25 23:49:52, Link
Author: Kristine
Juuuussst testing...
Okay doke, I see it now. Enable emoticonner keeps defaulting to "off." Poopy emoticons.
:angry: Set phasers to huffy for A Flock of Dodos:
Douglas 9:54 pm

Sometimes, the other side simply leaves me speechless. I’m not sure if this is one of those times.

Courageously said, Douglas! I have to admit I admire your conviction. :D

Date: 2007/01/26 00:32:54, Link
Author: Kristine
They're microphones. The original picture was one of 'Baghdad Bob' taken at a press conference. Don't wig just yet, let me get my video recorder first.

You lie, they're totally tribbles, and Sal is quadrotriticale. They're munching him. Poor Sal.
*Crunch!* I can't look. :p

Voice-over: "Gentlemen and women, we can redesign him. We have the theology. We can make him better, stronger, faster..." *Cue bad theme music.*

Date: 2007/01/28 21:02:09, Link
Author: Kristine
Oh for pete's sake, I decide to do homework for a change and you gents beat me to the "I am Jesus" Newsweek article (Dr. Lenny!;) and the told-you-so "Why can't she just teach church music" AP article (Steve Story!;). Well, I'll say it anyway: I knew those dudes were weird about women. I told you so. Heh. :D

No wonder UD kicked out Heddle, BTW. Girl think. Naughty girl. :angry:

Date: 2007/01/29 11:34:40, Link
Author: Kristine
Appears sporting new halo. I meant Febble, not Heddle. Whoops. Sorry. Truth is, I'm an old *fart* and my memory (among other things) is going. :p

Love is in the air!
You say, designed, and I say, horsehind,
You say, “it’s mind,” and I say, “it’s blind,”
Designed, horsehind, it’s mind, it’s blind,
Let's call the whole thing scoff. :)

Louis, anytime you want a piece of my mind, come over to my blog if you dare. ;)

Date: 2007/01/29 19:07:45, Link
Author: Kristine
Hey, j'ai lu L'Etranger aussi! Well, I had a great afternoon in Urgent Care, so how's by you all? (Long and stupid story.) Grrr.
I know. If only we would let these brilliant minds rearrange our science, Nature and Biology Letters and such would be as productive and successful as PCID.

"Jed Macosko, Associate Editor..."

Aughhh! No! No! *Shriek* Faints.

It's a Luther Seminary (Minnesota) thingie. :angry:

Date: 2007/01/29 20:54:44, Link
Author: Kristine
Wait just a minute here.    
HeLa wrote:
"All I'm saying is lets listen to what he says okay?"

Well, ultimately, it's up to the moderators at this site. But the major point of my last message was to simply point out that this site was created as a place where high school students (and others) can learn about the controversy over Intelligent Design and Darwinism from an ID perspective… it's not about speculative cures for cancer, reasonable or unreasonable.

So, it seems reasonable to suggest that discussions about speculative cures for cancer belong on sites dedicated to those topics, not so much at a site dedicated to discussing ID vs. Darwinism.
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer

Cancer cures are not germaine to the ID/Evo debate? Since when? (This article by Wells was my introduction to I.D.)

Date: 2007/01/30 10:00:11, Link
Author: Kristine
I would come to your blog and gratefully recieve a piece of your mind etc but I'm worried that you're really one of Lou's characters and I'd get all excited for no reason, leave my wife for you and then discover that I was marrying some American electrician. Again.*.

The internet:  Where men are men and so are the women.

Holy fibble, the "sock puppet" charge tosses its blond hair again and it's a trick, I know it! "Get her to post more photos." I can just hear the hands rubbing together. Do you realize that someUDbody is lurking and laughing ("The atheists are agnostic about Kristine") and that certain people at UD (except the undertaker o'my heart) are shimmying with joy ("More photos! More photos!")? I was not created from Lou's rib, okay?:D

And you're all a projection of my thoughts anyway (except Dr. Lenny). Prove me wrong. :D

(Dr. Lenny, first I get through this semester and then I return from the Galapagos, and then I work on and post the shimmy-quiz animation. I promise.) :)

Date: 2007/01/30 12:37:01, Link
Author: Kristine
Nudie photos would surely scare everyone off (and likely get me in trouble with my guy, do you think?). #### it. First it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed and snigger until 2 a.m. (Some of us have to get up in the morning Richard!;) Now it’s Louis pulling a funny about my virtual Dembster diving while I’m at work. (“What’s so funny Kristine?” “Oh, nothing.”)
{twirls moustache but does not in any way shimmy, that's for girls etc}

No it’s not my dear. Men and women do the same dance movements (and you thought they were all prudes in the Middle East. Ever heard of Turkish Baths?). Someday preacher-man is going to shimmy to my tune, and so are you! Bwahahahahah!
Oh and BTW how can you fancy Dembski? The man would surely weasel his way out of perfectly egalitarian orgasmic delivery by claiming he did not have to match your pathetic level of erogenous stimulation.

He won’t even match my pathetic level of replying (not that I blame him at all—he probably thinks I’m a friggin’ lunatic stalker.) But if he and I had met in first year college I can tell you I would have fixed his little red wagon. Ah, alternative universes. *Twirls moustache, then stops in panic and reaches for tweezers* Doncha love getting old?  
Behold! Your end is nigh!
Why don’t they just pass the collection plate? Or the KFC bucket? (Wait a minute, that’s the FTK bucket. Whatever.)

Date: 2007/01/30 23:44:38, Link
Author: Kristine
(Dr. Lenny, first I get through this semester and then I return from the Galapagos, and then I work on and post the shimmy-quiz animation. I promise.) :)

And post more photos.   :)

Liked them, huh? I am pretty well preserved I admit. A bottle of malt a day--I swear by it.
Here's me winning a Halloween costume contest at City Hall. Yes, I'm really real. (Some creepy dude dressed as a zombie harassed me all night. Bleah!;)

RichardtHughes, little innocent.    
"What did I do?"

Date: 2007/01/31 16:35:45, Link
Author: Kristine
But that's the point made by Darwin in Origin of Species. Species are not immutable, but often form a reproductive continuum. This is the expected pattern when speciation is a gradual process of isolation.

Lions and tigers are clearly different species, even though they can produce fertile offspring on occasion. They rarely if ever do so in nature, and there is no significant gene-flow between the populations, hence they maintain their fundamental differences.

I can't find the quote by O'Leary in which she lamented that "species" had no hard-and-fast definition, but was about a month or so ago.

Well, that just makes sense, doesn't it? If species are not immutable, the concept of species is useful but in reality the phenomenon is not as rigidly defined as, say, a specific wavelength of light or the particular atomic structure of an element (and those are additive anyway, right?).

Sometimes they get so close to getting it. It's like waiting for the phone to ring. I'm standing by with champagne, party favors and a special shimmy.

Date: 2007/02/01 20:07:52, Link
Author: Kristine
UD would be proud: censors the phrase "global warming"
And how. This takes the shimmy cake:
Here's where things get really funny: they weren't very competent when it came to getting their search engine to eliminate global warming. If you put global warming in quotes, you get no hits. If you type global warming in without the quotes, you get 4500+ hits, most of which contain the phrase "global warming," and should have been turned up in the first search.

A quick explanation is probably in order here for those who aren't familiar with the working of search engines. When you type more than one word into a search box [which I nearly always do because I like oodles of info!] :) the search engine has to decide what you are really asking for. Most search engines, including both Google's and the White House's, decide that you want to see the pages that contain all of the words in the box, but that you don't care if those words appear in that order, or even near each other in the document. That can give you a lot more hits than you can deal with sometimes, so they built in a way to tell the search engine that you really do care about the word order. If you put your search phrase in quotes, it tells the search engine to show you just the pages that contain exactly that phrase.
Boolah, boolah, boolean! Oh, sorry, that's Harvard, not Yale.  ;)

Date: 2007/02/01 22:02:20, Link
Author: Kristine
My sense is that stevestory was more concerned about how we were beginning to behave among ourselves (Louis vs. GoP*; Louis vs. demallien--sorry, Louis, I love ya babe, but you do keep winding up in these imbroglios), than he was about how we treated the incoming tards.

We should thank Steve for raising the tone during the "naughty girl/sperm/give good mind" episode (although I laughed myself lightheaded). Louis, standing invitation: my blog, coffee, or tea. :p

I just want to share something slightly OT: I posted at UD regarding someone having to make a painful decision. She was induced and the baby was born; little shimmier is doing better than expected; there may still be health difficulties ahead but there's a new little girl among us, so yay, and whew! :)

Date: 2007/02/02 09:27:45, Link
Author: Kristine
but let me recommend that the topic here get back to Uncommonly Dense.

Yes, but first things first! John and I watched Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978 version) and I woke up paranoid! What if it really happened? I know I’m still me—are you guys still you? They’re coming for you! You’re next!

So I’m checking UD for pod people!

Bill seems to think that Dawkins doesn’t exist, and yet he publicly thanks God for Richard Dawkins. Okay, the pods didn’t get my crazy Bill (although if the pod people want to pay my gas bill they’re welcome to it. *Fart*). He's still him. Whew.

Everyone else looks the same to me…no worries…wrinkled or smooth or green, they’re all just cute little peas in a… :O

Date: 2007/02/02 10:27:30, Link
Author: Kristine
You know, William Dembski just gave my upcoming trip to the Galapagos a really fun spin. I grew up on that In Search Of series narrated by Leonard Nimoy and those crap Bigfoot "documentaries," and just for laughs I’ll blog about my trip as "an expedition to find the elusive Richard Dawkins." (Let’s be honest, he’s a big reason why I’m going.)

So at the end of May I’ll come back with a counterpost to Dembski’s silly post at UD (the link is funny though) about evidence for the existence of Richard Dawkins, and I’m not just talking signed books. What exactly is this shy creature Dawkins? What are his habits? How does he adapt to a new habitat (namely a ship)? I shall observe and take notes. ;)

Moreover, I’m beginning to wonder about the existence of this mysterious William Dembski. Aside from one e-mail I received I’ve never actually encountered him at all. Yes, there’s all this video on the web but that could have been faked like the moon landings. Does he always wear starched cotton shirts with a suit and tie, or does he slop around in sweaters occasionally? Does he snore? Does he smell like cinnamon? Hmmm, so many research projects, so little time. :D

Date: 2007/02/02 12:53:31, Link
Author: Kristine
:D  I knew the cinnamon would getcha! I love making men go, "Ewww!" You are talking to a gal who used to catch snakes and scare the other girls (god I was so popular in school). My digs at Dembski are affectionate digs at you guys too, haven't you figured that out yet?

That's why I usually say, "I think I just heard J-Dog barfing" when I unleash the honey trap (but I haven't been saying that lately). So, no worries.

Strident? We're none of us strident here.  ;)

Date: 2007/02/02 14:24:24, Link
Author: Kristine
All it is is substituting the word "dawkins" for "god", and it really isn't very witty nor worth listening to.
Granted, but as I listened I substituted "Dembski" for every mention of "Dawkins" (isn't that what Dembski wants us all to do in the larger culture after all?) and to me it was funny.

Demb Ass doesn't even exist! Just a bunch of books and papers and a bloated CV and some web pages and a MS Outlook contact listing at Baylor U. Boy, that doesn't bode well for the Designer. :)

So I'll just gloat about going on the expedition with Dawkins then. Ha ha, neener neener, Paul Kurtz and Dawkins with me on a boat.

And the minute Lalla Ward steps on that ship no one's gonna look at me anymore.  :(  The lady I could never be.

Date: 2007/02/02 15:18:19, Link
Author: Kristine
I'm sure you've all read it, but in case you haven't, Chapman's article about Kitzmiller v. Dover Bd of Ed in Harper's is available online finally.

Date: 2007/02/03 00:13:51, Link
Author: Kristine
uh, hate to make you even sicker there, Jdog, but have you ever seen a picture of WD40's wife?

she's a real looker, to say the least.

at least some women must find weak chins, glasses, and cognitive dissonance written in books for profit attractive.

Yeah, I've heard she's a doll and I'm curious.

I probably come up to Mr. Dembski's knees anyway so don't worry, J-Dog. I'm not exactly a tall gal. (Besides, you love my freaking you out--you know you do.) :D

But I must say, I find the cognitive dissonance to be distinctly unattractive. :angry:

Date: 2007/02/03 00:38:05, Link
Author: Kristine
Whoa! I haven't seen this post before. Another countdown! I love countdowns. WAD: "I do not bluff, I do not take prisoners." Now, see? The guy kills me. It's just like a valentine (and BTW I love you too, Dr. Lenny).

Boy the countdowns are accumulating over at UD, like a bunch of Paley watches scattered on the sands and all showing a different hour. Isn't there something about not building your house, or your theory, on a beach, but rather upon a rock, like Mount Improbable? Heavy. Ooh.

Date: 2007/02/03 16:45:43, Link
Author: Kristine
Wow, lots has happened since I went to the library this morning, I think? (And not 3 days ago? Ow, my head.)    
I can't tell what O'Leary is babbling about here.

Geez, for the second time I can. She's latched onto that stupid End of Science book (the one that keeps getting refiled onto the "Religion" shelf in the library bookstore and I'm not the one doing it)--science is not making new discoveries, it's hit the ceiling, it's dying, blah. She's beginning to sound like JAD (she's getting JADed about science?). ;)

I'm worth worth $15,242.58? Well, I'll take it.
the universe is filled with a substance called dark energy

So full of it their eyes are substance. :D

Date: 2007/02/04 18:27:15, Link
Author: Kristine
"Kate, get up here!  It's the Starship Dumbskass, and she's closing fast!  I need you at weps!"

Kate's eyes narrowed at DaveTard.  "Don't go away."

Oh, come hither, Starship Dumbskass. Thaaat's right. Come to Kristine. ;)

I'm in this story, right? (In between slaving over my schoolwork? *Rattles chains*) :)

Sorry I didn't say this before Phonon, but..gee. I'm sorry you went through that. ???

Date: 2007/02/04 20:01:38, Link
Author: Kristine
Set phasers for stunned!
I put Richard Dawkins in the same category as the holocaust deniers. As Terry Tommyrot’s excellent “spoof” implies he deserves only ridicule.

What a jerk. :angry:

At least the mother ship finally links to comments.

Date: 2007/02/04 23:13:35, Link
Author: Kristine
Set phasers for stunned!    
I put Richard Dawkins in the same category as the holocaust deniers. As Terry Tommyrot’s excellent “spoof” implies he deserves only ridicule.  

What a jerk. :angry:

At least the mother ship finally links to comments.  

So god=the holocaust?  

There are living witnesses to the holocaust..  

So holocaust deniers are like Dawkins deniers.  

Ah! I guess so!

But that's not why I'm mad, durn it. Somebody stole my saying! That's my saying! :D

Date: 2007/02/05 16:13:32, Link
Author: Kristine

You'll spoil the ending!

Maybe we could take a poll of who should be in the story.
I get kidnapped, right? (Oh please, oh please...) :)

Date: 2007/02/05 23:01:10, Link
Author: Kristine
Yecch! It's past my bedtime, and that's saying something.  :O

Date: 2007/02/06 10:23:11, Link
Author: Kristine
Hey, nice to see that the Templeton Foundation has joined the Great Atheistic Conspiracy Kiss (GACK). Good goin'.

I'll make a prediction, folks: Some people are going to be very sorry that they took this particular view. As far as I'm concerned, this is worse than the evolution denial. This is akin to President Reagan ignoring the AIDS crisis that is now engulfing Africa (and on a smaller scale, to the HIV-denialists like Wells ignoring the Tripoli Six).

If denial of global warming is how people want to be known, that is how they'll go out. As for me, I gave up driving 20 years ago for a reason and no, that doesn't mean friends drive me around. I want to be known for stating that evolutionary theory will still be here fifty years from now and that denial of global warming will be seen as the modern equivalent of refusing to look through Galileo's telescope. Here I stand, and let the chips fall.

(And when give up your car in your twenties, you don't gain weight in the first place and can eat like a hog.)

Date: 2007/02/06 15:00:18, Link
Author: Kristine
If mankind is part of nature, then even from a secular/Darwinist perspective, the whole idea that we should be freaked out about global warming seems utterly ridiculous to me.

And there you have it, folks! Sums UD up for me. Nihilism in the name of "God." "The dinosaurs are extinct, so why shouldn't we be?" Hey, you go be extinct, doofus.

I guess that's what you think when you have no moral compass within yourself. (Hmm?)

And then there's Sal--evolution love him--to sweeten my mood. The eternal golden brain, blogged again. ;)  Get some Brain-o to unblog that blog.

Date: 2007/02/06 15:50:16, Link
Author: Kristine
JHC! -
If we were to successfully reduce our output of CO2, would this NOT have a negative impact on plant life? Animals consume oxygen, and produce CO2. Plants consume CO2 and produce oxygen. If there is less CO2 available to plants then does it not follow that there would be less oxygen available to humans?
So deforestation of the rain forests creates more plants to absorb all that CO2 TroutMAC? News to me.

If mankind is part of nature, then even from a secular/Darwinist perspective, the whole idea that we should be freaked out about global warming seems utterly ridiculous to me.
One more dig at this.

Quick, somebody send a memo to all the bunnies of the world and tell them “not to worry” about wolves. They’re both a part of nature, right? Tell the little chicks to quit acting so unnature-dly and stop worrying about chickenhawks. (Yep, don't fear those chickenhawks.) Tell the baboons to quit avoiding crocodiles, and insects, fly right into those spider webs. No fear! Go ahead and swing by the Venus Flytrap. Big global tree hug! We’re all a part of nature!

#### right we are—and that’s why everybody puts up a defense, and why is we fear each other and ourpredictors, and that’s why animals and insects fear each other and their preditors, too. I learned that in third grade—why didn’t those guys? So why shouldn’t global warming fear us, too? I’m crouching in the grass for you, global warming! Yum, yum, I’m hungry, and birds do it, bees do it, even monkeys in the trees do it, so let’s do it. Let’s prey on our prey, in this case global warming, and reduce those emissions. Why don’t we do it in the road? :angry:

Date: 2007/02/07 09:59:09, Link
Author: Kristine
As soon as the word “consensus” is mentioned in support of an argument the argument is political. There is no consensus in science. There is only truth in science.

Not true, honey.
Democracy is all about consensus. Science is not a democracy.

Yes, science is not a democracy. But neither does it offer fixed and absolute truths. People need to get this. May I get librarian-geeky here?

Wanna make jokes about librarians? I'm already being steered toward information science, and it's called that for a reason. We're talking about cognitive-affective states and brain MRIs. Since the 1980s library users have been sampled in an attempt to create a model of the user in the research situation, rather than just a model of how the reference librarian locates sources for the user. The consensus is that, in a user performing research, as the cognitive areas of the brain light up, so do the emotive areas. This would seem to demonstrate that the emotions and feelings (such as confusion and anxiety) of a person doing research are as significant as the thoughts the person has and the process he or she undertakes to find the information. This statement is generally true, but there is a distribution of results because, hello again, there are variations within the group. (For example, my partner in our presentation last night claimed to feel no confusion or anxiety about undertaking research.)

This is not true as in "proven." Studies results point to statistical results, not hard and fast answers. And the purpose of all this was to develop a better model from which search engines and intervention techniques could be derived, and there I was, shooting down this new, touchy-feely model as yet another caricature. (And who am I to criticize Carol Kuhlthau? There are no gods in science, and as it was I agreed with her on most points.)

"Consensus" doesn't mean that everyone agrees with every single point, either. Even with nearly everyone in my class in general agreement a big argument erupted over collaborative versus individual research strategies. May I say that there was a distribution of responses from my colleagues that, if charted, would nevertheless display a pattern?

Science looks for patterns, but that doesn't mean every single individual or event follows that pattern (and perhaps none of them do--for example, no one has 2.5 kids), and the pattern changes depending upon which aspect of a phenomenon one chooses to measure. Yes, scientists are interested in what is true, but "truth" is multi-valent.

(And another, very disturbing, outcome of these studies indicated that the level of satisfaction of the user at the conclusion of the research did not correlate with the quality and number of sources used. That would seem to indicate that a user can come away from the research process having learned nothing about how to assess the authority of resources. As I gave my presentation last night, do you think I had a certain group of ID theorists in mind in relation to this?)  :)

Date: 2007/02/07 16:50:12, Link
Author: Kristine
Right, Ichthyic. And if you flip that coin once and it’s heads, then it’s heads 100% of the time! ;)

That reminds me of a story related by John Allen Paulos (author of Innumeracy) in which a talk show host was interviewing his guest, a mathematician, and the mathematician postulated that a certain percentage of people in the audience would be A instead of B (my memory is really vague here), whereupon the host asked the mathematician which he was (B), and then claimed that his guest was “wrong.” :angry:

Date: 2007/02/08 12:08:34, Link
Author: Kristine
Man, I would love to be a fly on the wall as DaveScott tries to explain to the Secret Service that he didn't REALLY threaten the President when he posted:
"Say goodbye to GWB - You're out of here homo"
I think those Secret Service guys have the same kind of sense of humor as Airport Security have...

I dunno… How is all this any different than WAD debating Eugenie Scott: “Oh evolution works for me too, I’m not a fundy, I think Darwin was onto something,” yak, yak, and then behind the scenes: “We gotta claim these people for Christ, and it ain't polite to ask the earth her age!”

(And jesus, poor Jesus. Why don’t people leave the guy alone? I can just see him when WAD drags us all into Heaven:

Jesus: Jesus! And yes, I get to say that! I can’t believe the people you bring me. Geek factor just got raised in this joint, thanks. Oh crap, it’s the belly dancer! What’s her deal? I didn’t create these people—you can’t pin this on me. What up, WAD?

Kristine: Hi, Jesus! Man, it’s so wiggin’ looking down at my dead body  n’stuff. Are you in tight with Hermes, because I always kinda liked him. Great—now I have all the time in the (world?) to read Gödel, Escher, Bach.

Jesus [groaning]: Yeah. You do that. [whispering] I am in h***.)

I mean, did God sign up to be the cosmic weight-lifter? Maybe he wants to be spelled, sometime? People never ask that question. ;)

Date: 2007/02/08 16:43:06, Link
Author: Kristine
Meanwhile, climatic scientists have nevertheless created absolutely perfect models for the world’s weather patterns extending 100,000 years back and forwards in time (and yet they still can’t tell you if it’s going to rain on the weekend).

No, no, no, you twit! Why do you make me yell at you? “Perfection” has nothing to do with it! Models are estimates, but the point is, they are run over and over again and fed different variables and examined different ways and these numerous models display a pattern within the distibution that I ranted about yesterday. And hello! Who can predict the behavior of our all-glorious free market three days from now? Huh? Does that mean you can’t expect your 401K to accumulate? Hmm? Didn’t your broker talk to you about the ping-pong ball inside the basketball (the ping-pong ball goes pingy-pongy inside the basketball, representing the daily ups and downs of Wall Street, but the basketball follows its trajectory through the hoop. Yes?).

Bill Dembski! Sometimes I want to put you right over my knee!

I really do. ;) Cha-cha-cha.

Date: 2007/02/08 17:09:23, Link
Author: Kristine
RICHARDTHUGHES, WHOEVER YOU ARE, WE ARE USING THE VICTIM’S ATBC ACCOUNT IN A DEPERATE ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY THIS WOMAN. VICTIM WAS FOUND TODAY JUST A FEW MOMENTS AGO LYING IN FRONT OF THIS COMPUTER IN THE LIBRARY AND CONVULSING WITH LAUGHTER. SHE HAD NO LIBRARY CARD BUT WAS CARRYING FINGER CYMBALS. We tried to get her to speak but all she could say was, “Tard bard unmarred in my regard.” If you can help us identify her, please do so quickly, her library computer session is about to shut dow—

Date: 2007/02/09 14:31:04, Link
Author: Kristine
And why do they keep on and on with the monkeys and the typewriters?

Because they are monkeys at typewriters (or at least, at keyboards).

Sooner or later, they gotta plunk something out that's a winner. As for me, I'm waiting for O'Leary to carve "noun + verb" with a heart on her virtual tree.

Pulling for you,'s almost Valentine's Day. Coherence or bust.

Date: 2007/02/09 14:41:54, Link
Author: Kristine
Sorry Kristine, but sooner or later, old WAD is going to to explode or go postal, trying to keep all his lies straight.

Go postal with the mostal? ;)

Let’s build a model of this. Of course, I can’t predict WAD's behavior pattern three days from now, but in deeper time, oh, I don’t know, maybe say nine years or so...

(BTW, do the extraneous superscripts in the snippet add information to the piece? Discuss.)  :)

Date: 2007/02/09 14:53:08, Link
Author: Kristine
I'm sending y'all my hospital bill. You can split it.  :)

Date: 2007/02/09 15:00:08, Link
Author: Kristine
Woodward displays this passion for truth-telling yet again in his marvelous new book, Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design. What Woodward wrote about just a few years ago is even truer today. Amid a firestorm of criticism and abuse from committed Darwinists, the intelligent design movement continues to press forward, gaining scientific credibility and even grudging respect from some evolutionists. But as Woodward shows, there’s still a long way to go.
Oh. Stupid me, I thought he was talking about Intelligent Resign.  ;)

Date: 2007/02/09 15:19:21, Link
Author: Kristine
That extraneous junk came over when I did the cut and paste from the DePaul Prof's website.  I should have re-read better before I posted.
No, no, no! Take a look--it's in the original.  :) The lack of design is not yours, my friend.

And I must apologize to everyone for my "coherence or bust" comment. I meant, in the spirit of Valentine's Day, "coherence or bustier."

And let's model that, too.

You first, Richard.  :D

Date: 2007/02/09 21:44:32, Link
Author: Kristine
Each and every time?  Are you sure about that?   Another uneducated dolt joins the fray.

He's been around for a while. Oh, yeah, I remember WinglesS.  :angry:

Date: 2007/02/10 12:33:08, Link
Author: Kristine
The girl on the right is Debbie Schlussel. She got a boatload of hate mail from offended atheists due to the program.

You should see the threat I sent her. I called it a threat, too. ;)

Dang, y'all! I got the perfect way to give Christian girls the ickies--use the "diet" analogy. Atheism is a religion? And we don't have freedom from religion in this country (wouldn't that imply that no one has the right to freedom from atheism, BTW?)? Okay, lil' Debbi cakes:

Premise: We have the freedom to choose between diets but not not to diet.
Reply: Okay doke, since everything is a "diet," I'm on a "diet." Last night I looked at my homework (towering close to the ceiling at this point) and said, "**** it, we have the freedom to choose homework but not to not do it," and then rented some crap horror films (Don't see Blood and Black Lace, it sucks), got some microwave White Castle cheeseburgers and some oven fries, sat on the couch with the cats (my guy is traveling) and

ate my "diet" food along with 2 beers (yeah, FTheKids, I'm on a "diet" just like you),
did my "homework" (the MST 3000 takedown of Unearthly gave me some laughs),
and "said my prayers" (Grain Belt is a 3-2 beer, unfortunately).

Gee, I also "did the dishes" (they're still stacked in the sink), "made the bed" (sheets piled on bed, not on floor--check), and, what else--I'm at the library now--oh, we'll just call that saving the planet.

Yeah. If atheism is a "religion," ID is "science." Oh.

At least I stuck to my "diet!" :) Gee, religion gives you an excuse for anything (learn quickly, don't I?).

Date: 2007/02/10 17:17:55, Link
Author: Kristine
Is everyone all right over there?
Geez. I hope so.
I don't like explosions. I like scary movies. Now I'm home again watching Legend of Boggy Creek and too much noise will scare away the creature. (Since I'm alone, any blogs (ID or Evo) that want to hold my blog-hand, you're welcome to, 'cause it's kind of a creepy film).  :)

Date: 2007/02/11 01:10:28, Link
Author: Kristine
Hi all from bloggy creek:  
Is that Boggy Creek or Boggy Creek II? If it's the movie I'm thinking of, then there's chicks wrestling in the mud, a kid who can't seem to find his shirt, etc.

It's Legend of Boggy Creek, the first one. I've seen the MST 3000 takedown of Boggy Creek II--it's hilarious. Rent that one. :) The first one is a "documentary." Hmm.

I thought maybe some bloggy creatures would come to my blog to hold my hand, but no. Fine.  :angry:

That's okay, I don't believe in the Boggy Creek monster or Bigfoot anyway. *Barricades door*

Date: 2007/02/12 12:02:37, Link
Author: Kristine
Over on Panda's Thumb, Ian Musgrave mentions AVIDA. I'm reading this Carl Zimmer article about it which Musgrave links to. Aren't you glad you're on the evolution side, and you get to learn about cool things like that? That you don't spend your days hanging out with complete retards, dismissing cool science?

Yes. I got all freaked about Invasion of the Body Snatchers for a reason (e.g., sleeper cell Ph.D. candidate).

Please don't let me go to sleep, people. :O

The guy appears to be amazingly talented, capable of speaking out of not just two, but three sides of his mouth.  I can't do that...can you?

He's pulling things out of his butt, that's how. *fart*

Date: 2007/02/12 12:45:07, Link
Author: Kristine
As if Marcus Ross being a charlatan wasn't bad enough, Davetard chimes in with a fantastically stupid comment.

Okay, doke. I think I'll go get a theology degree. (Jebus, I already probably have an M.S. in religious studies just from being self-taught.) Anybody have a problem with me not believing the theology? :)  (I already know more of the Bible than most people I run into.)

Date: 2007/02/12 15:09:11, Link
Author: Kristine
Denyse is rather like Thumper to Dembski's Bambi.

Oh yeah, Jerry, baby...    
We quote IC or the complexity of the cell or the Cambrian Explosion and all that is well and good but ID is mostly on the defensive.
It shouldn’t be. Tell people that we agree with Darwin and NDE and many of the other findings of evolutionary biology but always with the caveat that it is only actual findings that we agree with and not the extrapolations to unproven hypotheses.

Great idea! Let’s start with the age of the earth. 4.6 billion years old, or not? Tell it, UDudes.

Go ahead, UDudes. You have the floor.

Don't be shy. The microphone won't bite you.

Hey, UDudes… :D

Date: 2007/02/12 15:20:07, Link
Author: Kristine
complete with Darwin carols celebrating atheism and sung to Christmas carol tunes

Really? I thought it was time for Valentines tunes (valentunes?). Here’s my chance. How about:

Jingle bells
I hate Wells
Father laid an egg(head),
HIV, a jug, and thee
Mass marriage, shake a leg

Jingle bells
John Wells smells
a rat and it’s Darwin,
NDE trumps his Ph.D. and
foils the Joker once agin’!  ;)

Date: 2007/02/12 16:39:22, Link
Author: Kristine
Darwin and his worshippers will burn in ####...

And I will laugh at them for all eternity as they scream in horror and pain like the stupid ape wannabes they are...

When their religion collapses for all the dumb sheep to see. Their atheist and evolutionist overlords will deserve social, economic and legal destruction for the soul-destroying lies they perpetrated.

:O  Well, at least the next commenter rebuked this one. Gaa, how sick. I mean, it's not like any of us believe these guys are going to #### for not accepting Darwin's theory...

Of course, then the next commenter blames it on an "evolutionist troll." "Pro-ID people don't talk like that." Oh, come on. I can't even tell who the commenters are--how do they know who it isn't?

I can't even tell who any of them are.

Date: 2007/02/13 10:30:02, Link
Author: Kristine
Whenever anyone asserts that evolution requires atheism, I just laugh.

I became an atheist long before I heard of evolution, and before I did I went through (no sniggering, people) an “ancient astronauts” phase (I was twelve! Okay?). I remember giving that up as absurd and not knowing what the story of our origins was, and being initially skeptical about evolution (as I was about everything by then).

Undergoing that rootlessness and search was a lot of fun, actually; I think that I thrive on uncertainty, and that’s probably rare, and I don’t expect other people to be like me in that respect. I don’t think evolutionary theory will collapse but even if it were to, I would just be in that position again. And that would be fun again.

Despite my enthusiasm for the subject I don’t have my personal identity wrapped up in theories about our origin. People like Wells do and that’s their problem. What I really enjoy is the process of learning, and there are some very important questions that need to be asked, but “Goddidit” isn’t an answer, even if God did it. As my beloved high chemistry teacher said (and he was a devout Christian), “If any of you put down ‘God’ as an answer on a test, you’ll flunk. And if God takes my test and puts down ‘God’ as an answer, he’ll flunk too.” :D

Date: 2007/02/13 10:42:50, Link
Author: Kristine
So, if God farts in the forest, but there is no one there to hear, does it make a sound?  Does it still smell?  And how many #### angles CAN dance on the head of a pin?  These, my friends, are the eternal questions that The Science Of ID can answer!

In the beginning was the word. And the word was with God. And the word was, “Wasn’tme!”

And then God created the heavens and the earth to blame it on.

Thank you. I’ll take my Templeton Foundation $$ now. So fork it over. :)

Date: 2007/02/13 11:18:05, Link
Author: Kristine
I really don't think the shooters were motivated by Darwin Day.
This doesn’t really have any relation to science does it?

How altruistic of you, WinglesS. This has nothing to do with anything. (If it turns out that the guy’s a Christian, does that make all Christians bloodthirsty killers? No.)

I mean, I’m not happy that a guy who shot the little Amish girls last year (which inspired more hand-wringing about “evolution in our schools”) turned out to be a home-schooled Christian. I’m not glad. I didn’t think, “Rah for our side.” What can I say?  Tragedies like that have nothing to do with this debate and that is a really, really inappropriate post.

Date: 2007/02/13 11:45:35, Link
Author: Kristine
Good old error 404.
I miss the “easy, tiger” message.

Just did a search: no more “welp” either.

I'll miss that.

Date: 2007/02/13 14:57:31, Link
Author: Kristine
Hey, WinglesS et al, you wanted to know about a scientific explanation for altruism; here's a partial one. It's interesting. And you know what? When I was being questioned about altruism at UD, I forgot to point out this.

Nice. For pity’s sakes, does anyone think I’m concerned about global warming because of myself? I’m sitting in the middle of the continent surrounded by good well water. I’ll be fine; other people (maybe even in Texas) will not be.

Does anyone know what this hobo symbol means?

Because the folks at UD think that philosophical naturalism presupposes everyone growling and snapping at each other, that’s what they think we think, too. And that’s not what I think. I think we evolved from a group of hominids crouching in creekbed in Africa, all holding hands in the dark while listening with terror to the tigers growling. Without altruism, the human race would never have survived. And now, after having forgotten what it was like to have tigers as our natural predators (long enough to fight over "god" like a bunch of fleas on a cat), we've got another "predator," global warming, barking down our snorkel.

There it is, the origin of altruism. It’s simple, from how I look at it. Will we see the revival of altruism? Because I see nothing of spirituality in screwing up our atmosphere.

Date: 2007/02/14 11:31:37, Link
Author: Kristine
Thanks Deadman, I knew what the kitty symbol meant. I put it in to show the anti-global warmers what to look for to find my homemade grog when they're fleeing the floods. Assuming, as Steve said, they still read us. ;)

Bill is just playing dumb here.
And it’s not cute. He knows better. This is just a rehashed “Lookee, they’re arguing over Gould-Eldridge’s P.E.!” stunt. How low can one go?

But then, in chimes this pom-pom waver.
Doesn’t language qualify as being a human characteristic that is, according to Behe’s definition, irreducibly complex? It seems to me, that language can beget language, similar to the way life can beget life. But explaining the origin of language seems far more difficult, particularly when you need a baseline level of words, and an existing grammatical structure, in order to functionally communicate. I was wondering whether anyone at this website had drawn a similar analogy, and what their thoughts on the matter are.

I’ve done etymological research for a U of M professor, have a degree in English Lit., wrote a (very limited) program to translate Somali into English, and am now studying cognitive patterns of learning. Want my opinion? First of all, Mohammed, you mean “syntax,” and it's for the birds.

Secondly, have you ever heard of syllables?
Or the concept of a vocabulary?
How about assembly language?
Or binary code?

I mean, really!  :angry:

Date: 2007/02/14 12:05:30, Link
Author: Kristine
I mean, ahhhh!  
that language can beget language, similar to the way life can beget life.

Similar, huh? I guess we just found out what those Indo-European languages were really doing at the quieter moments in human history. :O

I’m sorry, but I have got to point this out: maybe it’s suddenly “liberating” for men to have discovered how to bat their eyelashes, flip their hair, play dumb, and make cutie-pie boners like “life comes from life” and “languages come from languages” and, I don’t know, “cars come from cars” and “flowers come from flowers” or whatever it is that they’re trying to say. But for thousands of years, women struggled not to act like this. We (and I worked) worked #### hard to finally be taken seriously (?) as scholars, only to find men mostly in the ID camp, acting silly and being taken seriously no matter what they say.

I don’t get it. I just don’t get it.

And rants come from rants I guess. Because you know, it’s so completely unlikely that I typed this screed one letter at a time.

So, is mathematics also “irreducibly complex”? Because it’s got no less than an infinite amount of numbers! Where did all those numbers come from, huh? And plusses and minuses and exponents and stuff? And math is so hard! *flips hair* :p

Date: 2007/02/14 12:40:09, Link
Author: Kristine
That's too hard for my poor little female brain. Besides, the integers came from God. Stephen Hawking says so. So there, poopy smarty-pants. *flips hair* :p Gee, I think I have a budding career at the Disco Institute.

Date: 2007/02/14 13:16:26, Link
Author: Kristine
Thank you, Stephen.  ;) You guys are so tolerant of my moments.  
cold air is usually a lot drier than warm air

Was that "air" or "hair"? *Bats eyelashes. Because I can!* :)

Wowee kazowee:“The earth is overdue for an ice age”?

“In the past the earth exploded with life during the warmest epochs and conversely life was muted in cold epochs. As far as I’m concerned warming is net beneficial compared to cooling”?

Yay for the beetles. Like we need more.

“These chuckleheads [now we’re getting somewhere] actually don’t know whether they’re coming or going. They’re driven by fashion and passion and politics not rationality and science. Boneheads all.”

See? *Flips hair*  :p

Date: 2007/02/14 14:27:30, Link
Author: Kristine
Steve, they're picking on me! *Bursts into tears* :p

I do run like a girl. That was you, Arden? Sorry.  :)

Date: 2007/02/14 15:41:17, Link
Author: Kristine
OMG! We forgot to send UD a valentine. What the hay, people, you didn’t remind me, and you know I hate shopping, especially at the last minute.

Oh fine, I’ll just pick something out quick. Hmmm, let’s see…something in Greek mythology maybe. With lots of tempting snakes. Pucker up, UD! Kiss me, I'm evolutionist.

Mwah! ;)

Date: 2007/02/14 16:04:45, Link
Author: Kristine
Would this be the wrong time to ask you to run along and get me a cup of coffee?

And I made you some nice warm milk, Arden. Momma knows best. ;)

Date: 2007/02/14 18:48:06, Link
Author: Kristine
Ooooh! Did you also bake those cookies I like?   :)

Here you go! :D

Date: 2007/02/15 00:57:21, Link
Author: Kristine
Aha.. I was the firstest!

*Curtseys to Richard*

A lot has happened, hasn't it, since poor Mohammed made his assertion (and a silly one for all the reasons I said).

So much for language being irreducibly complex. I am reminded of a dotty idea by the surrealists (I love them but they fought like gangsters and had a lot of dotty ideas) that trance states led to "words making love." Man, enough trance states and automatic writing, and they were fighting like mad dogs. So much for "words making love." So much for nicey-nice ideas about God and language and poetry in DNA and such.

And I know a lot of Muslims--a lot. I have issues with Islam as I do with all religions (and some nonreligious ideas), but I'd trust these people with m life. What a mess over at UD. Just ugly. :(

Date: 2007/02/15 10:15:18, Link
Author: Kristine
Thanks, Reciprocating Bill, I completely spaced Chomsky. (And I know jack about Bickerton. )

What’s so troubling about the Islam thread is, while Europe went through its colossal loss of nerve and slid into the Dark Ages, Muslim nations took of the mantle of science and innovation and preserved the writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans, thus laying the foundation for the Renaissance (via Europe’s Crusades). Historically, Jews have fared better in Muslim nations than in Christian ones (though we’re not seeing that today). However, at some point it became a widespread belief that one could not do science and worship Allah, and while the West saw its scientific and literary rebirth the Islamic countries declined. Now we are seeing people who, for some reason that escapes me, confuse methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism and must retake this country for Christ (or take it for Allah, or Scientology, or whatever) and wage battles on behalf of God as if, assuming these entities exist, their Christ and their God are helpless ninnies.

Why did Europe need everyone in the Middle East to be Christian (and as it was, Crusaders slaughtered many Arab Christians) and why does anyone need to be surrounded by people who believe in a Designer that apparently lets evolution toddle along for some time, and then yells “Stop!” and throws together a flagellum? I have no problem with theistic evolutionists—but they tend to be Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists rather than Christians and Muslims these days.

Does it take an atheist to point out how theologically unsound this is, how—well—idolatrous all of this ID crap is?

Date: 2007/02/15 13:11:12, Link
Author: Kristine
I think that there is something very wrong with this post. Not sure what it is yet though.

Question 1: When reffering to the "dark ages" what do you mean?

Question 2: Muslim nations where the point of scientific/mathematical excelence once. What halted that?

Question 3: What do you mean by Western Europe needing Eastern Europe/ or the middle East to be Christian? When was this and why?

Your post has confused me.

1. The "Middle Ages" between 450-1000 AD. Petrarch, I think, dates it here.

2. In part, the devastation of the Crusades; the growing influence of radicalized Caliphs and mullahs; war with the Ottoman Empire; loss of lands to Europe; and a whole bunch of other factors. My point was, this coincided with a growing anti-intellectualism that was out of keeping with Islam's achievements and that this holds a lesson for America today.

3. Europe invading the Middle East with the intention of conquering Jerusalem for Christ, and slaughtering Muslims (and Arab Christians) sounds like somebody needed Christian dominance and control of the Middle East. Wasn't that what the Crusades were about? I don't think I mentioned Eastern Europe, unless you're talking about the Ottoman Empire.

Date: 2007/02/15 14:47:35, Link
Author: Kristine
Sorry for being so pedantic.
I just do not think the church is the root of all evil.
People are the root of evil and they/we will use any excuse.
"Christian" nations have used Christianity as an excuse for devilment.
Atheist countries have just used a different excuse.
Oh, no, I don’t believe the church is the root of all evil either, shockingly enough. That’s way too simplistic.

Look at the way the ancient Egyptians/Nubians/Greeks/Spartans/Romans treated each other (and how Rome treated Christians at first). Yuck-o-rama! I am no fan of ancient Rome.

I’m a little cross-eyed today due to a low-level migraine, so I make a brainfahrt (“Oh, now the girl claims to have a headache! ;) and conflate dates/events/cultures in a way I shouldn’t, kick me good. There also were a whole cheese-poofy ton of secular reasons for the Crusades, anyway.

And waddaya think I claim to be, a saint? :D

Date: 2007/02/16 10:24:42, Link
Author: Kristine
Well, I saw A Flock of Dodos last night, and I have to say, what's the big deal?

Randy Olson was so gentle with the creationists; he made them look like charm school graduates whereas the scientists were portrayed as a bunch of boozing, blustering blabbermouths who didn't so much play a poker game as serially interrupt each other with statements like, "Now, what was my point?" He ended the film by saying he'd rather play poker with Kathy Martin, Connie Morris, and John Calvert than his old scientist buddies. (Do fundies play poker?) :O

So the DI doesn't have a budget of 5 million, but 4.2 million. Ooooh.

So Calvert managed to cough up a textbook that had a drawing of Haekel's embryos (Haekel-n-Jekyl, I have never heard so much about the dang embryos before!;) and faxed it to Olson, and it didn't get into the film. That's what you get when you belatedly fumble for evidence for an answer you've just presented as God's truth.

The DI finally contacted Olson after the film was made, and they sat him in a room and screamed at him.

Who would you rather be screamed at, a creationist or a scientist? :)

Date: 2007/02/16 10:34:44, Link
Author: Kristine
I have a question from anyone who has seen the movie. What percentage of the movie is taken up with the Haeckel episode?

About 7 minutes, if that.
Are there any other distortions in the movie?
Ohhh, yeeaaah. The inexplicable "there are no transitional fossils" crapola gets a lot more play than the stupid embryos.

None of Haekel's drawings showed up in my textbooks as I recall--just a paragraph about them. I've read a lot of material on evolution since adolescence and didn't encounter the embryos until Wells had a hissy-fit about them. :p

Date: 2007/02/16 11:53:08, Link
Author: Kristine
So, is it a "woe is me" speech, or a "I'm locked up with all these evilutionists" speech, or a "send me your money" speech, or a "the Zionist Occupation Government got me!" speech, or a "how I'm helping these poor men to Jaysus" speech, or a "something really hurts down there" speech, or what?

All of those arguments at once, PLUS THE KICKER:

“If they let me out of prison, I shall forgive them [the IRS].” *Strikes pose* “But if they don’t let me out of here [and I must say I detected a bit of, “Lemme outa here! Lemme the #### outa here!”], I shall go after them. I’ll sue them. Again. One for every little mistake they’ve made, and they’ve made a lot of mistakes!” *Shakes fist* [Yeah, the IRS really loused it up Hovie, and that’s why you’re in the clink. Right.] “But if I don’t get outa here [ “Lemme outa here! Waahh!] I’m going after them, blah” yakkity-yak.

What a deluded nincompoop. :D

Date: 2007/02/16 16:56:40, Link
Author: Kristine
I have been doing a lot of thinking about that, actually. (I got hammered at Pharyngula of all places for suggesting that creationism, not religious beliefs, was an indication of a neurotic disorder—“I wouldn’t say they’re crazy!”—well, that’s not what I said.) ;)

I remember a study done with subjects who held racist ideas: they were asked to look at a series of slides in which there were drawings of cats that gradually “morphed” into drawings of dogs. Those who held firm racist attitudes would insist that the drawing that was clearly of a dog was a “cat.” I thought of this again when a friend of mine, a prominent atheist in the Twin Cities who goes and speaks at Bible colleges about evolution, science, religion, etc., talked last night of showing the students examples of transitional fossils, and they insist that they still “don’t see it.”

Yes, there’s definitely a huge psychological component to this. After my talk on learning behaviors I got so many new ideas from the class discussion that I’d love to test the idea further, specifically regarding students learning about evolution. (I just don't know when I could find time to do it, however.)

Date: 2007/02/16 17:02:35, Link
Author: Kristine
Funny how they have such faith in evolution and life’s ability to meet new challenges but not at this macro level.


Are we talking of the same process that took such great care of the mammals (by choking off the dinosaurs)? :O

Last time I checked, a star was "a self-regulating complex machine" too. Wanna sit real close to a supernova? Yeah, bye.

Date: 2007/02/16 23:17:02, Link
Author: Kristine
About those psychological factors: this (via EBSCO) is pretty darn weird.  
Interhemispheric interaction and beliefs on our origin: Degree of handedness predicts beliefs in creationism versus evolution.  Niebauer, Christopher Lee; Christman, Stephen D.; Reid, Scott A.; Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, Vol 9(4), Oct 2004. pp. 433-447.

It's available as a PDF. I don't know what I think of a supposed correlation between strong "handedness" and creationism, although it would perhaps explain all those engineers, and...

...well, it would also explain how Hovie's spending most of his time in prison.  :p

Date: 2007/02/17 11:34:53, Link
Author: Kristine
Yeah, if you can get me the citation, I would definitely be interested.  :)

Date: 2007/02/17 11:47:14, Link
Author: Kristine
So what was Yogi Berra's take on global warming?

"I really didn't say everything that I said"?

"You can observe a lot by watching"? Or how about

"It ain't over 'til it's over"? That must have been it. *Shiver*

Date: 2007/02/19 00:23:33, Link
Author: Kristine
Congratulations Kristine:

RichardTHughes, you beat me to it! Dang!

I wanted to show everybody how conceited I am! :D
Talk about stroking your own ego.
Moi? Oui! :)

Date: 2007/02/19 10:23:37, Link
Author: Kristine
You know, this may be an obvious joke, but all this talk about hot air is rather ironic.

Thank you for your well-wishes, people. I hope everyone is laughing with me!  ;) Smoochies and shimmies.

And happy birthday, Bob-O! *Punches buttons to find more secrets...*  :)

Date: 2007/02/19 16:42:06, Link
Author: Kristine
What other "benefits" do we get for voting for you?

Free shimmy lessons.

A flash animation which I swear I'll work on after May.

A really, really funny joke in just over nine years and a month.  :)

Date: 2007/02/20 10:16:52, Link
Author: Kristine
Yes, Virginia! There are "Darwinist Authorities!" No, Karen! No, no, no. Bad girl think. Naughty girl.

Date: 2007/02/20 10:52:45, Link
Author: Kristine
Thanks a bunch, Ichthyic. :) I was able to pull the PDF of the original article from Journal of Personality via your link (and as it turns out I have heard of this study).

I'll check out the evo psych link too. I'm iffy about that stuff, although as long as their methodology is sound I’m open to it.

Date: 2007/02/20 13:20:18, Link
Author: Kristine
The cosmos ain't big enough for the two of 'em. (Go here first.)  :D

Date: 2007/02/20 23:11:01, Link
Author: Kristine
God: More than you can imagine.

What's so hilarious about this cheesy-poof meme is that, I'm the one who can put them away! I can eat my weight in food, anyway. :D I certainly could win a cheesy-poof contest, God knows. (Anybody wanna take me up on that?)

I bought some on my way home from school tonight. *Num.*  :p

Date: 2007/02/21 10:13:18, Link
Author: Kristine
Well, looky here. I guess we can add General Electric, Ford Motor Co., Toyota Motor North America, Goldman Sachs, and Wal-Mart (for pete's sake), among others, to the list of the new “eugenicists.”

This global warming "conspiracy" crap is downright immoral. See that over there, UD? You want to tell me I can't be a good person? You got something to teach us all? Now you can tell it to Alcoa, too. :angry:

Date: 2007/02/23 15:10:44, Link
Author: Kristine
“Species” is pretty ambiguous now. If we use the breeding criteria then there are some humans that may be called a different species than other humans.
Also there are those who seriously doubt that chloroplasts and mito arose via endosymbiosis- just ask John Davison.

Bwaha! Let’s do a Jonathan Wells quotemine:
“Species” is pretty ambiguous now… there are some humans that may be called a different species than other humans - just ask John Davison.

Truly, the only one of his “kind.” Just like the Boggy Creek Monster. (Seriously, rent Legend of Boggy Creek sometime, the first one. In the middle there’s a hilarious love song written from the point of view of said creature, “the only one of its kind,” bemoaning the fact that it has “no one to touch or love before I die.”) :D

Date: 2007/02/23 17:08:52, Link
Author: Kristine
Hello, I work in an art museum. Gag! Magritte, or Magritturd? Like Magritte's apples and businessmen, it's raining Godwin's Law violations in my brain (Hitler launched all these "exhibitions" of shitty art, too). And then Bats chimes in like a cheerleader out of ####:  
Another Darwinian nightmare: ID crossing the culture and changing it. What’s next?1! ID rappers?

Very good image of the BF.

(Umm...BF? That makes me think of a naughty act.) Oh yes, the ultimate Darwinian nightmare, visual muzak. I admit it. This is not a pipe dream by Dembski, this is an image of a pipe dream by Dembski, the new Thomas Kincaid of crap. And to think I thought that was a repetitive concept.

All those of you who are not pod people, not ID nappers, wake me up. Please, from my nightmare of Christo-covered parking lots for ID. Made out of floral shower curtains and Star Wars rubber sheets. :p

Date: 2007/02/23 17:17:49, Link
Author: Kristine
Oh. And ID rap has been done (and undone).  :D

Date: 2007/02/25 15:56:49, Link
Author: Kristine
Zachriel is hereby presented with the AtBC Indiana Jones Award. He relentlessly picks up his machete and bullwhip, cuts through the underbrush of ignorance which is UD, and snatches the most valuable artifacts for display here.

Truly a tarchaeologist. Congo rats, Zachriel, honey chile!  ;)

Date: 2007/02/25 23:00:51, Link
Author: Kristine
AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH JUST WON AN OSCAR! So, how do you like them Magritte apples?

BTW, Dembski, is it designed, or not? Let's play, you art lover!  :D

Date: 2007/02/26 09:20:44, Link
Author: Kristine
Ah, yes, the Bible Code--the yard-sale equivalent of biblical scholarship.

If my childhood pastor were alive he would have ripped that "theory" a new one. There is serious biblical scholarship—and then there is numerological/pagan word invocation/magical thinking, and it’s sad that a professed Christian can’t tell the diff.

Uh, what exactly IS the topic at UD?

It's so cute, it's like I'm posting at UD!  :) (And we all know it's do as Kristine does, don't we? *shimmy*)

I have a little shadow
that goes in and out with me,
And what can be the use of him
is more than I can see.
He is very, very like me
from the heels up to the head
And I see him jump before me
When I jump into my… :O

Well, so much for Robert Louis Stevenson.

Date: 2007/02/26 11:22:18, Link
Author: Kristine
Uh, where did UD go?

Am I losing my mind?

Date: 2007/02/26 13:00:24, Link
Author: Kristine
Is it me or did that site go frazzlespatzzle for a moment?

Something's up.

Date: 2007/02/26 16:38:29, Link
Author: Kristine
You're telling me in a nation of 300 million people they can't find 10 fundies with BS degrees in biology, who could populate their blogs and write about biology and not sound like complete retards? JoeG and Troutmac and the UD regulars are the best they can do?


Date: 2007/02/26 23:17:32, Link
Author: Kristine
Denyse O'Leary says evolutionary psychology is bunk because...

...a bunny rabbit chased a snake up a tree.

No I'm not kidding.

PPPPHHHHhhhht! :D Richard, watch out. There's a new (well, not) sheriff in town, and I'm gonna go to bed sniggering over that one.

Yeah, Mrs. O'Leary lights a lantern in her head:      
One of the many reasons I have little use for evo psycho is that animal behavior is often not at all predictable. It may be difficult to say what behavior enabled a given animal to become an ancestor

Little girl! We know precisely what behavior enabled a given animal to become an ancestor!

Not that I want to describe it to you at all! :p

Send Dean Bill over (geez, long enough link? Ever heard of truncation, there, Billy boy?) and I'll whisper the reason in his ear so's he can write it down and hand the note to you in study hall. ;)

(Bill--you don't want to be dean or president. Think of what comes with the territory, crazy women falling in love and throwing themselves at you. You don't want that. You don't want weird lunatic creationist chicks sighing and showing up outside your door at 2 AM. Don't you get that enough, preacher?)

Happens all the time in the church, I know what I'm talking about.   ;)

And anyway, Shalini blogged about the kitty-bear dance first!

Date: 2007/02/26 23:30:14, Link
Author: Kristine
Awwwww! *Digs in pockets, produces some loose change, a broken finger cymbal, and some lint* ???

Date: 2007/02/27 10:19:12, Link
Author: Kristine
So what do these paragons of virtue, who love all these "doctors" who believe in dinosaurs on the ark and sign petitions against evolution, think of a doctor who refuses to treat a little girl because her mother has a tattoo?
I do not have much intellectual sympathy with atheists, and I do not support their cause. But on the other hand, those of us who are theists and non-materialists need better arguments if we ever want to convince anyone.

I always point to ID and parapsychology.

So knock yourself out, Denyse O'Leary. Tell me what I need to learn from your infinite wisdom, because when a man fell down on our icy sidewalks yesterday, I stuck around until the cops came, and when my neighbor knocks on my door crying because her landlord's being a dick and wants the rent now, at midnight, I've given her every cent I had, and if anyone at UD were in trouble, #### right I'd do something, anything to help.

What are these guys trying to teach us, again? Oh, they of little faith. :angry:

Date: 2007/02/27 13:05:47, Link
Author: Kristine
Maybe those who can't find morality and good within must look without?

They're not even looking for it. Instead of lighting candles, they're cursing the light.

Date: 2007/02/27 14:47:06, Link
Author: Kristine
Move over ID!  There is a new merchandising strategy origin-of-life hypotheses in town!
You sure it isn't this?

BTW, the Dow just fell 500 point, everyone. So I guess we liquidate our 401Ks now, because that disproves the whole compound interest/economic growth theory, right?
(Yeah, you go ahead—I’ll leave my money where it is. As John and his friend in high school math class used to say, e! e! e!;)

Date: 2007/02/27 16:16:48, Link
Author: Kristine
You guys realize that was a poke at the anti-global warming thingie, right?

They're confusing me at this point. (I thought I was incapable of personal virtue?)

Well, they've convinced me now. Give me that #### Oscar, Al! [Lou--I said "Al." Get it?] :D

Date: 2007/02/27 19:54:07, Link
Author: Kristine
I have a story for Tribune7.  
Wasn’t there a controversy at one of the Ivies where someone left money for a chair in American history (or something like that) and it was never put to use?
That happened in Minnesota, when a crackpot named Elroy Stock donated money to Augsburg College. Stock has written hundreds of thousands of anonymous hate letters (one of them to my high school when we hosted feriners from France) to inter-racial couples and black families and Spanish-speaking immigrants, etc. His little scheme was exposed, and the college kept the money; eventually, the college used the money to help students of color attend the college.

Date: 2007/02/27 20:26:45, Link
Author: Kristine
And would someone please explain this to me?

Steep learning curve even for me.  :D

Date: 2007/02/27 23:41:37, Link
Author: Kristine
A sextor is not all that well defined but is usually a measure of how well a person identifies with the herd, how outspoken she/he is, and how defiant she/he is against what is traditional, pure, clean, and decent
yes, i'll tackle that.

Ichthyic, tell me what I want to know! This is the most bizarre conversation I've read yet.

Why did they put "she" first? ("She/he"--ooh, how feminist all of a sudden. Are they talking about somebody in particular?)

How can one be an "outspoken" member of the "herd"? Again, I detect a pointed message.

What is a "sextor" again? Tribune7's never heard of the word before--and neither have I. Why are they talking about, urp, sodomy? I mean, they're talking about sexual orientation of both men and women, right? Do lesbians do sodomy? ;) Not that I'd know about that. I mean...I'm getting paranoid, and a little scared, and What are they talking about? :D

Date: 2007/02/28 01:03:31, Link
Author: Kristine
yes, with artificial aids

Oh, like the stuff Suzie Bright writes about. Well! That's, ah...that's, uh...why are the UDudes talking about this again?

Why again did JanieBelle get banned?

I googled "sextor" too and found this. What a player.

Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you...

So what are they going to do with me once they have me? ;)

(I can just hear Bill: "Oh, what did you bring her here for?"
Crandaddy: "Look, it's not my fault, I grabbed a bag of bulk Old Dutch and she was in it."
Me: *Crunch, crunch* "Hi!") :D

Date: 2007/02/28 10:22:37, Link
Author: Kristine
You know, what I don't understand about this whole "evolution = eugenics" argument is, we are already practicing eugenics in this country.

This is an extremely harsh nation in which to be a child. (Though I'm not going to say more about it you can visit the comments at my latest post on my blog to see the jaw-dropping experience I had at 14 when I really needed a doctor's care.) Who wants health insurance and health care and proper treatment for all? Those liberal, godless "Darwinists."

That's what I don't get.

No one in America talks about social class, but it is becoming more rigid and insurmountable. Yet is it treated as God's will or something. No "vulgar, materialist" immorality there. (Can't find a doctor who won't refuse you treatment because of his "Christianity?" Your fault, because you didn't become a millionaire. In the 1980s, the message was that everyone could become a CEO! Yeah, right!)

This is happening in this country...and these guys are yawping about sodomy!      
But you miss the point entirely. One is science, the other is a lifestyle choice of sodomy.
Another moving goalpost.

Come to think of it, I remember a millionaire asking me about atheist charities. Since I'm thinking of ways to partner with other people/orgs to compile a database of doctors who will treat anyone and not withhold information or treatment (another sad comment on America), I could use some funding and/or advice.

Date: 2007/02/28 13:16:54, Link
Author: Kristine
Denyse talks about Denyse in the 3rd person

Ripping off Joey Campana’s valuable backslider on the REAL relationship between Denyse O'Leary and Denyse O'Leary, Denyse O’Leary suggests that there is a power struggle going on over at Denyse O'Leary, with funding for fundy Denyse O'Leary as a key bone of contention. How else to reconcile the views of honcho Denyse O'Leary and honchess Denyse O'Leary? They are not singing from the same hymnbook. :p

Date: 2007/02/28 13:31:19, Link
Author: Kristine
Jebus, do they do this by design?  
Dr Dembski has a gay card? Can I get one? EBay? Amazon? Cards’r'Us? Wal-Mart?

How about here, at the good old Mall of America? :D

(You all got the "he's gay" memo from the right, eh, sodomites?) ;)

Date: 2007/02/28 18:12:43, Link
Author: Kristine
We need to archive the ISCID website. At some point they're going to take it down. With its ambitious talk in 2003 about conferences, workshops, essay contests...

Essay contests? *Brightens*

*Figuratively bright-ens*  :)

I have an idea...

Date: 2007/03/01 09:53:07, Link
Author: Kristine
What do all of you think of this idea?


Here's an idea I've been toying with that I'd like to float with Wes and Steve, the moderators:

Every time a new blog entry is posted at UD, we could create a thread here at AtBC which links to it.  Anyone who has been banned at UD or expects their comments to disappear could post them on the AtBC thread instead of at UD.  After a while, word would get around that all of the interesting stuff was happening on the AtBC threads.  Commenters at UD would start responding to comments made on the AtBC threads, and after a while they might even post directly to the AtBC threads.

This would be great, because a) it would create a place for genuine discussion of the posts at UD, where qualified, intelligent people could have their say, and b) it would put pressure on the moderators at UD to loosen up.  They've got noone to blame but themselves.  If they allowed dissent, people would post there instead of here.

If we created a new thread for each UD blog entry, then old threads would naturally scroll off the thread list as interest in them waned.

Question for Wes and Steve:  Would you guys go along with this plan?  And does the AtBC software have any limit on the number of new threads that could be created for this purpose?

I think it's an excellent idea! :)

Date: 2007/03/03 12:01:28, Link
Author: Kristine
Any science fiction fans out there remember what Dr Who’s time machine was called?

Yeah, I was waiting for that one!

I've worn out this joke, but remember, the Designer could be a time-traveling biologist...

There's one connected by marriage to TARDIS. Hehe, no wonder Bill's so bitter. Gee, Bill, so if you had had that f*cking conference after all, your life would be totally changed, and you wouldn't be slaving away at some backwater college like Peter Abelard after he lost a certain body organ, and being so socially awkward with your fartamation thingie, and trying to convert a certain Richard. Yes, we see.

Jebus! I put this to you guys--at what point does flapping a tear-stained hankie look like waving a (wet) white flag?  :p

Date: 2007/03/03 15:46:46, Link
Author: Kristine
Wah! Wah! WAD: Can you say "leprosy"?

Mathematician, heal thyself.

Boo, hoo, hoo! I can't stand it anymore! Somebody, give this man a conference. (Trying to make yourself unattractive to the BD girl, Bill? Doing a good job, honey. Yeah, real charm.)

What was the name of that "ID friendly research center at a major university" again? How long do I have to "stay tuned"? Did I miss that, everyone?

Is it at Leprosy University?  :p

Date: 2007/03/03 15:54:40, Link
Author: Kristine
I see.  So the space aliens diddit, there is no god, and IDers are all atheists.

Wouldn't it be funny if there was some way to make one of their precious "irreducibly complex" mascots seem to appear to be the work of aliens? (I have no clue how one could do that, however.) Then let's see how quickly they trumpet that "discovery" at UD.

If there was a way, man, that would be way funny. Watch them scramble to explain it away. "But I thought you didn't need to invoke a supernatural cause?" Uh-huh.
When Darwinists rule out ID as science, they rule themselves out as well.
Aww! He just called us intelligent! He's looking out for us, people.

PHHHHhhhttt!  :p

Date: 2007/03/03 16:11:27, Link
Author: Kristine
What about "sudden appearance theory"? I think that's going to be the new crap phrase in the new crap edition of Of Panda Crap and People Poo.

I actually like "sudden appearance theory" because Behe backed off of that idea in his Dover testimony (he backed off of everything so much that soon I thought he was going to define intelligent design as random mutation + natural selection). That'll get him in trouble with himself (kind of like how Denyse O'Leary occasionally gets control of the body from Denyse O'Leary). Remember, he reviewed the Panda Crap book--but only the part that he himself wrote. Bwahahahaha! :D

Date: 2007/03/03 22:37:29, Link
Author: Kristine
I hate to say this, but I don't think you love Bill any more.

Well, I gotta admit, it's a shitty relationship. I'm not sure that it's working out. :D

One minute I want to throw plates at him, and the next--I want to throw up on him. :p

I think intelligent design robs men of their sexiness. Think about it, clapping your hands for Tinkerbell isn't much of a turn-on. Know what, Bill? This is why you don't pin your idea on only one idea--you become Billy One-Note Whiner when it doesn't pan out. (Why the #### get two Ph.D.s anyway? What good is that?)

Don't worry, Lou, I'll try to keep the meme alive for Janie, but uggghhh! I'm sick of the whining! Leprosy, indeed.

Date: 2007/03/03 23:03:39, Link
Author: Kristine
Oh, Skeptic is Ann's sock-puppet, that's all.  Methinks the lady doth protest too much. :D

Turn about, fair play, Skeptic. You called me one.

Date: 2007/03/03 23:19:18, Link
Author: Kristine
*Ahem* That's Kristine.

Wow, dude, congrats on your show. I have one coming up in May.

We're trying to do a class operation here, and his constant whining and sniveling just doesn't cut it, you know?

No lie, man. What a crybaby. And Bill stole all my kleenix. He's so toast.  :p

Date: 2007/03/03 23:25:08, Link
Author: Kristine
Cinnamon toast! :D

Date: 2007/03/04 00:31:25, Link
Author: Kristine
They got their KJV, they read it like it was wrote, in plain English, and they ain't come from no monkey, dammit.

Oh, yeah?

"In case you haven't noticed, Christians are a monkey wrench for the New World Order." (Toward bottom) :D

Date: 2007/03/04 14:42:00, Link
Author: Kristine
Ah! Denyse O'Leary now has gotten control of the body again from Denyse O'Leary.

And do you think there could be a third Denyse O'Leary? (Apparently we must count the number of personalities for her. Geez, according to Watership Down, even rabbits can count to four.)
Note to self:  Never break up with Kristine.
It's only them darn creationists who give me teh crazy. Indeed them do, Keiths. :D

Date: 2007/03/04 16:27:55, Link
Author: Kristine
Who put a funny coin in Joseph?
Joseph - the discussion isn’t operating on “liking” the idea of a married Jesus, it’s operating at the level of “where’s the evidence?”.

Thanks Tenstrings. So are you saying that we need to find a marriage certificate?

Date: 2007/03/04 17:46:19, Link
Author: Kristine
Ichthyic, you're kidding but I really think we should refine it and try to sell it!

"All animals are born Christian--it's the materialist godless Darwinists who teach them to need 'endangered' habitats." Hahahah. :)

I bet at least the same crap publisher as Of Panda Puke and People Pharts would buy it.

Date: 2007/03/04 21:11:37, Link
Author: Kristine
Sorry. "Kris" is what I was called growing up. Bleah. :p

I'm dancing for a friend's gallery opening in May. More news to come (but c'mon, you guys are scattered all around the country, ain't you?). :)

Date: 2007/03/04 21:20:14, Link
Author: Kristine
Yeah! I got one answer wrong (them darn Mormons) and it gave me 100%.

Is it me, or is that quiz really...uh...easy?

Because if it's actually hard for most Americans, then holy crap! Even if we let intelligent design be taught in schools, they'll just be as butt-ignorant about that, too!

Be careful what you wish for, Dembski. Don't glorify the "unwashed masses" too much--remember that your minions in Dover didn't really know (or care) what ID was, either. :p

Date: 2007/03/05 12:48:13, Link
Author: Kristine
Oh, Im sure it can, but its just that its getting boring. Ive been following the whole C/E debate for about 6-7 years now, and Ive seen way more interesting creationist arguments than UD is currently offering. They are just sulking, throwing up insulting articles about 'Darwinists' (whatever they are), Richard Dawkins and the US legal system, and occasionally misinterpreting a paper they havent read and don't intend to.

You said it! The IDists have done nothing but 1) create virtual niches for we "Darwinists" to play in, and 2) prove themselves to be less entertaining than the Little Rock Trial crowd in 1982. Whine, whine, whine. Zzzzzz.

They just don't make creationists like they used tah. :)
I just wish they would come up with something new.

Ain't nothing new under the sun. But if you want to jump-start some fun, send me a personal message.
I accept of course that UD does not exist solely for my amusement,

Why?  What good is it otherwise? :p

Date: 2007/03/06 11:06:17, Link
Author: Kristine
Yo! Did they all fall asleep over thar?

What up, ID lab have a power outage or something?

(Hey Bill, that's when Dawkins wrote his seminal work, The Selfish Gene. Hint.)  :)

Keep the muse amused! I'm getting bored! :p

Date: 2007/03/06 12:19:57, Link
Author: Kristine
Stop by my cave on your way home

I'm having a problem opening your cave.

(Uh... okay, you guys know what I mean.)  :D

Date: 2007/03/06 12:25:18, Link
Author: Kristine
*Shimmy* G. Gordon Liddy, I mean, Scooter Libby convicted on all but one count! :)

Now he'll go to prison and write a pro-ID book just like Colson. :p

Date: 2007/03/06 13:24:56, Link
Author: Kristine
The two amigos sure got mad (heh) when I won at Pharyngula! :D

Date: 2007/03/06 17:01:17, Link
Author: Kristine
Say "enough," somebody.
Ugh, it feels like being back in Bible class.  ;)


BTW, Gil--what’s the mathematical probablility of being dealt any particular hand in poker? (Hint: pretty darn smaller than you'd think. And yet, poker exists.)

Date: 2007/03/06 19:43:38, Link
Author: Kristine
I'm reminded of what Sober and pals said in "How Not to Detect Design":

I haven't read the whole PDF yet (I'm in class, on break, as we speak), but this reminds me of the debate between Dembski and Lee Silver. Dembski stressed the importance of his EF in this debate. In the Q&A, someone referred to Silver calling his remote PPT control as "intelligently designed" and went in for the kill: "And you made that inference without religion, Prof. Silver?" Silver admitted that he had, and I wished that I could have been there to riposte: "And did you need Dr. Dembski's EF to make that inference, Prof. Silver?"  :)

Ah, alternative universes.

I too find it difficult to read Dembski. I didn't nickname him Andre Breton for nothing - and Breton's much more fun to read. (Mad Love is great.) High-falutin' don't 'mpress this midwestern librarian, Bill. :p

Date: 2007/03/06 20:24:42, Link
Author: Kristine
What a sheltered world you people must live in.  

Oh, yeah? You should hear the shit I listen to on the bus/train to and from work/school. Crap, I've seen weapons and everything.

Coulter and people like her are most guilty, in my view, or cornballism - pretending to be "blue collar" (or what they think is blue collar - Bill O'Reilly think it's his dad having been an accountant), wallowing in trash culture (because for them it's "exotic," when for some of us it ain't), and cutting loose (like the uptight little WASPs they are) with naughty words and jokes!

Who's has a sheltered life? Sure wasn't me, honey, sure wasn't me. There's a phrase I've learned recently - "cultural capital" - and I didn't have it growing up, no siree!

You haven't had a sheltered life when you wish for one - and people like Ann have had one when they parade their blue collah "credentials" to the very people they wouldn't give the time of day to in the lobby.

She's about as funny and attractive as Michael Jackson before he started really spiralling, too.

Date: 2007/03/07 13:02:24, Link
Author: Kristine
I believe that Coulter is purposely being mean just to make people mad.  She does not believe that Edwards is gay it's just an opportunity to use a taboo term.  There's very little connection between Edwards and being gay, probably none, but that term is in the news these days so she used it.  Nothing more than that.  By reading anything more into it and getting offended is where the humor comes in.

Look, the point is, if the people around this woman really cared about her, they would set some boundaries for her, because she's becoming a freak show just like Michael Jackson. Stating that one is sick of this kind of discourse and behavior is at least a start.

I'm tired of the recriminations. I'm dog-tired of this sniping. I grew up among people who just sniped at each other - little kids who just hurled the same language that Coulter does (news flash! She's not original!) and sneered at everything, and had no curiosity, and are now drinking themselves to death in that stupid small town I came from. It's not funny, and it's not glamorous, and it's all related to the anti-intellectual atmosphere pervading this country.

I left my small town, only to find the same atmosphere all over America. It's time somebody called everyone on it. We're acting like a nation of pre-teens.

Date: 2007/03/07 16:52:45, Link
Author: Kristine
You know, I quite like those people that you seem to dislike.
Look, I never truly dislike anyone, okay? I don’t even dislike Ann Coulter. (Well, I do, but I just can’t keep it up for long. Too much energy in disliking people.) There are times, when she actually acts sane, that I wish I could like her.

Until she opens her mouth. I don’t believe that she believes what she says. But I don’t understand people like that. I joke around, but she’s/they’re taking it to another level, and I don’t know how much of her is “she” and how much of her is “they” (yes, she’s a pundit, but she’s a pundit like Michael Jackson is a child advocate).

I didn’t snub people in my town; they snubbed me and were closed-minded and tried to change me all the time. I don't get it because I was no trouble. They could have just left me alone, but there was harassment, even nasty phone calls. Parents who didn’t like my parents had kids who got in my face. These were the upper-class snobs of the town so I’m hardly a sophisticate. It's not that I don't like people from small towns; it's just that I'm afraid they'll judge me again and one can hide more easily in a city than in a place where everyone knows everyone. As a matter of fact I wanted the people I grew up with to accept me, but they never will. So I split.
It doesn't apply on the individual level.
Of course not. Check out the link in my previous post – GilDodgen’s a pianist, just like me. Geez, we have something in common. Too bad I don't believe in anything. ;) I certainly didn’t know any guys who played the piano when I was taking lessons. I got enough crap from the other girls who nagged at me to quit. Have you ever seen the documentary Go Tigers!? I sympathize with the non-football obsessed kids interviewed in that film

Date: 2007/03/08 00:07:02, Link
Author: Kristine
But it did occur to me that their God would certainly be a good candidate for such an example.
Glen! You just made God go away!  :D

Date: 2007/03/08 11:01:53, Link
Author: Kristine
Evolution is attacking common sense and decency by undermining the fabric of our superior western values. When we are presented with a world that is totally random, where the cause of life and love and liberty and morality and decency gets boiled down to its parts and the parts get separated from the whole then the parts get addressed in society apart from the whole which allows us to view the Brittany Spears debacle with exactly the same disinterest as homosexual intercourse being simulated on television, the American flag being defacated on during a pro PEACE rally, millions and millions of babies born to unwed and unprepared mothers being aborted every year and equivocating science with moral truth. Are you following me?


I was about to say that Doug is a troll, but then this happened:

And all we have to do is watch you go at it. Why these arguments weren’t brought up in Dover, I have no idea.

It gets better:
Your arguments create the white bread monocultured world we who understand the importance of faith and morality must learn to avoid at the supermarket of life. Remember, read the labels, buy local produce when possible and for God’s sake, buy organic versions of reality.

And by all means, since all things exist inextricably with their opposites, continue to go on and on and on and on about your Darwinian facts. You will have created enough periods that the spiritual among us can use them in our sentences. God knows I don’t use enough periods.

Date: 2007/03/08 12:14:08, Link
Author: Kristine
Sorry to get all emotional and liberal-touchy-feely on you all, but a rant like Doug's makes me wish I could give these people a hug - they need it. What a cynical view they have of their fellow human beings - what a degraded view they have of themselves and the world. If we don't have a carefully crafted supernatural view of reality, civilization will collapse! Obviously these people have not met many people different from them, and they haven't been a lot of places that challenged their insular view - a view, incidentally, based on self-abnegation and fear.

I don't even know what to say. At this point, arguing is useless, because the problem is that they dwell in a world of arguments and words, rather than experiences and perceptions.

Everything that they say about me, us, "Darwinists," is just plain wrong. But I don't know how to counter them at this point because, as I've said before, I find meaning in doing and in silence, not in this pettifoggery that they think they need so that everything doesn't fly apart, or whatever disaster it is that they're afraid of.

Criminy, I have never seen such unhappy people in my life, to repeatedly insist that other people who do not believe what they believe therefore have nothing to believe in. :(  
There is only pleasure and pain.
Well, if I get pleasure from doing what Doug would call (what I hope he would call) good things, what then? Who's got the real problem?
Our species will simply commit collective suicide. THe effect of chronic depression due toi the fact that nothing matters.
Talking about yourself, man?

And denial of global warming is a great way for a species to commit suicide.

Date: 2007/03/08 15:30:37, Link
Author: Kristine
Dammit Kristine - Don't go all soft and fluffy on us!
Listen here, sugar – if I want to play Patsy Cline albums (well, I’m at work, so I can’t, but still), get all misty-eyed, think about world unity, and write down the monikers of those UDudes that I want to hug first (making a list, checking it twice, going for those more naughty than nice), then I will. IS THAT CLEAR??? :D

Don’t you ever read the BIBLE? There is a time to wig, and a time to dig, a time for exclamation points, and a time for (was I the only one who noticed this?) periods – and if Doug gets to have periods, :O  ferchrissake, so do I!

(Aren’t you glad I shared that?) :p

First come hugs, then darwinian marriage, then comes materialism in the baby carriage.

Date: 2007/03/08 17:17:24, Link
Author: Kristine
O'Leary, first person:
Nobody seems to be blogging these days
'Scuse me?
including me
Who? Oh. She. Must be a personality not yet seen. (It's like Sybil!;)
I’ve often said that the ID guys owe a good deal of their success to their opposition

Do you see that? Shimmies make ID babies (you've heard of "eye-babies," right?), and behind every, er, backfiring fart animation stands an evo-diva with a gas mask. (O'Leary's not on my list BTW.)

Now where was I? Oh, yeah: 
[note 13] Laura Bauer, “Intelligent design backers criticize KU course title,” The Kansas City Star, November 23, 2005. Available online (January 2006)

Scott Jaschik, Emails Kill a Course, Inside Higher Education, December 2, 2005. Available online (January 2006)

Michelle Malkin, “What Happened to Paul Mirecki?” December 7, 2005. Available online (January 2006)

Wow that's news. Citations from this century and everything. Here's a  current one for you, Denyse. Which leads to:
These people are ALL about conspiracy theories.
Yeah, what a flock of Dodis.
Lemme tuck you in, tenstrings. And Fross, quit trying to out-ewww me. :D (Read definition 6.)

Date: 2007/03/08 17:22:09, Link
Author: Kristine
And you gotta be kidding me:  
For a comparison, I believe more money was spent on the PBS Evolution miniseries than in the entire history of the Discovery Institute’s CSC.
Falsifiable. Anyone? (We need an eyeroll smily BTW.)

Date: 2007/03/08 23:04:32, Link
Author: Kristine
Hold it, hold it right there (Dembski):
I am a Christian, and the example of our Lord blah, blah, my policy to firmly resist all pressures from people who think it’s their right or duty to tell me whom I may associate with and what sorts of penalties I will face if I don’t distance myself from the wrong crowd (I faced such pressures continually in my days at Baylor, and I never buckled to them).

But according to an article written that was sympathetic to Dembski, he rarely set foot on campus:
Dembski spends most of his time at home with his family these days, even though he still has a five-year contract as an associate research professor at Baylor. He doesn't like going to the university's campus. He's much more comfortable here, surrounded by his stretch of land that came complete with a horse and a fishing pond. It's the perfect place to ponder life's great questions...
In God's Country by Lauren Kern, last paragraph.

And Dembski himself said: "In a sense, Baylor did me a favor. I had a five-year sabbatical." (Yeah, I love reading that after a frantic day at the museum. Must be rough.) Evil wikipedia says:  
Dembski was removed as the center's director, although he remained an associate research professor until May 2005. He was not asked to teach any courses in that time and instead worked from home, writing books and speaking around the country.

So, what's he pissing and moaning about it for now?

Yeah, and who is anybody to tell him to get to work? He's not exactly in the working business. Besides, he's got his hands full, enabling the incoherent rantings of pathetic, mentally ill dupes like Doug.

P.S. I meant what I said earlier - I'm seriously becoming alarmed at the level of delusion at UD. Are there any mental health professionals out there monitoring this site? If not, I'll consider having a psychologist take a look at what's happening over at the paranoia factory. And as for Dembski, I think that for him to need obviously sick people like Doug (he makes TroutMAC sound coherent) as supporters is beyond irresponsible.

Date: 2007/03/09 10:33:06, Link
Author: Kristine
As far as I can tell, they are both internally consistent.

Yeah? Well that’s also a component of paranoiac schizophrenia (along with high intelligence and high functioning capability, personal magnetism, etc.). I think a couple people over there (commenters) are candidates, and they shouldn’t have their behavior enabled.  
Dembski is fleecing the rubes and Doug is expressing his worldview. Both are consistent within their respective spheres. Both present their worldview coherently and reasonably articulately. And finally, both can be parsed reasonably easily given a knowledge of the language each uses.

I don’t agree. Our William Dembski is one smooth operator, shape-shifting to morph with whatever audience is in front of his nose. Check out this story. Quite revealing.

In a post earlier today Denyse responded to a student’s charge that ID is a “God of the gaps” scientific show stopper.  Apparently, the student assumes if a researcher performs a scientific investigation of a phenomenon and concludes that design by an intelligent agent is the best explanation for the phenomenon, the matter is then settled and all further scientific inquiry is foreclosed.  But that is not the way science works.  All scientific conclusions are tentative and contingent. …yadda…For centuries most physicists looking at Newton’s theories probably would have disagreed with Popper.  We know the answers, they probably thought.  …yadda…All scientific conclusions are subject to revision. Scientists should never be satisfied (in an absolute sense) with ANY conclusion.

What utter bullshit. That has already happened. Creationists already armed with a design inference looked at the evidence and came up with natural selection and Mendalian heredity laws. Is Barry saying that once ID makes it into the textbooks and the schools, and brings “this nation back to Christ” (Dembski), they would still entertain that their conclusions are “tentative and contingent”? Of course not. Behe himself said that there was no point in studying the development (evolution) of the immune system because we “know” it’s designed. They don’t have to match our “pathetic level of detail,” remember.

Man, oh man, am I putting together the details on Dembski – and it’s pathetic, I have to say.

Date: 2007/03/09 16:53:36, Link
Author: Kristine
I want to make a plea to Design Theorists like Bill Dembski and others. PLEASE GET TO WORK.  

//checks calendar

He's right, they've gotta do some work. I mean, how long is it since the last ID book was published??  ;)

As of April 2, 2007, Dembski's got nine years left.

And less than a month to go for my first TICKLE ME EVO post. Maybe I can publicize this countdown more widely, too.

Demb ass. He said it, and it's on!  :)

Date: 2007/03/11 01:08:22, Link
Author: Kristine

Well parody and farting flash is easier then science, I guess. when that fella posted "IDers do something", I think he was hoping for science.


Oh, but he was working, I see, on the sucky contest. (You know, I didn't even read the thing he wrote, whatever it is. I have work to do, and there was a friggin' fire in the library this afternoon! *I'm still raw, heh - sorry, UDudes* So if someone could boil it down to a haiku, I would sure appreciate it.)  :)

Date: 2007/03/11 01:53:54, Link
Author: Kristine
It really is amazing what a bitter person Dembski is.

Thanks for the heads-up; I won't bite him. You really are brave. :p
"Sucking up to the 'Big D?'"  C'mon, that's just pathetic.  It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

No kidding. I've never written a poem to Charles Darwin in my life. They jest at scars that never felt a wound.

And why don't they pick on Mendel, too? Didn't he, an Austrian monk fer chrissakes, remove God from heredity?

What are these people so angry about?

Date: 2007/03/11 19:19:48, Link
Author: Kristine
Listen my children, and you shall hear
of the danger of talking out of your rear,
bad poems bespeak of mediocre minds
in which conspiracy dumbassity thrives;
who'll remember this famous post and leer?

#%$&@! First crappy art, now crappy po-wetry. Next it will be an interpretive dance (oh, I am so looking forward to that), and another rip-off of Mr. Holland's Opus (Dr. Dembski's Orifice). Yeah, just don't fart in the library when it's on fire, man. :p

Those "poems" are the end. *Fart* Pun intended. I have yet to see any one of them keep up with me in wit, BTW. I should think they'd owe me more entertainment than this. They think they're so funny. Come on, you guys! *Snaps fingers* Drearyville! Deal with it!

Dembski's starting to sound like Denyse. Except that he's giving it away.

Date: 2007/03/11 23:13:12, Link
Author: Kristine
One word: Guiness. I had two last night - yeah, that's pretty light for me. *Winks at J-Dog* With a steak and mash and a big ice cream sundae!
Dudes, I'd put a bottle of my homebrewed Viking Piss Porter up against any American beer, any day of the week.
But I could get in on that gig, too. Wasn't somebody supposed break down my door and hand me one (oh, I need a nun outfit - does spandex count? BTW, rent Ken Russell's Lair of the White Worm for a great nun rape scene - a real chick film). :D

Date: 2007/03/12 09:20:08, Link
Author: Kristine
Is glorified vomit like glorified rice? :p

Meanwhile, at the convent, it's anyone-who's-not-a-friend-of-Dawkins-is-a-friend-of-mine hour (not to be confused with "Happy Hour").

Date: 2007/03/12 09:36:57, Link
Author: Kristine
I feel the attempts at humor will be lost, at [sic, or is that hic] it will be impossible to distinguish genuine admiration from parody.

Heh. Of course it's going to be lost! (We'll set aside the question of whether it's really "humor" for the moment.) The "world's going to end," the "sun is going to blow up," and it will come to nothing, nothing, nothing. So have your yucks now, you repressed little couch taters. Write po-wetry! Cut loose! Fly! Be free! :D  That's the spirit, Dembski, I knew you'd rebound. :p

Did people catch this?  
Have you ever done some work, or some task, and then had it completed wiped away? ...maybe you made a sand castle at the beach and the waves destroyed it immediately. Have you ever had the thought, “I just wasted my time.”...If you have, why does this sense of “wasted time” apply to events in our lives and not to our lives as a whole, or to the universe as a whole? In other words, if everything will eventually be wiped away, if there is no afterlife, then how can we avoid the conclusion that it was all a waste of time? How might you persuade someone to avoid this “wasted time” conclusion, given your worldview?

This relates directly to the "If there's nothing to ID, why do the 'Darwinists' pick on us so much?"


Because I don't want all you UDudes to go nihilist on me when ID is likewise dumped on history's trash heap. Then you can tell me how to keep your hope in an ID afterlife.

The journey is the destination!  :)  *Lights incense*

Date: 2007/03/12 10:57:31, Link
Author: Kristine
An amateur is someone who does something out of love.

Origin: 1775–85; < F, MF < L amâtor lover, equiv. to amâ- (s. of amâre to love) + -tor -tor, replaced by F -teur (< L -tôr-, obl. s. of -tor); see -eur

I cannot find the link again, but I have mentioned in several forums an online interview with Dawkins in which he is asked, point blank, if atheism should be imposed upon children and society. Dawkins is so shocked at first that his mouth falls open; then he says “No.” The way that he says it and his reaction to the question assure me that he’s not Stalinesque about atheism; it didn’t even occur to him to dream of imposing this kind of world that other people accuse him of wanting.

If I find the link I shall post it. Until then, let me say that I think people are confusing Dawkins’ emphatic arguments with a kind of Soviet-style repression that they are not.

To make a parallel here, is literature “dangerous”? I would say so! I don’t hold with the American idea that literature is “good for us.” (Americans justify all sorts of impractical things by saying that it's "good for us," and then they don't follow through, anyway. Few Americans read.) Good literature is about successfully causing a change within the reader, not moral purity, and while the author’s intentions are to have and to share a deeper experience of being alive, that could lead to any kind of behavior. Think of de Sade, or Baudelaire. So let me also argue that Dawkins is also “dangerous,” yes, because life is danger, and literature is danger, and love is danger.

But that’s just me. I hate safety and security and routine – always have.

Date: 2007/03/12 11:52:57, Link
Author: Kristine
Have you ever done some work, or some task, and then had it completed wiped away? ...maybe you made a sand castle at the beach and the waves destroyed it immediately. Have you ever had the thought, "I just wasted my time."  

The answer is yes.  Yes, I have tried to make a logical, evidence-based comment at Uncommon Descent.

!!! :D ROFLMAO! Why didn't I think of that! Naturally Occam's got a razor-sharp wit.  ;)

You guys give me purpose to my life.

Date: 2007/03/12 16:37:21, Link
Author: Kristine
Guinness: in my humble opinion only drinkable when served on tap at room temperature or slightly chilled.
And if it takes the requisite 10 minutes to pour. (It comes in a can now! Off with their heads! :O )
I'm all confused now.  I thought all the canyons and mountains and everything were carved out by Noah's flood.  If that's not Intelligent Design, I don't know what is.  Filtering that explanation will lead down a slippery slope, I tell ya.
Not to mention that the "undesigned" pretty mountains are Michael Behe's control for detecting "design" in "designed" thingies, like mousetraps and flagella.

Actually, this development is hilarious. It throws the whole EF and irreducible complexity into the canyon. :) If everything's designed, how are you tsupposed to be able to tell?

Date: 2007/03/12 17:51:22, Link
Author: Kristine
Silly Kristine.  Not all mountains are designed.  Only the pretty ones.

Is that pretty sunset on intelligent design designed too? ID suicide? Shore is puurrrrty...  :)

Date: 2007/03/12 20:20:33, Link
Author: Kristine
That said, I can still immediately come up with two reasons why I might personally prefer a society without religion. The first is simply that I think such beliefs are wrong, and as a lover of truth, I find it upsetting to observe so many people believing something to be true that I think is indefensible. I just cannot feel comfortable with a system that is based on what I see as a profound deceit.
Precisely. The atheism that I would like to see on a large scale has never existed. However, there's always a part of me that likes to play, "What if...?" Hey, what if we actually do need religion? For that matter, what if God does exist after all? (Not holding my breath.) I'm not scared to ask that question - I just think that we'll never know the answer to our satisfaction until the world jettisons all preconceived ideas and lets observation unfold. Then we may have the opportunity to create the spirituality that has also never existed - and who knows, perhaps my ideal atheism and that spirituality will be the same thing...  As Louis Aragon (or was it Duchamp?) said, "Thank God I'm still an atheist."  
Certain types of literature may be dangerous, but literature itself need not be -- in fact, literature (or oral poetry) often binds social classes together in nontechnological societies. It has passed the test of history; it has survived as a tradition. In addition, art -- like religion -- seems to satisfy a primal craving in humanity. This is why I don't find the comparison compelling.
Well, surely there are different types of literature. I tend to prefer the edge-pushing, avant guarde lit, so I'm talking about my own concerns here. I'm not the person to make the case that, "Yes, we atheists are just like you all, middle class, cuddly family types" because that's not me. I've lived with my boyfriend for fifteen years and we're not married - no kids - I write about politics and eroticism - my favorite book of all time is Lolita - all of which is probably why I've been accused three times in three different forums of being a man's sock puppet. :) (Not very feminine I guess.) I mean, I just can't make the "it's all wholesome" argument, because I'm not interested in being a good girl - never was. (Although in person I'm pretty boring and for the most part a good girl.) So maybe I'm not the person to answer this question. However, I do believe, yes, that one can build a society on atheism, Ghost, because most of them are the bourgeois type. (And I believe in making the world a better place for other people's children, so of course I have some solid bourgeois values.)

It's just wrong to say that a society cannot be stable and atheist. No one really tried - Stalin made himself into a religion and that's not the same thing.

Date: 2007/03/13 00:45:27, Link
Author: Kristine
Somebody got it, finally!  :D  But you're too hard on poor Bill. He's just a Bill, he's only a Bill, not sittin' there on Capitol Hill.
Only birkenstock-wearing, lice-infested, liberal hippies think like that.  Go finish you're journey somewhere else, homo. - dt
Shouldn't that be homa?

Date: 2007/03/13 10:19:33, Link
Author: Kristine
Do these jokers have no conscience at all? ("Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?")  
In fact, I think it’s safe to say that the only contribution evolution has made to modern medicine is to take it down the horrific road of eugenics , which brought forced sterilization and bodily harm to many thousands of Americans in the early 1900s. That’s a contribution which has brought shame—not advance—to the medical field.

Yeah, let's talk about eugenics, you men of God (from the full article):  
Through force of will, Peter Duesberg essentially invented the AIDS dissedent movement, and remains its most prominent proponent. For years, he has maintained that, since antibodies are generally signs that our immune system is doing its job, anybody who test positive for HIV ought to be happy…
Does anybody remember here another prominent colleague of Duesberg's?  
Anthony Fauci…finally erupted. ”This is murder,” he said after listening to Duesberg speak. “It’s really just that simple.” Duesberg has come to expect responses like that. He was once asked how long it might take for the scientific establishment to recognize that it was wrong about HIV. He replied, “It took the highly established and affluent Catholic Church four hundred years to ‘understand’ Galileo.” He went on to say that it might take the scientific establishment, “the Church of the twentieth/twenty-first century,” at least that long.
Assuming we’re around that long. What a slander of Galileo! I really don't think that Galileo would have refused to look through a microscope the way that his opponents refused to look through his telescope.

Dr. William Dembski – Dr.! Dr.! – do you believe that HIV causes AIDS? If so, why don’t you go on record as opposing Philip Johnson and Jonathan Wells? If not, why don’t you come out and say it?

WinglesS, why don’t you “tithe” ten minutes of your life to opposing eugenics then? Because what’s going on in Africa is definitely eugenics! How about it, people? How about it?

After all I was told to find my soapbox elsewhere.

They make me sick. [Pun not intended]

Date: 2007/03/13 11:57:25, Link
Author: Kristine
Just read that thread for the first time. I too bow to your eloquence, Kristine.
Thanks, Alan. (But didn't you post at your blog regarding this?) Now you see what I got so upset about, and why I flounced off for a while.

I've listened to and read so much Dembski and I still have no idea who he really is or what the #### he really believes (I just listened to another sermon in which he praises creationism and denies evolution altogether. Yet he says he's not a creationist.) At this point all I want to know is: Does Dembski agree with Wells and Johnson that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, and what are the moral implications of his silence if he doesn't? It's a simple question. It's a question of morality, and supposedly he's the expert on that, not me.

When we materialists are all "looking down at our bodies" after death, and we're all like, "cool, now we can watch evolution from space," what will we be judged by? How about them? "Lord, when did we see you hungry or having AIDS?" That's in the Bible, isn't it?

Must have been the Muslim religion, I guess.

Date: 2007/03/13 12:20:03, Link
Author: Kristine
Do you ever wonder whether Dembski has any idea what he really believes.
Uhhhh - lemme about all the time!

In contrast to Dr. Dr. D. [let's just call him "Doctor Doctor" from now on - and we need a stuffed animal image, too], this man knows precisely what he believes!  
Dr. Russell D. Moore, Senior VP for Academic Administration,Dean, School of Theology. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Jonah 1:17-3:6; Matthew 12:38-41
"The Incomparable Glory of Fish Vomit: Baptism, the Great Commission and the End of the Age"
Gimmie that old-time *hic* religion!  :D

Date: 2007/03/13 13:17:35, Link
Author: Kristine
“Climate Denial” — What’s Next, “Evolution Denial”?

Hasn't Bill got that the wrong way round?
He's just denying his evolution denial denial. ("I'm not a creationist, but evolution is evil!")

It's all so way whack that I gotta look at a funhouse mirror to see things relatively straight again.

Date: 2007/03/13 19:47:06, Link
Author: Kristine
I also missed Kristine posting like crazy - and finally wising up about Dembski... congratulations Kristine, you go girl!  I also missed the earlier posts about the lawsuit against Dembski's school.  Bwahahaha!

Oh I was always wise to cute stuff, J-Dog.

B'lieve me. Lou knows what I really want to do to the guy. ;)

"It places the microfilm in the basket or else it has to shimmy again."

Date: 2007/03/13 19:55:30, Link
Author: Kristine
For the kids calls us "nasty stinkers over on Elsberry's forum!"
She who smelt it dealt it. (He who smelt ID dealt ID?)

She probably means me.

I'm not on a diet.  :p

Date: 2007/03/13 22:43:45, Link
Author: Kristine
Oh, pooh, I can't get my wine label to's homemade (the label, and the wine, and apparently the link). This stuff will give you a migraine.

You'll just have to go here.

To Rev. Dr. Lenny from John.  :)

Date: 2007/03/13 23:36:44, Link
Author: Kristine
And yet America does rather well for all that. Perhaps those mental gymnastics exercise as well as diminish the creative impulse. In any case, most religions have a robust intellectual tradition -- for example, the rabbinical give-and-take throughout the Talmud probably played a role in developing the Jewish intellectual tradition. Christian societies have produced more than their share of science, art, and literature as well.

Yeah, I see.  :p

Date: 2007/03/14 09:51:01, Link
Author: Kristine
I am not a global warming denier, not used my car for well over a year now from environmental concern.
Go, Stephen!  :)

Is this your boy?

From the article:  
Reports say he was able to identify himself to police only after a rubber ball had been removed from his mouth.

:D  :D  :D  Naw, that ain't Joel. I think he's trolling. (It's wild to see raw, unadulterated nature at work - one Dembski thread almost gobbled by a predatory PETA true believer.) :O

Date: 2007/03/14 13:29:24, Link
Author: Kristine
You know, looking back on ID, with its cancelled conferences, its journal in limbo, its lost court cases, desperate DI spokesmen, denials of HIV and global warming...what a bunch of losers.

Now, now.

Loser design doesn't mean no design.

They reinstated the poetry contest over at UD, didn't they? I can't wait for the Designer to read his work at the poetry slam.

*Swings Paley's watch before Dembski's eyes: "Yes, now that you are in a deep trance, you will obey my every word. Repeat after me: Poetry slam. IDterpretive dance. Truth or Dare. YouTube. "* ;)

Date: 2007/03/14 13:55:11, Link
Author: Kristine
get some biologists in there with the neural networks and whatnots.
Ramona over thar won't answer my questions.

I think a lot of women snub me.  ;)

Date: 2007/03/14 15:17:28, Link
Author: Kristine
I remember Burke from his monthly column “Connections” in Scientific American. I’m saddened to hear he’s become a shill for the global warming hoax.

Here's another convert (an unexpected one at that - shows what happens when conservatives run the institutions that they want to destroy). So cry me a... oh, forget it.

OT: Happy Pi Day, everyone!

You know, I felt pretty bad about my (unintentional) part in unleashing the Jason troll at Ed's blog - and then Wes swings through with the driest comment yet.  :D So there’s a no-kill policy for trolls. Got that? (I guess we do catch-and-release...Wes doesn't say if they can be domesticated...)

Date: 2007/03/14 21:05:58, Link
Author: Kristine
Lou and y'all, check out this. JAD is claiming that PZ's taking down the Molly thread so that he can't see it. :D

If PZ took down that thread there would be #### to pay! :D  :D  :D
Speaking of which, have you voted in the UDoJ contests yet?
I think I did. Uh...wait til I get home, I'll double-check. (@ school now)

Date: 2007/03/15 11:19:41, Link
Author: Kristine
Kisses to all. Hey, I got our wine label to load!  
On the other hand, it tastes of shit.
Actually, that wasn't a good year - the very first batch, and from the wild grapes. *Migraine* My favorite label, though.

John made dandelion wine called “Dandy Liar” with a drawing of George Bush, “Raspberries to Bush” (raspberry wine), "Pre-emptive wine" with an image of a missle landing in a wine glass, etc.

He used to make beer in college; we may start that up soon. (I need to see if hops will grow on my fence.)

Date: 2007/03/15 19:41:34, Link
Author: Kristine
Re: The "Global Warming Swindle": why does it start out just like Triumph of the Will, Dembskiists?  
The main arguments made in Mr Durkin's film were that climate change had little if anything to do with man-made carbon dioxide and that global warming can instead be linked directly with solar activity - sun spots.
Oh Jebus - anybody remember what else was attributed to "sun spots"? That's right - hauntings.

Ghosts! ;)

Mr Durkin's film argued that most global warming over the past century occurred between 1900 and 1940 and that there was a period of cooling between 1940 and 1975 when the post-war economic boom was under way. This showed, he said, that global warming had little to do with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.

But I thought the whole "global cooling" thingie was also a hoax, which shows how scientists are "wrong" today, as well?

There was "global cooling" - that disproves global warming. A scientist in Newsweek (I don't get my science from Newsweek) says the earth is cooling - he's wrong, that disproves global warming. *Renews call for an eye-roll smiley*

Date: 2007/03/15 19:45:38, Link
Author: Kristine
Too bad I don't dance with a sword.
This would make a great costume. (Maybe not for the kiddies, tho...)

Date: 2007/03/16 10:32:07, Link
Author: Kristine

<br>m/]Got an URL problem there[/URL], Dembski dear. (Hey, now two HTML breaks are showing up in the URL.)

Not that I'm criticizing your URLs or anything. So stop criticizing those who criticize those who criticize string theory/anti-Dembskiism, or I'll start criticizing your criticism of those who criticize critics of evolutionary science.

Oh. And I'm a string theory critic. On y va!  ;)

Date: 2007/03/16 10:42:22, Link
Author: Kristine
Now see what I mean? Stinky link. :angry:

Date: 2007/03/16 17:17:20, Link
Author: Kristine
So, the next time a global-warming advocate or a Darwinist tries to convince you of the validity of a computer model that can tell you what will happen in the future or what happened in the past, don’t pay much attention.
One computer model? If that were the case, yes, I would consider this to be sound advice.

However, Gil, if you were to play (and I'm not advocating this!) Russian roulette, you cannot predict with absolute certainty if the bullet is in the chamber the first time you pull the trigger, or the second, etc. But it's still stupid to play Russian roulette, right?

Likewise, I cannot predict what anyone at UD will say next. But I can assert with some confidence that whatever it is, it will raise the blogosphere's CH4 [supposed to be a subscript] level...

And Jujuquisp, you're my hero.    
My mom used to dance with a sword.
Cool mom!

Date: 2007/03/16 17:27:44, Link
Author: Kristine
Look who just figured out how to quote people (no giggling!;)  
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 16 2007,09:25)

Ps - it was only popularized in the States by Twain, Disraeli is the most cited source but it was used before he said it.

Do you have a source prior to the Disraeli attribution by Twain? Really? I'd be curious to know - my entire class couldn't find one.

Date: 2007/03/16 20:50:51, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 16 2007,13:00)
Jesus H Christ on a crutch, I should know better by now!

All the critical comments are gone... poofed by The Designert into the same spot that AFDave's Global Flood Waters went away to.

J-Dog, how am I ever gonna make a librarian outta you? Cut-n-paste 'em here, my good fellow, because I never got to see those comments! And I would have enjoyed that! :D

"Designert"? Designert-a-r...

Date: 2007/03/18 20:36:11, Link
Author: Kristine
Critical Thinking (SWBTS #PHREL 5373 A)
<> NEW! The midterm will be a take-home exam in which you write a 1500- to 2000-word critical review of Richard Dawkins’s two-part video series against religion/ Christianity … Try to focus especially on Dawkins’s rhetorical moves to influence his viewers against religion. How skillful and effective is he? Where is his approach weak?
Always on the Dawkins. Dembski could have his students write about Gould, or Sagan, or Bertrand Russell for that matter. Dembski must feel some contra-connection to Dawkins, like arguing with a father figure. As for me, I only started reading Dawkins (because I was a Gould girl) after he and Behe kept mentioning him (so thanks, you two!).

There’s something that Dembski said in an online sermon that caught my attention, because I’m beginning to understand what makes him (and his Paley watch) tick:  
You’re at a football stadium and there’s a 100,000 people there, and everyone gets a coin, a penny, to flip. And you flip. And you say, “Okay, everyone who has heads, stay standing, and everyone who has tails, sit down. Now those who are still standing, you flip your coin again…” And the laws of probability are such that you can get 17 heads in a row, wherein somebody is still going to be standing. Okay, now: 17 heads in a row, one person is still standing in this football stadium of 100,000 people. And you say, “You are just a wonderful coin flipper! It’s just amazing what you’ve done!” [audience laughter]

Well, I laughed too, because this is such a mischaracterization of evolution once again! For one thing, it omits natural selection altogether (natural selection is not like coin flipping). But if Dembski is serious in viewing evolution in this manner, small wonder that he tries so hard to refute it. But after everything he’s written and said there’s just no excuse for him to be so uninformed.

Dembski contrasts this misconception of evolution with the analogy of the artist Michelangelo carving David out of marble, with no acknowledgement of the fact that a sculptor never just imposes his design upon his medium – the medium changes his design as he learns the limitations of the rock. Yet Dembski eschews God being limited at all by his medium, so the analogy with Michelangelo is not apt.

Dembski goes on to say in the lunchtime lecture that Intelligent Design is only really good for “clearing away the rubble” of atheism/naturalism/materialism, and is itself only a “negative” paradigm—Dembski actually says this, and I think what he means by that is that ID can only poke holes in evolution (quite an admission, that)—whereas “if you want to have a positive paradigm, study theology.”

[From "ID: Yesterday's Orthodoxy, Today's Heresy"]: “What we see with design in the world and in biology is God’s wonderful handiwork, and for God not to get the credit for that… If we’re not psyched about what we see in nature, if we don’t have a sense of wonder about what God has done there, I don’t see how we can sustain any vibrant Christian faith. If we don’t have a sense of wonder about creation, what God has wrought about creation, then what are we doing?...I think that’s what I find so disheartening about the Darwinian worldview, that it just destroys a sense of wonder about what God has done.”

Dembski also defines intelligent design “loosely” as “God, by wisdom, creating the world” and says, “If our doctrine of creation is wrong, then everything else down the line [the Fall, Christ’s sacrifice, redemption, etc.] is going to be wrong as well” and criticizes Process Theology and, apparently, theistic evolution (the "master of stealth" argument) which “dominates the mainline seminaries” too. Whoa, so Dembski says he accepts evolution, but he really doesn't.

So now I finally have proof that he’s trying to trick us, first into believing in design and in a generic Designer; second, into believing in the Christian God as the Designer who, as he says, “spoke the world into being.” Okay, William Albert Dembski. I’m an atheist and you’re a Christian, and you’re trying to convert me (whereas I don’t need you to give up Christianity but I wish you would first look at nature as it really is and acknowledge what it really does). Fine—that’s the right of free speech—we have the right to try to persuade each other. I just resent it when people are not honest about it!

Date: 2007/03/19 01:07:17, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Faid @ Mar. 18 2007,18:59)

Correct me if I'm wrong but, doesn't that mean that Dembski is not only a creationist, but a Young Earth Creationist?Where do you draw the line, Dr.Dr.? And why?

My thought exactly.

If we evolved, when was "the Fall"?

Dembski wrote an essay about that, and identified "evil" as pre-existant to human beings, and I expected him to say something about, oh, when the first multicellular creature ate another, or something like that - introducing necessity into the world, simultaneously producing a wonderful new energy source and a horrible preditor-prey relationship. In other words, something plausible; something that could work with both science and religion. But no, he came up with some puppetmaster idea that made no sense to me.

He just wants to be told what to do by a dominant entity.

Date: 2007/03/19 12:49:35, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 19 2007,08:28)
Just think about what someone has to say or DO to get an A from DeMbski!

What I wanna hear about is the good, old-fashioned paddlings. (Or maybe that's too British?)  ;)

I couldn't find out anything about salaries, but I see that they need a cataloger! (But do they accept women for this? After all, that's technical services, not stereotypical "liberry"-an stuff. On the other hand, they have it listed along with "cashier" and "prep cook," so I guess... :p

Date: 2007/03/19 16:43:29, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 19 2007,12:09)

Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 19 2007,11:49)
I couldn't find out anything about salaries, but I see that they need a cataloger! (But do they accept women for this? After all, that's technical services, not stereotypical "liberry"-an stuff. On the other hand, they have it listed along with "cashier" and "prep cook," so I guess... :p

Kristine - Since you are known and easily identifiable as a woman, please feel free to apply for any subservient positions at the Seminary.  Please keep in mind that God has clearly stated that women are NOT allowed on top at seminaries.  Or anyplace else.  

As DaveScott and Dr. Bill and God On High will tell you - don't you have something to do in the kitchen?  

ps:  I think women that are smarter than they are scare the #### out of them!

Wasn't there a movie about an Afghan girl who dressed up as a boy so that she could freely move around in a man's world?

Wouldn't that be funny if someone did that at SBTS?  :) (Thank you, I have a job already. Maybe this is a job for a man dressing as a woman dressing as a man...)  :D

Date: 2007/03/19 18:02:11, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (argystokes @ Mar. 19 2007,14:46)
It's called Osama. Apparently it's great, but when I watched it, I just thought it was boring.
Kind of like Denyse.


stand agog as I glug my grog.

Bartender, Denyse wants another one. No, I'll just stick with soda, thanks.  :p

Date: 2007/03/19 21:14:06, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 19 2007,16:42)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 19 2007,17:29)
So what was on the earth before Genesis 1:2 and onward? Many theologians, (with whom I agree) believe that God created and destroyed an ancient civilization eons before Adam and Eve. It was a kingdom which believe it or not was under Lucifer's (Satan) rule. (See Ezekiel 28:12-17 for reference.) Isaiah 14:12-17 gives us details of his moral fall;

Could it be fair Atlantis? ;) It's a new one on me.

I have seen it before, unfortunately.  It's one of the several variants of "Christian Identity", the leading theology among the neo-Nazi/Klan types.  It says that the "pre-Adamites" were the non-white races and the Jews (who are all, literally, the children of the Devil).  Adam and Eve were, therefore, the first white people, who deposed Satan's rule and began the era of God's rule (and therefore white rule over the Satanic "mud people").

Interesting to see it showing up at UD (interesting also to compare it with Paley's blithering on another thread about the tired old "Darwinism led to Hitler" routine).

The anti-evolutioners have, of course, long had ties to various lunatic-right John-Birch-Society-type groups ("Dr" Hovind has lots of ties to the kooky "Christian Patriot Militia" movement, as have Pat Robertson, Chuck Missler, and a few others).
:O You have got to be kidding me. That's about as creepy as it gets. I do not grock anti-Semitism. It's so irrational and I don't get how anybody, but particularly a self-professed Christian, can be anti-Semitic. It just blows my mind. I thought I'd heard everything - I have never heard of this "pre-Adamic" stuff. How sick is that?

Date: 2007/03/20 12:50:02, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 20 2007,08:14)
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 20 2007,00:47)
It's even better than you think.  Dembski stole that coin-flipping example from Richard Dawkins, who used it in his 1991 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures to explain why coincidences are not evidence for the supernatural.  The demonstration begins at 3:30 into this video:

Keiths:  So, you're basically saying that a fine upstanding Christian gentleman, that actually teaches at a Seminary for Christ's sake, with 2 doctorates to his name would stoop to lying and using unatributed quotations in public?  What's next?  Hiring a moronic thug to manage his website I suppose?

The irony of Dawkins’ parting words in that video (as he performs the Foucault experiment): “I felt the wind of it.” There’s a mighty wind blowing up toward Oxford from Waco! *Fart* It seems obvious to me now that Dembski is just tagging after Dawkins, imitating him and delivering parodies of Dawkins’ lectures. I'm surprised he didn't make a #### fartimation about Dawkins.

But J-Dog, it's you and I and everyone here who is not attributing works to the right author! Because we don't give God the glory (or if you're a Christian in one of the "mainline churches or seminaries" that Dembski derides, shame on you!;)! We're the plagerizers (and the arsonists), get it?

Boy, Dembski must be one controlling, morbid, humorless shit. (He tells that "God says to scientists, 'Getcher own dirt'" age-old joke too, and the audience laughs because they never heard it in their huge panorama of their livingrooms/attached garage/commute/work&church world. *Ba-dum, chuh!* He's there all year, everyone.) :p

Date: 2007/03/20 21:33:29, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 20 2007,11:49)
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 20 2007,11:50)
Boy, Dembski must be one controlling, morbid, humorless shit. (He tells that "God says to scientists, 'Getcher own dirt'" age-old joke too, and the audience laughs because they never heard it in their huge panorama of their livingrooms/attached garage/commute/work&church world. *Ba-dum, chuh!* He's there all year, everyone.) :p

Kristine - How could you be so wrong about Your Dr. Dembski?  If I can quote that Fine Upstanding, Cheesy-Poofed American, Mr. DaveScot Springer, who says you are Just So Totally Wrong about Mr. Bill - He's a laugh riot!  I just got this from For The Kids (Thanks for the link Richard)

DaveScot said...

Bill's a whole heck of lot less uptight in private with people he trusts. I thought it was hilarious when he got busted being the voice of Judge Jones. It was me who told him he got busted. In public he has to try to maintain a reasonable likeness to a seriously Christian theology professor at a Christian university. In private he's much more of a regular guy who you can have some laughs with. You're way more refined and proper than he is although if it wasn't for the Judge Jones animation no one who didn't know him would suspect such a thing.

Have some laughs with?  Hangin' Wit Dr. D?  Seems to me it would be like hanging out with those light-hearted playful Spanish Inquisitors.  Ouch!
First of all, I'm allergic to FTK so I never go to her site. :p

Bill's a whole heck of lot less uptight in private with people he trusts. He must trust only a few people, then.

He must be totally unconscious of how he comes off, then. Because he comes off as an uptight, harsh, an increasingly extreme outraged castrated monk. None of this "I could see ID embracing Jews and Muslims and New Agers, etc." (yes, he actually said that); none of this "I have no problem with evolution per se, I just think that it isn't primarily responsible for the complexity and diversity that we see" razamataz. Now it's "Christian Dominionism or bust *naughty word, we're Baptists* blazes."

Maybe if he allowed a little of this humor of his (which I have heard about from people who met him) I wouldn't be getting so fed up with the moralizing.

Maybe if he at least reassured me that he wasn't an HIV denialist and that he gives a shit about the current eugenics movement in Africa to deny that HIV causes AIDS which is decimating people in South AFrica right now, or that he cared about a doctor and five nurses just sentenced to death in Libya (opportunity to diss Islam, Denyse! Helloooo! ), I wouldn't be finding myself so repulsed by his games. But this is life and death.

That coin-flipping anecdote of Dembski's, that's precisely what's going to play out if we don't get valid information out there about what causes AIDS or if we don't get our arms around the "superbugs" that are, pardonnez-moi, evolving into antibiotic-resistant nightmares. (I'm not even scared about avian flu; I'm scared of super TB.) We'll have massive deaths and the survivors will be the few in the empty stadium who get that lucky coin flip.

Tell me about "God's beautiful nature" then. Looky look who agrees with Bill. (Look how this hideous site has listed blogs like "Aetiology." It's toward the bottom.)

Date: 2007/03/21 00:11:35, Link
Author: Kristine
Darwin said some nasty things 136 years ago. And Scorn'dOva Dover quote mines Darwin, but here's the full context:
Once as a very little boy whilst at the day school, or before that time, I acted cruelly, for I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power; but the beating could not have been severe, for the puppy did not howl, of which I feel sure, as the spot was near the house. This act lay heavily on my conscience, as is shown by my remembering the exact spot where the crime was committed. It probably lay all the heavier from my love of dogs being then, and for a long time afterwards, a passion. Dogs seemed to know this, for I was an adept in robbing their love from their masters.

Less than two years ago, Dembski had some nasty things to say, too. Does it lay heavily on his conscience, considering what we now know about a lot of that "looting?"

Even Darwin didn't say, "Just shoot the starving 'unwashed masses,'" which is Dembski's favorite phrase for - what are they called - oh yeah, people. (He includes himself in that phrase, he says. Right, I guess that means he waited tables and napped on the floor of the women's restroom to put himself through college, too. No one discusses the issue of class in America.)

Date: 2007/03/21 10:01:46, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (djmullen @ Mar. 21 2007,02:48)

I guess that means he waited tables and napped on the floor of the women's restroom to put himself through college, too.

I doubt it!  His father was a professor (of biology!) and his mother ran an art gallery.  I doubt if the good Dr. Dr. slept on many restroom floors.
Oh, I’m aware of our Dr. Dr. Dembski’s background. I was being sarcastic to make the point that this evolution – ID debate is also a class issue. It’s a game to Dembski to flip-flop as he does, depending upon which audience is in front of his face, but the “unwashed masses,” who want to be told that somebody powerful cares about them, actually buy this stuff. Then they buy the other stuff: HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, global warming is a myth, being gay can be “cured” by women wearing chemical-laden patches on their stomachs. (I notice that even though it’s men who determine the gender of the zygote no one suggested that men wear the patches to prevent these gay sperm from being manufactured in the first place!) It’s just a little mental exercise to Dembski, Johnson, Wells, Behe, et al, to debate evolution and deny HIV’s link to AIDS, etc. etc., but when they need good science for their families they’ll be able to go to Singapore if that’s what it takes.

In the meantime since I'm past a certain age I’m looking for a primary care physician and I never thought that some of the questions I would have to ask would be if s/he accepts evolution, believes that the earth is billions of years old, and will give me complete medical information despite his/her religious beliefs.

Date: 2007/03/21 11:26:55, Link
Author: Kristine
Arab isn't a race, by the way, it's a culture and a part of the world centered on the Middle East, so it's really not possible to be racist against Arabs.

I just want to point out here that while Arab/Middle East/Islam overlap, they are separates sets. "Arab" is not "a culture," it's a lineage and it has many cultures.

There is no one monolithic "Arab culture." How many Arabs have DaveScot actually met? He should know that the majority of Arabs in the United States are Christians. Lebanese in particular get pissed off when they're assumed to be Muslims. Does he define Persians as "Arabs," too? They're not. Afghans, who are largely Muslim, are not Arabs. Indonesians, who are largely Muslim, are not Arabs. Some Arabs are Jews. (What does he think Hagar and Ishmael were?) Doesn't he know this? Doesn't everyone know this? Come on!

I too have issues with Islam, but let's be clear about who we're talking about, first! This is basic information. This isn't controversial, Muslim-hugging stuff.

Date: 2007/03/21 11:35:48, Link
Author: Kristine
I'd like everyone to meet a Christian Arab hero of mine, Donny George.

Date: 2007/03/21 14:44:34, Link
Author: Kristine
Pardon me, but I beat Richard to it.      
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 20 2007,22:11)
Darwin said some nasty things 136 years ago. And Scorn'dOva Dover quote mines Darwin, but here's the full context:       
Once as a very little boy whilst at the day school, or before that time, I acted cruelly, for I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power; but the beating could not have been severe, for the puppy did not howl, of which I feel sure, as the spot was near the house. This act lay heavily on my conscience, as is shown by my remembering the exact spot where the crime was committed. It probably lay all the heavier from my love of dogs being then, and for a long time afterwards, a passion. Dogs seemed to know this, for I was an adept in robbing their love from their masters.

Less than two years ago, Dembski had some nasty things to say, too. Does it lay heavily on his conscience, considering what we now know about a lot of that "looting?"

Even Darwin didn't say, "Just shoot the starving 'unwashed masses,'" which is Dembski's favorite phrase for - what are they called - oh yeah, people. (He includes himself in that phrase, he says. Right, I guess that means he waited tables and napped on the floor of the women's restroom to put himself through college, too. No one discusses the issue of class in America.)

I'm just pointing that out.

Date: 2007/03/21 15:01:33, Link
Author: Kristine
Hehehe. (Warned you that I was conceited.)  :D

I nominate you for a Molly Award anyway.

Oh, here.

You already saw this one. I'm running out of photos.

Date: 2007/03/21 15:45:37, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 21 2007,13:18)
Kristine, from now on I'm calling you 'snake-hips'.

If there were retroactive Mollys / Mollies I'd be a shoe-in:

You are a shoe-in, Rich. The order of the Mollies is arbitrary.  You are so totally getting a Molly Award, my friend. You know, we could have awards here, too...weren't we talking about that last year?

Date: 2007/03/21 17:14:56, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 21 2007,13:14)
If intelligence was purely genetic and materialistic, the trend would be for humanity to get stupider as time goes on.

Anyone care to provide the punchline?  Or just too easy?


Yeah, I saw that (and thought of the punchline). But that's an interesting statement... I really don't see why anyone would assume greater stupidity.

Is this part of that "it's all going to blow up/fall apart/disintegrate/and mean nothing so hopefully Jesus will come back soon" motif? Are there some men over there reaching the age at which they realize that the prostate is not intelligently designed? Well, tell me about it. I'm getting older, too.

(*foreshadowing*)  :)

The key is black humor. The surrealists believed in it. It was their way of uniting Comedy and Tragedy (which one of my old theatre pro-fuss-or insisted could not be done).
:)  :(

Date: 2007/03/22 09:50:59, Link
Author: Kristine
They're claiming that Al Gore won't take this pledge.
Well, I never heard of that pledge. I suppose I fulfill it; we have a small house that is kept between 53 and 64 degrees. We also plan on getting solar shingles when we have our roof done.

However, the truly significant carbon footprint is due to vehicles. Homes just don't compare to the CO2 output of cars and trucks. I felt guilty in the 1990s taking the bus when they weren't full - of course buses pollute - but that has changed a lot (and for car-loving Minneapolis, that's saying something).

So I guess I can take the pledge. I want to see how many of the UDudes have also taken it. After all, log in eye versus mote in neighbor's, etc.

Date: 2007/03/22 10:33:23, Link
Author: Kristine
Sometimes RSR's comments do momentarily disappear - I suspect this is due to Pat updating something and to the fact that blogger sucks - blogger sometimes won't let me comment on my own #### blog! :angry:

I think I can access the full PDF of the heart article if people can't get beyond the abstract.

Date: 2007/03/22 15:17:52, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 17 2007,11:33)

Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 17 2007,10:50)
This is all so pointless.

I'm, uh, not an atheist, Skeptic.

And the reason all this DOES have a point is because it is the foaming fundies who are declaring that they should run things because they are so much more godly and more moral and blah blah blah than the rest of us mere mortal humans.  Just ask Heddle.

I've not seen any atheists advocating taking over the government and using it to force their religious opinions onto everyone else.  I *have* seen the fundies do exactly that (and more).  When the atheists try to do so, I will fight them just as hard as I fight the fundies.  And for exactly the same reasons.  Just ask PZ.

As for your self-righteous clucking, until you get off your ass and begin to do something about the world around you, I see no reason to listen to your sermonizing.  You are just as much a part of the problem as the fundies are.
I just want to add that I managed to get a line deleted from the MN Atheists newsletter that said "we are going to crush religion beneath our heel" etc. Eeaaugh! :O  And after I rewrote that piece, also leaving out all the blather about atheists being the new French Resistance and all that, my friend the original author said, "I was disappointed that you took that out." Well, tough beans. "Crush it under our heel." Gaaa! I can resist peer pressure. The real difference is between those who see the world simplistically and those who don't. It's the simplistic thinkers who are dangerous.

However, I am particularly dangerous today (if anyone checks the calendar...)  :)

Date: 2007/03/22 16:56:16, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (phonon @ Mar. 22 2007,13:52)

Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 22 2007,08:50)
I felt guilty in the 1990s taking the bus when they weren't full - of course buses pollute - but that has changed a lot (and for car-loving Minneapolis, that's saying something).

The buses still run whether you take them or not, so why feel guilty?
Oh I don't know, probably my age. :D

Date: 2007/03/22 17:05:05, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Steviepinhead @ Mar. 22 2007,14:17)

Kristine shimmied thusly:
However, I am particularly dangerous today (if anyone checks the calendar...)

Eh?  Do you have a communicable case of spring fever?
Would you check the friggin calendar! Two people from Uncommon Descent, I kid you not, have already visited my blog and wished me well.

It's a plot. They're trying to pull come on, everyone, I've dropped enough hints!  :p

And I'm going to the Guthrie tonight, so you better work fast! :)

Date: 2007/03/23 00:15:48, Link
Author: Kristine
Thanks you guys! :) (I really can't believe Forthekids visited.)

I'm such an old fart, when do I get my own fart animation from Dembski? Huh? *Fart*

Bring it on, Richard Witch-burner. Scheherazade has a flash animation of her own to dangle. (Video of the shimmies, I promise...)

Date: 2007/03/23 00:29:15, Link
Author: Kristine
Thanks, ToSeek, yes, that's what I was trolling for! (Trolling is a fishing term up here....)  
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 22 2007,13:09)
I don't know what the #### they're going to do. There are problems with trying to change names again. For one thing, it didn't work the last time, it didn't even come close, and for another, they'd have to throw overboard all the young, enthusiastic guys like Casey and Salvador who are tied to the Intelligent Design anchor.
I'm sitting here watching a show about the Galapagos and how the older blue-footed booby chick pushes the younger out. Cruel, but effective (and if we teach ID in schools, boobies won't be cruel to each other anymore?). Maybe we will see the younger ID hatchlings get sacrificed. Wouldn't that be ironic (and funny)?

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 22 2007,13:09)
They certainly haven't figured out what to do. At the moment they're in a holding pattern, just babbling amongst themselves on blogs, with no big moves on the horizon.
True, but there's some weird upcoming creationist excrement out there just waiting for the IDudes/UDudes to step in it and track it in...I promise... :) Creationism never sleeps.

It just insists that it's not really that late and that it hasn't been drinking. :p

Date: 2007/03/23 09:20:26, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 22 2007,16:34)

Alas, unfortunately, many atheist activists have become the very thing they are fighting against --- intolerant pricks who want to tell everyone what to think and can't stand anyone having opinions different from theirs.  Just like the fundies.  Different feathers, same bird.

It seems to be a rather common trait amongst ideologues.  You should have seen some of the knock-down drag-outs I had with various Leninist organizations back in my younger days . . . They are the same way.

BTW, happy b-day.  (raises glass of Viking Piss).    :)
Thanks you guys! ;)

It's not that I don't want people to agree with me/us/whoever - it's just that they're never going to. New religions are being invented all the time, so it's silly to project a religion-free (or a one-religion) future. I really don't think Dawkins is the jerk some people make him out to be, though - he's just cranky, like me. :)

Date: 2007/03/23 10:15:12, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 23 2007,06:38)

So, let's get this clear. They say that co-option is not a real phenomenon and the evidence they provide for this is a link to a previous story on UncommonDescent. Well, case closed, i'm convinced. However, for the other 99.999% of people, GilDodgen has some actual work to do proving that co-option is not an option. And posting to where DS says "co-option is not an option" does not count!

How inane! Is this what passes for proof in ID circles? A link to a discussion where they proclaimed it so? No wonder they are going nowhere fast. It's hardly a "cite" now is it? :)

I'm still waiting for Dembski's "ID friendly univeristy lab", or whatever it was, to be announced! I suspect it will never be.

And any news on Biologic? Over at OW they are talking it up and wanting to buy shares in it!

They have to deny co-option because that's all they're doing. What do you think quote mining is? Co-option!  :)

Besides, the Dembskis of the world don't understand reusing anything, anyway. They spit out their silver spoons and think that's proof of their "being from Texas." (Kind of like a president I could mention.) I've used fishing line to substitute for a screw I didn't have, but they don't build anything, they just steal from other's finished constructions.  That's all ID is.

I'd like to see Dembski's ass in the woods, without his 'puter or his palm pilot; see how helpful he is, trying to light a fire without a match. "We are the arsonists." ("Bill, does Eve here have to start this fire too? I'm awfully grouchy when I don't get coffee.") :D

Date: 2007/03/23 15:21:18, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 23 2007,11:41)
So, if I was a cute chick you guys would have wished me a happy birthday on the 22nd as well?

Yes, absolutely! Was it your birthday? Was it on the calendar? :( Sorry! Happy birthday! *Shimmies to Mr. Christopher* :)

I'm so glad you think I'm a cute chick'n'all, but really I can't resist this: How do you know I'm not some old fart guy blogging from a wheelchair? Do you have any evidence that I look like those photos (oh yeah, testimony from PZ...and Rev. Barking Nonsequitor...Cat's Staff...Greg Laden...). Uh...never mind. Bad joke. (Darn hook-ups facilitated by blogs anyway!;)  :angry:

Date: 2007/03/23 16:06:57, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 23 2007,11:14)
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 23 2007,11:55)


Bah, humbug!
Not exactly the image that springs into my mind when I see the word "boobies".

Such a dissapointment.

Yeah, they're supposed to be blue-footed!

You silly men.  :D

Date: 2007/03/24 16:43:46, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 23 2007,14:15)
Yes the 22nd is/was my birthday.

But am I spry I ask you??

And Kristine, true, you could be dave springer...And I should have said, "If I had a cute chick logo, would you guys have offered me a happy birthday" :-)

Ok, we're both named "k/Chris" (sorta) and we share the same birthday.  You're not me are you?

Not unless I forgot...I'm getting old and senile...I could have misplaced a couple personalities (no, I'm not O'Leary! The idea!;) :p

...All that drinking (but Guinness restores brain cells, right?)  :)

For Bob-O: Times I've been 18 (legal age back then) < Times I've been 29  ;)

I'm a gal, guys. Really. I was just joshing - and those pics are recent, 'cept I'm getting some gray hair.  ???

Date: 2007/03/25 17:52:53, Link
Author: Kristine
Bill opines:    
HodorH: It’s [nonIDists thinking IDists are morons] not a strategy. It’s a fact, one that can be exploited.
But to what end, my dear? *Groan!*

I think I went to your Uncommon Descent, Bill, and asked a simple, intelligent question about your stance on Wells' HIV-AIDS link denial. What I got was a bunch of so-called men jumping on me for having the temerity of being an atheist (since age 9, people) without being a nihilist. "Prove that life has meaning." You'd think so-called Christians would at least remember the Bible verse that states that goodness does not delight in evil, but they seem bound and determined to curse the light.

The folks at Uncommon Descent are unhappy that atheists are not necessarily nihilists. Because that's "stupid," you know. And Bill is overjoyed because "we" think "they" are "morons." Well, I don't think Dembski is a moron, though I would say that he's acting like one. (It kind of reminds me of the old farts in my hometown who thought I was an "embarrassment" to my family because I was bookish girl. Never mind that I never brought boy trouble or drugs or anything like that to my parents' door.)

ID seems like a form of nihilism right now. Because I never really had any concept of "meaninglessness" until I came across this merry bunch. What a waste of energy. Frankly I think my talents can be better directed toward getting better HIV awareness out there (particularly in Africa).

And as for me and my "nihilism," I can live with myself if Bill can live with himself. And maybe we should let him do that. Frankly I couldn't care less if the guy is a doughead or not. He's a boring, selfish whiner. What he really can't live without is attention.

Date: 2007/03/25 19:37:02, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 25 2007,16:49)

I think I went to your Uncommon Descent, Bill, and asked a simple, intelligent question about your stance on Wells' HIV-AIDS link denial. What I got was a bunch of so-called men jumping on me for having the temerity of being an atheist (since age 9, people) without being a nihilist. "Prove that life has meaning."

I know what you mean. Fundies seem to get really purturbed when atheists aren't bleak, violent, misanthropic nihilists. They have a whole view of society made entirely of cartoonish stereotypes, and when a blatant exception to their stereotypes appears, they get quite cross...

What's always puzzled me about it is its hidden implication. It seems to say to me, "Shit, if I knew Jehovah wouldn't punish me, I'd kill rape and rob everyone I saw. He11, how stupid ARE you that you don't share my fear of God, yet you aren't a selfish nihilist?" Really? is this an, uh, accurate glimpse of what you'd do if your fear of a Big Sky Daddy punishing you were lifted? Explain to me again why your theism makes you a 'better person' than me?

Arden - this is the mentality that doesn't consider empathy. Empathy is the anchor in my life, and that's what I should have said to them. I can hear about some terrible thing happening to someone else and actually feel physical pain, and that's not theology or ideology, or rationality. But they think that anything pleasurable must be evil and that goodness is one long, hard march up Mount Improbable, as well as some great glass globe that can be shattered by the revelation of one (human) flaw. "How can you be good without God?" Well, I don't know, maybe when people stop thinking about themselves all the time they'll find that doing "charitable" things is a pleasure in itself and is, like life, its own meaning. And if you believe in God too, fine, like I care.

That was the theme of the film, "Jesus of Montreal," which I also suggested, at a different thread, that people at UD watch. (Did they? No, it's in Quebec French. They hate French people. In a Christian way of course, or in an agnostic-who-prefers-a-Christian-society way. I'll bet O'Leary won't even watch it.)

But whatever, it's all good. I'm sure that, come the moment when they have to act to help someone else, instead of just sitting at a computer bloviating, most of them would do the right thing too and not be the holier-than-thou, finger-waving  perfectionists that they come off as. I don't deny people basic decency and humanity just because they disagree with me.

I just don't see the point about being unhappy that there isn't one more destructive nihilist out there. Man, that I do not get.
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 25 2007,16:28)
But one wonders how he does [live with himself].
Apparently he does.
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 25, 2007, 16:28)
Dembski's arguments are not addressed at all, not even in straw form.  Perhaps he is feeling a bit miffed by that.

He should remember that he's alive to be miffed, unlike a lot of people. He's in America, and miffed. He's in good health, and miffed. His life is what he makes of it, and mine is what I make of mine.

Date: 2007/03/26 00:07:38, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Chris Hyland @ Mar. 25 2007,18:00)
Empathy is the anchor in my life, and that's what I should have said to them.
I think the response to this would be that since you can't prove that empathy evolved, or explain exactly how chemical reactions in the brain produce it it is not material and therefore as an atheist you are a hypocrite.
Well, they can sue me.  :)

I'm suddenly reminded of a quote about hypocrisy from Oscar Wilde, who said not to portray yourself as dangerous and wild in public but in reality be domestic and a goody two-shoes in private!  :D

Date: 2007/03/26 22:08:52, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 26 2007,10:23)
Bullet-proof vests will last a lot longer when they're not exposed to bullets. I guess that's powerful evidence they were designed for a bullet-free world.

And Adam was designed for an Eve-less world. We all know how successfully that turned out. :D

One thing we sistahs be good fer (except for me but in this case I make an exception): Remembering people's birthdays.  
But my birthday greeting is nowhere to be found.

Bill, dear! Bill, dear! It's not your birthday yet! Your birthday is on July 18! Did you forget?

I didn't. :p  I never forget an anniversary. :)

Okay, so he wasn't talking about getting a birthday greeting, but giving one. But if I had not posted a pretend slip, he "still would have missed the gist." Learn fast, don't I?

Incidentally, Bill's greeting shows he wrote it at Fort Worth - in other words, at work. Naughty, naughty.

Date: 2007/03/26 22:23:47, Link
Author: Kristine
Incidentally, while doing research I came across this item in The Encyclopedia of Evolution, in the introduction, by Richard Milner:    
Everyone has heard of the Scopes "monkey trial" in Tennessee (although most of the "facts" are usually wrong), but the Slade trial of Victorian England is now almost forgotten.

In 1876, British Spiritualists and evolutionists fought this emotional courtroom battle over the authenticity of "Doctor" Henry Slade, an internationally celebrated spirit-medium (or channeler in today's jargon). The issue was "materialism"--the idea that human personality is inseparable from the biological brain.

"Materialist" scientists insisted that Slade's communion with "departed spirits" had to be a criminal fraud to bilk the bereaved. While many among the general public may have privately agreed, for a scientist to publicly insist that a human "soul" cannot exist apart from a body was shocking--much worse than claiming apes for relatives. Evolutionists Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace (a prominent Spiritualist) supported opposing sides in the Slade affair, each convinced that his own vision of evolutionary science was at stake.
Interesting, no? Spiritualism (thought not channeling) has gone the way of Arthur Conan Doyle's fairies of Cottingly Glen, but the fight about "materialism" goes on.

Date: 2007/03/27 12:37:47, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 26 2007,22:21)


"Richard Hughes gets a gold star": PEEZEE MAYORS IN MY SIGNATURE,


Witch's powers have no effect upon server, and cannot view the gold star. "Cannot find server" ???

Witch can't even post at her own blog. Blogger identifies witch's blog as "spam blog." (Huh?) Witch genuflects before Richard. Okay, lift the curse now, Richard!  :)

I swear by all shimmies I won't send Bill Dembski a greeting on his birthday. *crosses fingers* (Actually I found a card yesterday that's so perfect! Goes so well with my atheistic pixie dust.) :p

Date: 2007/03/27 14:37:23, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 27 2007,11:43)

I have lifted the hex.

Next time it's a plague of frogs.

There are worse plagues one could have.

Rub it in Arden. (No, I was never particularly plagued by that one.)

I like toads. I like snakes, too. Plague of snakes. I deserve it. Oh please, oh please...  :) And bats, lots of bats. As long as they don't get in my hair. (Refers to former Minnesota Education Commissioner.)

Date: 2007/03/27 17:02:20, Link
Author: Kristine

Now, what are the odds (evens)?

Is this design or what? I can't tell anymore. :p

Date: 2007/03/27 23:46:16, Link
Author: Kristine
We're having a little discussion at my blog about this... I'm afraid I blatted on and on, and I didn't mean to, but I am very disturbed about the lines being drawn here - Dembski lashing out at Miller, Febble being banned, etc. I am as sickened by Wells as I can be, but he gets a free pass to "exercise his freedom of speech" about AIDS, whereas Christians who have something to say get the harsh treatment.

I expect Dembski to pick on Dawkins and PZ and Gould and Scott, etc., but Ken Miller? Come on, Bill. We all know that your agenda is about the supernatural. If you would just be honest about it I could respect that.

Man, lemme tell you guys something. I don't believe in the supernatural, but if I did, you wouldn't catch me arguing with other believers about God's nature or what God thinks or what God can and cannot do/be. You can only fight about things you own, know, or have control over. Get me?

ID just ain't working out, and you'd think a believer like William Dembski (but is he a believer or a doubter who can't afford to look at his doubt?) would at least see this as a sign and realize that his deity obviously doesn't like to be told what to do. Does he need me to tell him this? Helloooo! It's call idolatry, Bill!

I am reminded of a local teacher who told of a mother coming to her daughter's parent-teacher conference to fight for a better grade for her daughter's paper. The mother launched into all sorts of explanations as to why the paper deserved an A, until the teacher realized that this mother was fighting so hard because the daughter hadn't written the paper after all - the mother had! Likewise, is Dembski fighting for what he thinks is the truth, or is he dig in just because ID is his idea, all his? Get me?

Date: 2007/03/28 10:46:33, Link
Author: Kristine

Wanna be a fly on a wall? How about a bacterium on a fly on a wall? How about a mitchondrium in a bacterium on a fly on a wall?

You know what this reminds me of? Girl gossip in school - something I was never good at (because I was too busy reading Gould and Sagan and finding excuses for not going to dances like my mom wanted me to - oh, the irony). :)

The nastier it gets the more I lose heart. I'm watching somebody implode, and it ain't Ken Miller.

Date: 2007/03/28 12:50:34, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 28 2007,09:43)

Actually, I think Behe is right when he comments,
Well, I see that even though you work in Baltimore, you’ve managed to avoid acquiring any Southern charm.

Its a rude bit of mail, whatever its scientific merits.
Yep. It is. It's sneering and gloating and condescending. I don't think I would have read beyond the second paragraph.

I also note, however, that the nastiest questions get replies, whereas some polite questions just dangle over there.

Problems on both sides here - including the part about the ultimate lack of response. And the "why don't you publish in a peer-reviewed journal" bit.

Date: 2007/03/29 08:52:55, Link
Author: Kristine
Re: the so-called leak about Leakey, Sladjo wonders: I wonder how many other “proofs” for evolution are actually frauds… Did these guys miss the Not Making the Movement Look Stupid orientation?

"Proofs" for evolution? Evolution just explains the evidence. The evidence doesn't prove the explanation.

Stuff like that just gets my chimp. Besides, Score-Dover is quoting Creation Safaris anyway, and we all know how reliable they are. Any reputable source for this charge?

Date: 2007/03/29 19:37:57, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (jujuquisp @ Mar. 29 2007,13:11)
Here's a hot pic of the smarmy bastard for all you jerkoffs to have fun with:

*Backslides, copies pic* Sorry, I know you guys don't understand it.

I think it's a very nice photo. :)

Date: 2007/03/29 21:21:53, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 29 2007,17:47)

Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 29 2007,18:37)
*Backslides, copies pic* Sorry, I know you guys don't understand it.

I understand.  

After all, I declared publicly that I'd "do" Ann Coulter.  ;)
That's right, you did!

Well, the world needs explorers, adventurers... All I can say is, Rev. Dr. Lenny, like Poe says, no matter what happens to you, write it all down...  :D

Date: 2007/03/29 21:31:13, Link
Author: Kristine
The PowerPoint was the end! The ass's end.
Why does it all matter, anyways???• [ANYWAYS?? English, man! Watchyer English!]

•Your beliefs shape your desires.
•Your desires dictate your actions. –Do you ever act contrary to your desires?
Um...yeah...all the time...

I think our desires shape our beliefs BTW.

Date: 2007/03/30 13:02:02, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 30 2007,09:48)
You can tell that Jerry's trying hard to get himself off Double Secret Probation after his little, uh, lapse yesterday:
In order to avoid the taint of a God existing, ID points out the obvious. Namely, that some aspects of life could only have been designed. That is all. They stop there.

You are being disingenuous by pressing for the nature of the designer because you know that most ID people believe it is God and if they admit such you can triumphantly claim that there, it is religion being introduced and as such cannot be taught.

It is a phony insistence to express care about the nature of the designer. Why not let the student speculate and let science study how the design was implemented and then comment on the nature of the designer in a philosophy course.

Dude, I spent part of my summer at a dig. Okay, it dealt with recent history (1800s mill ruins), but still that makes my point - you're supposed to get some idea who the "designers" were from their designs, and in fact we had to know that our "designers" designed mill thingies to go looking for mill artefacts in the first place. Well, I suppose that's a tautology, then! Sue me!

They're trying to poison the well against any premature "It's God!" tada, but I ask you this - I can't help but wonder about the "don't wonder about the Designer" argument if these jokers found a message like this in a biological structure:


Date: 2007/03/30 13:26:57, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 29 2007,20:56)

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 29 2007,18:47)
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 29 2007,18:37)
*Backslides, copies pic* Sorry, I know you guys don't understand it.

I understand.  

After all, I declared publicly that I'd "do" Ann Coulter.  ;)

You guys are both total perverts.

Arden, you're starting to sound like a a certain editor I could mention.

Date: 2007/03/30 18:01:54, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (phonon @ Mar. 30 2007,15:17)
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 30 2007,15:58)
Re "I don't like "trail and error" because the interpretation is ambiguous."

Well, how do you feel about trial and error, then? ;)


Re "Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?"

Probably not, given that there is an upper limit on how large a rock can be and still be a rock, rather than say, a black hole. :)

Bbbut it's , uh, God and stuff and God can do anything.
Anything? Can He not exist?  ;)

I suppose if He ate that rancid peanut butter...

Date: 2007/03/30 19:54:39, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 29 2007,16:11)

Indeed.  Other than in America and in American-funded groups overseas, ID/creationism is a non-issue.
But are we talking about the industrialized world?

I daresay that most of the Middle East does not teach evolution in schools and that most of what is rather condescendingly called the Third World teaches its creation myths unfettered.

Here's an excellent article that I read right before the Dover decision came down.

Date: 2007/03/30 22:23:14, Link
Author: Kristine
On April 12, Bill Dembski will speak at the Dallas Christian Leadership luncheon at SMU. (This is in the very room where our now famous symposium on Darwinism took place in 1992.) Contact us for more details if you would like to attend.


:D  Watch out Bill, I'm sick of looking at photographs. Maybe I'll spike the coffee to give it that special shimmy down the gullet. And then, go do that doo-doo that you do so well. *Fart*

Yeah. Lots o'ways we could jazz up their simple-posiums, folks.  :p

Date: 2007/03/30 22:32:56, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 30 2007,17:58)
Quote (phonon @ Mar. 30 2007,16:50)
OT, but this is great!!

And is that Phyllis Schafly or Rita Cosby?

              TIME TO STOMP OUT HERESY!!!!

Kristine says:  Yes, they are that stupid. I've heard that one before. I heard it in church.

This was in the late 1970s and I think they used a potato chip bag, but it's the same story...  

Kristine - I SWEAR I am NOT stalking you - I just ran into your post at Mike's...

 But, I have to ask - Are you sure that the God Of The Penut Butter is the same as the God Of The Potato Chip?
Oh, how the bloody #### should I know, darlin'?  :D I swear this latest batch of creationism that's hit the fan is giving me flashbacks. And my church wasn't wacky. Just every once in a while something wacky like that would come up.

No, you're no stalker, no worries. Believe me, I know what stalking is. Even the little troll who tags after me around the internet (look at the comment below mine at Jason's link) isn't really stalking me. I am keeping an eye on him, though.

Date: 2007/03/31 11:57:28, Link
Author: Kristine
Why oh why do people think that mechanism is so necessary to design detection? Why can’t they see that minds don’t operate by any mechanism that we can understand and that mechanism resides in the absence of design.
Well I'll take a clumsy stab at this - not from a scientific perspective but from a humanities one (may I do that?).

When I think "mechanism" I'm thinking of a means, a medium, a process that is cumulative, as opposed to, say, a magical eruption of something into existence.

I'm not a scientist but I see this kind of "magical" thinking all the time in relation to art - in Dead Poets' Society, "Just lose control!" and poof, instant poetry. "Just seize your imagination!" Poof! Instant art. This is also the Christian fad today: "Just feel! Speak in tongues! Roll around on the floor!" Poof! Instant spirituality. Yes, I have a big, big ole problem with this. There is no organized hierarchy here of learning stages that build one upon the other. It is like adults just appearing on earth without first being children (which is increasingly how popular culture regards children, is it not?).

Leaving aside the issue of science for a moment, what is so "spiritual" about this instantaneity? To me, it's a cheat. Art is work. Writing is work. There is a mechanism (means, medium, and process) in writing and there are cumulative steps in it. Otherwise, what revelation, other than a hammer from heaven smacking you in the head, is there for you to have? "Revelation" for me comes after a long, trying process of working on something, being confused, reading or doing it over and over, until finally, despite (or rather because of) it being comprised of smaller bits of information, my mind finally puts it together and then I understand something.

People at UD want instant answers. "Design" is, essentially, an instant answer without any means of breaking it down into smaller answers, and so there is nothing to learn from design, because it's a revelation without a context. But context is all - our brains don't exist independently of our bodies, and we could not think without hearing, or seeing, or (in the case of that great atheist, Helen Keller) the "language" of touch. All of these perceptions are mechanisms, too. The brain exists in context of the body. In what context does "design" exist? But we're not supposed to ask that, since we're not supposed to ask about the Designer.

Date: 2007/03/31 13:26:40, Link
Author: Kristine
Re: God and rock.

Everything exists in terms of relationships. How can any being exist without a concept of other? If God exists, then everything is his own fantasy, including himself, and there is no truth.

I propose that such a being would descend into madness and be incapable of creating anything, rocks or whatever.

God is a projection of man's domination over women, and women's projection of their collective willingness (let's be honest) to be dominated. Otherwise, why the "he"? And it repulses me.

Date: 2007/03/31 15:24:17, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 31 2007,12:49)
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 31 2007,10:57)
... But context is all - our brains don't exist independently of our bodies, and we could not think without hearing, or seeing, or (in the case of that great atheist, Helen Keller) the "language" of touch. All of these perceptions are mechanisms, too. The brain exists in context of the body...

Sorry to be pedantic, but you may want to rewrite that. I doubt that you really mean that deaf and/or blind people are less capable of thought. The UD eejits could have a field-day with that comment and I don't think that you mean what it implies. OTOH, I could have missread you (I am on my 2nd bottle of wine).

You misread me because I did not say "hearing AND seeing," and because you didn't include the example of Hellen Keller after the second "or."

Hearing OR seeing OR touch. The brain needs stimulation in order to develop and think.

Or to put it another way, take the sad case of "closet children." In extreme cases, they are given no stimulation (light, sound, touch) and upon discovery their language/cognitive skills have never developed. The UDudes know this and know what I mean. They're the ones who are harping upon what other people should teach their children, after all. (Why teach anybody anything if "thinking just happens" without the brain, without a mechanism? Why do we need education at all, then? Isn't that a naturalistic assumption in itself?)

If anybody wants to misquote what I said then they confirm my suspicion of them being liars.

Date: 2007/03/31 15:50:08, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 31 2007,11:49)
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 31 2007,10:57)
Why oh why do people think that mechanism is so necessary to design detection? Why can’t they see that minds don’t operate by any mechanism that we can understand and that mechanism resides in the absence of design.
Well I'll take a clumsy stab at this - not from a scientific perspective but from a humanities one (may I do that?).

When I think "mechanism" I'm thinking of a means, a medium, a process that is cumulative, as opposed to, say, a magical eruption of something into existence.

I'm not a scientist but I see this kind of "magical" thinking all the time in relation to art - in Dead Poets' Society, "Just lose control!" and poof, instant poetry. "Just seize your imagination!" Poof! Instant art....

Kristine -

There is a crucial place for improvisation in art, too, particularly music.  I generate music by means of a process that is analogous to variation and selection in nature in some ways - a sort of dialectic between improvisation (on midi piano) and the harder work of selecting and elaborating this raw material into finished compositions. Hours of mediocre noodling on the keyboard can occasionally yield brief passages of delightful accidental music that I capture, reproduce and elaborate into something resembling art. Very occasionally, quite lovely (if I say so myself) and quite lengthy passages spring out of my hands virtually complete.  So I cultivate improvisation by letting go in exactly the way you describe.  

This is not to assert for an instant that creativity of this kind emerges from nowhere, free of underlying mechanism.  I see it as a sort of meditation that loosens the grip of frontal planning to permit other areas of my brain and body (parietal lobes interacting with basal ganglia to recombine well learned motor plans into novel combinations) to become music generators. And selection may be the most important step in the process.

I'd be willing to bet you originate dance in a similar way.

It's interesting that you would raise that objection, because Middle Eastern cabaret dance (as opposed to traditional folk dances or American cabaret) is entirely improvisation. It is not memorized and repeated as, say, ballet routines are.

But that underscores my point. The steps themselves are learned and repeated. You must do this first before you can improvise. "Hours of mediocre noodling on the keyboard" is a mechanism, no? The ability to "yield brief passages of delightful accidental music," (i.e., to experience inspiration) requires discipline. You don't just bang anything on the piano because "that's how I feel" and call that inspiration. (I play the piano too, but I cannot compose music.) Likewise, I don't sit around in "waiting for inspiration" when I write - I pitch a lot of drafts into the wastebasket. And little Egyptian girls imitate their grandmothers, who teach them, before they start working at 5-star hotels (increasingly less now, due to threats from fundamentalists).

"Why can’t they see that minds don’t operate by any mechanism that we can understand" Look at what he's saying - not only that our cognitive understanding is limited, but that we can never understand how the brain works. That's hogwash. Poof, whole therapies for brain-injury victims, gone in the name of "design." Poof, whole behavioral therapies gone, too. (I'm not a fan of behavioralist theory but I'm a big fan of behavioralist techniques because they work.) Poof, all this research that I'm learning about how people use libraries, gone too. Why do people need to sacrifice all this on the narrow altar of "design?" That's my essential point here.

Date: 2007/03/31 18:57:35, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 31 2007,14:44)
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 31 2007,15:18)
Just to complete the thought above.

Why oh why do people think that mechanism is so necessary to design detection? Why can’t they see that minds don’t operate by any mechanism that we can understand and that mechanism resides in the absence of design.

The term "design" has several meanings, including "to plan". But the claim of Intelligent Design isn't merely that the Designer had a thought, but that the Designer manipulated biology. And this requires a mechanism. And the mechanism connects the Designer with his creation.

Your distinction is calls to mind Howard Van Till's oft repeated distinction of the "mind-like" versus "hand-like" phases of any instance of design - and ID's obstinate silence on the latter.

To complicate things, Dembski has insisted that people should not think of Intelligent Design as a Designer constructing things "to spec." (This is to shore up the "intelligent design does not mean optimal design" argument.)

So, even if design theory doesn't need to match evolution's "pathetic level of detail" in explaining how the eye was designed, it still has to come up with a mechanism for why it was 1) designed so poorly (necessitating surgery and my contact lenses) or 2) what messed with the Designer's original design. :)

Which means I'm finally going to read a certain essay by Dembski. (Whoop-de-doo, I think I can actually turn it into a homework assignment, and I'm gonna. Exaptation. It exists, people!;) :D

Date: 2007/03/31 22:18:36, Link
Author: Kristine
GilDodgen, Hon, is the voice screaming: "I DESERVE CHOCOLATE!"? That's me. Sorry. :)  I'm on page 20 of my 3rd attempt to get through this, that's why. (I'm farther than the other 2 times.) I've already blatted at my boyfriend about the nonsequitors. (I can hear his voice, too, in my head: "So why do you read that crap, then?")

Dembski mentions SETI in this one too, Lenny. *Sigh* But I gotta tell ya, some good stuff here:
Even though I accept standard astrophysical and geological dating (12 billion years for the universe, 4.5 billion years for the Earth), young-earth creationists deserve credit here. They see the crucial significance, theologically, of preserving the link between evil (both personal and natural) and human sin. That’s why, when asked what’s riding on a young earth, proponents of this position invariably cite Romans 5:12, which speaks of death as a consequence of human sin.
It's an old world after all! *Shim-shimmeries* :D

Then, as I was starting to nod, came this little gem:      
Given that time means different things from an earthly and heavenly vantage, Genesis 1 confronts us with the problem of aligning natural history (chronos) with the order of creation (kairos). To this problem, young-earth creationism offers a straightforward solution: it identifies natural history with the order of creation. This solution is, to be sure, theologically neat. Yet, in our current noetic environment, informed as it is by modern astrophysics and geology, the scientific community as a whole regards young-earth creationism as scientifically untenable. Some young earth creationists will even concede this point, admitting that the preponderance of scientific evidence goes against their position. Nevertheless, they feel compelled to maintain their young-earth position because they see Scripture as requiring it. Their hope is that science in the future will vindicate their position.

So now you know what's up with the YECs! And I deserve chocolate!

Date: 2007/04/01 00:27:46, Link
Author: Kristine
Yeah, bully for me, I may as well wade through the theology, atheistic Bible study star that I was, so you don't have to! :) Get a load of this - Bill D. quotes David Snoke:
The young-earth creationist and the atheist Darwinist have in common their belief that God would never create killer things. The atheist removes God from the picture to account for the natural evils of this world, while the young-earth creationist removes the record of killer animals from the picture to preserve the goodness of God. Both of these views need to interact with a fully biblical picture of God, as he is revealed in Scripture and in nature—powerful, uncontrollable, and able to pour out extreme violence, yet also just, merciful, and able to bless beyond all our expectations.
Way to frame another false "golden mean!" First of all, these people need to get out of their armchairs and learn about the real world out there.

Secondly, they need to allow themselves to contemplate the ultimate taboo but obvious answer: that God, if he exists, would be both good and evil. That He, having no higher authority to appeal to (which according to Bill is the source of our goodness), could be just a shitty parent after all, lost and fumbling, needing, and perhaps wanting, our forgiveness for all the evil in the world. I would be okay with that.

I'm not saying what I believe, but I am raising this as an example of the only theodicy that I consider to be consistent with modern science. It's also the only relationship with any deity I can think of that is mature and reciprocal, and lacking the abused-child-syndrome of minimizing and justifying the Parent's abuse.

Everything that we know about dysfunctional relationships goes right out the window when people talk about God. Bring it on, Bill D. When you were witnessing to people on sidewalks I already had developed an immunity.

Date: 2007/04/01 12:37:43, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 01 2007,06:18)

Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 31 2007,21:18)
GilDodgen, Hon, is the voice screaming: "I DESERVE CHOCOLATE!"? That's me. Sorry. :)  I'm on page 20 of my 3rd attempt to get through this, that's why. (I'm farther than the other 2 times.) I've already blatted at my boyfriend about the nonsequitors. (I can hear his voice, too, in my head: "So why do you read that crap, then?")...

I read this paper some time ago, and my anandamide receptors, long in retirement from external manipulation, screamed at me as well. That's because they are known to mediate forms of forgetting.

What I found entertaining, beyond watching WAD tie himself into knots to accomplish his apologetic purposes (even the knots have knots), is the solution he devises for 'the fall,' which is essentially a multiverse solution:
In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve simultaneously inhabit two worlds—two worlds intersect in the Garden. In the one world, the world God originally intended, the Garden is part of a larger world that is perfect and includes no natural evils. In the other world, the world that became corrupt through natural evils that God brought about by acting preemptively to anticipate the Fall, the Garden is a safe haven that in the conscious experience of Adam and Eve (i.e., phenomenologically) matches up exactly with their conscious experience in the perfect world, the one God originally intended. In the originally intended world, there are no pathogenic microbes and, correspondingly, there is no need for Adam and Eve to have an immune system that wards off these microbes. In the imperfect world, whose imperfection results from God acting  preemptively to anticipate the Fall, both pathogenic microbes and human immune systems exist. Yet, in their garden experience, Adam and Eve never become conscious of that difference. Only after they sin and are ejected from the Garden do they become conscious of the difference. Only then do they glimpse the world they might have inhabited but lost, a world symbolized by the tree of life. Only then do they realize the tragedy they now face by being cast into a world full of natural evil and devoid of a tree that could grant them immortality.

If that makes sense to you, you'll agree that time and causality are not time and causality:
Actually, I'm not up to that part yet, but I do "understand" it, because I was raised a Christian and can enter and leave this realm. The chronos and kairos of which he speaks, the temporal realm and the eternal realm of the Godhead, form a cross! The first intersection (cross) is in the Garden, and the second is the resurrection of Jesus Christ! Get it? :) So nice, so neat, and so useless - except perhaps as a means to prevent Alzheimer's. ;) But it doesn't have anything to do with the real world.
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 01 2007,06:18)

Which brings us to GilDodg'em's question vis credibility:
Friday Musings: The Credible Versus The Incredible

...Thus, at least among many intellectual elites and others, the incredible is given precedence over the credible as the default position. How did we arrive at this curious state of affairs?

Gil - take a squint at Bill's paper, and I think you'll have your answer.

(Design is screaming at you because it is PISSED.)
The Designer is looking for an argument.

And that's the final irony. Even if Bill, Gil, et al convince people of the Designer's existence, they can't dictate our reaction to it. Dawkins exhorts us to rebel against our selfish genes, so why can't we rebel against "design" too?

After all, I don't "worship" Darwin or evolution. Modern medicine and technology is about using the world's realities to subvert them as much as we can, because evolution isn't a nice creation story.

Date: 2007/04/01 14:21:24, Link
Author: Kristine
I can't keep up with everything. So...Dr. Egnor is real, he really said what he said, and the PT crew made a phony DI website to make what he said appear as more "street theatre" including a bet of alcohol by Dembski to Egnor, who "won," but that's the joke. Right?

So Dr. Egnor not being an invention of PT is the real joke, right? :p Darn it.

Date: 2007/04/01 15:01:36, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (phonon @ April 01 2007,13:39)

but the people who are working on OOL research do have ideas as to how it arose. They aren't fully fleshed out theories yet, mainly because they haven't amassed nearly enough data. But to say "we have no idea" is just incorrect.
Right. That gets my chimp as well.

Plus the assertion that "life" and "nonlife" are totally opposite, mutually exclusive chategories drives me nuts. We're talking about inorganic and organic chemistry. (Why do we have a chemistry at all, if we're all "life spirit"?)

Date: 2007/04/01 21:07:28, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 01 2007,15:00)
I would have sworn you were the bonobo type.
Oh dear. I'd better tone down my online personality! :D  
Quote (Zachriel @ April 01 2007,09:39)

Note the means by Kekulé; work, inspiration, work.

That was a bit of a nod to Kristine's previous comments — in the hopes that she wouldn't try to hit herself in the head with a hammer.
Too late. I just crossed the "Christian Theodicy" finish line!
And I offer this comment, without snark: wow.

I mean that, I'm not just being a smartass: wow. The guy believes in an old earth and in Adam and Eve (metaphorically, I think), in our (possible) evolution from hominids (he hedges about it) and in the Garden of Eden, which was spiritually isolated from the "natural evil" allowed to exist in the world in anticipation of humanity's choice to sin through free will... Uh, doesn't ask much of himself, does he? This is a lot to reconcile.

Okay, yeah, I hear the sniggering out there, but despite my Bill bias ya gotta give the guy some credit for being an abstract thinker - I don't buy what he's selling, but I would have rather sat through this than all the "God is fun, fun, fun!" pep-talks that have passed for sermons aimed at kids since the 1970s. I prefer intellectual games.

I guess I come away from this being impressed that he is really a good person at heart, but blinded by his worldview so that he has no moral qualms about shoehorning biology into his little retrofitted spirit world. He's intelligent, but a two-dimensional thinker; I wish he would make an attempt to put aside all the preconceived ideas and just learn - about biology, about literature, about a lot of things without trying to pigeonhole them.

I don't have a neat and whole worldview like this, but he probably assumes that I (and other "Darwinists") do; he doesn't understand how to live with uncertainty, so he assumes that we do the same thing he's doing here. No, no, not so. At least I have a better understanding of the gulf between us and ID believers.

Date: 2007/04/01 21:32:51, Link
Author: Kristine
BTW you need to add an eyepatch to your avatar now, Phonon.

We should all add one! (It could be like an armband to protest the silence at ID/UD/DI about this fabulous prank.)  :)

Date: 2007/04/01 22:00:26, Link
Author: Kristine
Even Denyse is getting into the protest!

:D Courtesy of Lou - from whom I've not heard in a while, but is back.

Date: 2007/04/01 22:59:55, Link
Author: Kristine
Boo hair-style oppressors! Boo!  :D

We should be able to go to school nekkid!

Boo all adults! :p

Date: 2007/04/02 18:01:39, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 02 2007,15:47)


William Dembski


3:58 pm
Russ: The non-religious may give less financially, but I’m not so sure about time. They seem quite committed to their political causes, and readily devote their time to them. And why give money if it can be taken by political force from the religious?

Okay, childrens, everyone get your EFs out. Arden, put that down! Okay, first put last years US charitable contributions in slot A. Good. Now, put the contributions of just 3 atheists, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros in slot B. No, Kieths, B, not D. Okay. Who can tell me what percentage of the population are atheists? Good - put that in slot C. If you've all done this correctly you should see the answer - "Jebus" - in slot D.

*Sigh* The reference to politics is a reference to global warming, I fear. Well, I see that there were floods this weekend near Waco, my wacko Theodicy dearie-dear. Just look for this sign if you-alls need to flee.
I admit that it's easier to sneak time from work to blog'n'blat than it is to give $$$ I don't have.

I'm tired of this sniping on this issue. I don't care who "gives more." I don't need to be "more moral" than anybody, but I just wish they could can the "they're all degenerates" crap. It really dashes my optimism.

Date: 2007/04/02 22:05:30, Link
Author: Kristine
*Gasp!* Borne says:  
Time for another new revolution.

Do any of you see civil war eventually coming out of this anserine thinking? [This "anserine" thinking being the Supreme Court's ruling on greenhouse gases, that was somehow "rigged" by the scientific community.]

Lord knows the suggestions and threats of violence abound. [They do? :(]

There’s no way this kind of stupidity can continue without consequences. Somebody has to stop this folly. [With another civil war? :O]

I can easily envision the US as a divided nation once again ending up at war within itself over issues like this.

From an non American stance, I can see the divisions growing wider and the sides taking clearer shape with each passing year.

Not a harbinger of peace.
So help me, I have thought about this, what people being turned back by armed cops during Katrina as they tried to cross a bridge that led to a suburb, and also with Bush's statements about quarantine if there was an outbreak of avian flu.

But I have thought of these things in horror. Borne sounds like he wants us to have a war.

I visited his blog and it's full of "atheism is nihilism, atheists may be nice but they're just fooling themselves, Darwinian life has no meaning" blah blah. Well, I must say, if things degenerated in this country I'd be the one smuggling refugees, like the atheists Anais Nin and Henry Miller in France during the Spanish civil war (and later, Jews during WWII - all those atheists in the French Resistance too, before the war ended and suddenly everyone belonged to it).

Where do these people get their hatred? The auto industry is also calling for the federal government to regulate emissions so they don't have to deal with a "patchwork" of state's rules. A war over this? Because of a ruling from a court that Bush has tried to stack? Is this a joke? Maybe they're having us on. But I'm pretty gullible in some ways and my hair stood on end. Are they serious?

Date: 2007/04/02 22:50:05, Link
Author: Kristine
Is this a joke?    
Casey Luskin also refuted Darwin’s common descent tree, which is thought to provide links between different species of life. This tree was said to show people how they evolved from common descent. This proved a difficult task since the limbs on the tree were going every which way.

Well! That's that, then! Can't have things going every which way! :p
So the tree turns into a tangled bush, and now, Darwin is proven wrong red-handed.

"Proven wrong red-handed"? Don't they mean, "caught beyond a reasonable doubt"? :D
Year ago, when Darwin’s argument first hit big,
Uh, how many years ago was that?    
it tried to prove
"It tried to prove"?    
“junk DNA.” This dreadful mistake proved its worthlessness
Did it try to prove its worthlessness?    
when doctors (under their oath to help better anyone in their care) radiated a woman’s thyroid – vital in the human body.

The thyroid, much like taking a wheel off a bike, which was thought to be useless and therefore a junk DNA aftermath, helped in disproving part of Darwin’s theory.

This blind leap of faith into Darwinism proved painful to
the woman and deadly to Darwin’s theory.

Luskin ended with admitting that he himself is a Christian and believes in God but assured everyone listening that this theory cannot prove God’s existence.

Jesus H Christ on a bicycle this is a stupid article. Who wrote it? Casey Luskin?

Date: 2007/04/02 23:09:16, Link
Author: Kristine
I'm a bitch.

Date: 2007/04/02 23:34:05, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 02 2007,22:09)

Quote (Kristine @ April 02 2007,22:05)
*Gasp!* Borne says:  
Time for another new revolution.

I am wondering if Big Bill Dumbski has reported this comment to the Department of Fatherland Security yet . . . . . . . . .
Yeah. Good point! Borne claims to not be an American, though. (If you buy his "You Americans" jazz.)

Thanks. I'll sleep well now.  :O  
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 02 2007,21:58)
The one comfort I have is that they aren't bulletproof.  No matter HOW goddamn holy they think they are, if you shoot them, they die just like everyone else.
I'm a pacifist atheist dweebie. ??? Maybe my cats could knead them to death.

Date: 2007/04/03 00:24:21, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (hereoisreal @ April 02 2007,22:51)

No fundies here Lenny but something to think about:

Rev 12:5  And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne.

Huh? I don't know what you're talking about.

Here's something people at UD should get pissed about, since they're talking about global warming and green houses and such. I believe in paying taxes, but they're taxing these people's efforts. If fuel is practically non-polluting and they make it, why shouldn't it be free?

Date: 2007/04/03 12:47:35, Link
Author: Kristine
Recently,there was a bit of correspondence between moderators of our list about the question of whether aggressive Darwinists can be accused of being like Nazis.

Now, my own view on this subject is as follows: I don’t really care whether Darwinists who routinely launch or justify persecutions [such as?] against non-materialists are offended. It’s absolutely fine with me if they realize that their actions are closely observed and recorded.

By whom? The Department of Homeland Security? I'm not the one who makes statements at UD about violently overthrowing the government because of how the Supreme Court ruled.
I am concerned rather about any offence given to victims of Nazis and their children/grandchildren by too-casual use of such terms. When I was young (and, for a brief period, sick), I was cared for by several nurses who had camp tattoos on their forearms.

Well I have Jewish in-laws so go blow your kazoo. Are you sure those nurses weren't gay? They were in the concentration camps too, you know. Did you know that, Denyse? Did you know that some Jews are atheists and "Darwinists" BTW?
Enough of that.
Now more of that.  
Is the modern Darwinist typically a eugenicist? No, not typically, and that is something that has always puzzled me.

As you know, I have myself written several posts on the fundamental incoherence of Darwinists on the issue of eugenics, which Darwin himself brilliantly (and, I am sure, unwittingly!) demonstrated by his attitude to the Irish in his day.

Darwin - observing that, in the natural course of events, the Irish would overtake the other ethnic groups in the British Isles

The eugenic heritage is something that Darwinists have never properly dealt with - probably because they can’t.
Yes, we're not control freaks like you and accept that we can't change the minds of people who are clueless whereas you argue yourself into knots in an obvious effort to whip up the nerve to stop talking and start shooting.

The embarrassing problem is NOT that today’s Darwinists are really racists or anti-Semites but don’t want to be tarred as such. That’s clearly untrue.
Thanks for that, sistah. You're all heart, Denyse. Are any Jewish atheists? This is a quiz.

Rather, the embarrassing problem is that the early Darwinists didn’t really believe what they wanted the public to believe - that natural selection created all things bright and beautiful. So they
Please, I can't stand it. Who is she talking about? Who specifically "felt" what and how does she know what other people feel?  

Feeling robots? - Well, as long as you feel they feel, it is true for you. Or so they say. You’ll be doing all the feeling.
Yeah, I just read your post and I'm doing all the feeling - #### straight. I'm fucking terrified. I certainly don't expect you to do any feeling, you tightlaced, finger-waving, shaming prude robot-cog for the glorious intelligent design of a Christian theocracy in the U.S.! Leave my government alone, Denyse and Borne, since you can't vote here and I can. I'm not in your concentration camp yet.

There comes a point when I think I should walk away from all of this, because it’s seriously making me depressed, and scaring the living shit out of me, or if I should keep an eye on these people because I am scared shitless that they are trying to talk themselves into planting bombs and turning their guns on their neighbor in the name of God and goodness.

I am serious. All this talk of “eugenics” is starting to sound like jealousy to me! Obviously they do not see “Darwinists” (for the love of Pete that’s just a word they invented to dehumanize people – replace it with “Jews” and see what happens) as “things bright and beautiful” either. Maybe they can get rid of “us”? After all it’s not eugenics if they do it, since it wouldn’t be abortion, but war (and God loves war). Get it? And it's not eugenics if it's a "global experiment", either.

The planet is not on fire but "we are the arsonists." Figure that out. And we want to do something about it because we're horrible monsters. Got it.

I'm sitting here at work thinking, Crap, these crazies know who and where I am.

Date: 2007/04/03 13:23:15, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (wintermute @ April 03 2007,05:53)
Quote (Kristine @ April 03 2007,00:24)
Here's something people at UD should get pissed about, since they're talking about global warming and green houses and such. I believe in paying taxes, but they're taxing these people's efforts. If fuel is practically non-polluting and they make it, why shouldn't it be free?

That link seems not to work.  :(

Deep breath.

Here's the story, since the link now doesn't work for me, either.
State will tax men's homemade car fuel
Pioneer Press

The state Department of Revenue informed two men it will tax their homemade fuel, three days after the pair's strategy was featured in a local newspaper.

Steven Griesbach and Paul Simon, of Manitowoc, said the letters they received indicate they would owe state fuel tax on any fuel they make and burn in their vehicles.

"I'm going to still (make biofuel), but I'm not too happy about the whole thing," said Simon, who has been burning a modified form of vegetable oil in his 1982 diesel-powered Mercedes-Benz 240D for two years.

Vegetable oil converted to motor-vehicle fuel is considered a biodiesel, which is taxable under state law, said Meredith Helgerson, spokeswoman for the Revenue Department.

- Associated Press
Stephen Elliot, I doubt that you ever engaged in this vicarious-living-through-"Darwinist"-eugenics-as-a-means-of-wishing-"Darwin
ists"-dead, as they are doing.

Date: 2007/04/03 16:36:38, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 03 2007,12:14)
Denyse is just an untalented, pretentious dimbulb who won't get a real job. She does not deserve to be taken seriously, much less your terror, Kristine.

The IDers aren't smart enough to put together an aquarium, much less a surveillance program.
Intelligent design is about the future, not the past. It's about controlling the future by controlling information about the past.

They talk about eugenics because they want to engage in it – their way.
They talk about the big bad scientific establishment because they want to build their own monolithic establishment – their way.
They talk about persecution because they want to administer their own brand of Christian dominionism. They talk about overthrowing an ostensibly oppressive government because in truth it’s not oppressive enough, and they could do that better.
They talk about the “nihilism” of atheists because they need an excuse to enjoy the pleasure of hurting or killing someone, who first must be completely dehumanized.
Dembski simultaneously lowers the limbo bar and asks, “How low can they go?” because it is he who lowers himself and who wants to lower himself.

If you locate the mind and “truth” and science in a non-material realm, then you have full power to flog the physical for the good of everyone’s soul.
You can tell the starving that they need to pray harder.
You can tell the sick that it’s all because of their sins.
You can bring back public executions in a perpetual mission to kill the devil, and confiscate your opponent’s property at the same time.
Etc., etc., etc.

Look, I know Denyse and Dembski and DaveScot and all of that gang aren’t going to do anything themselves. They’re not stupid. But they, Dembski particularly, portray themselves as the leaders of a youth movement. Let’s take the American Nazi Party and white supremacists as an example, since Denyse likes to talk about them so much. The leaders have always remained untouchable whenever some follower went out and committed a hate crime, or killed someone: “Oh, we don’t tell anyone to resort to violence. They did this all on their own.” At the same time applauding the removal of the inconvenient opponent and letting their lower minion be the fall guy.

It’s the next generation that I worry about.

Date: 2007/04/03 20:53:11, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (steve_h @ April 03 2007,17:09)
Leave the drinking to people like me and SteveStory who become more attractive and sophisticated after a few percents.

Yeah, that coca-cola at work really wakes the snakes in my hair. Invitation to a stoning.      
 In a world run by Rushdoony followers, sots would escape capital punishment--which would make them happy exceptions indeed. Those who would face execution include not only gays but a very long list of others: blasphemers, heretics, apostate Christians, people who cursed or struck their parents, females guilty of "unchastity before marriage," "incorrigible" juvenile delinquents, adulterers, and (probably) telephone psychics. And that's to say nothing of murderers and those guilty of raping married women or "betrothed virgins." Adulterers, among others, might meet their doom by being publicly stoned
How fortunate it is indeed that I have not been drinking.                
Prominent California philanthropist Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., who has given Rushdoony's operations more than $700,000 over the years, may also be loosening his ties. According to the June 30, 1996, Orange County Register, Ahmanson has departed the Chalcedon board and says he "does not embrace all of Rushdoony's teachings." An heir of the Home Savings bank fortune, Ahmanson has also been an important donor to numerous other groups, including the Claremont Institute, the Seattle-based Discovery Institute
Drink to me only with thine eyes, Bill.          
Ethics Daily has published a revealing report that "Seminary Speaker Advocates Christian Rule."  Shelby sharpe, general counsel for the Southern Baptists of Texas, spoke to a full house in a Southwestern Seminary chapel service on September 5th and, in effect, advocated that Christians takeover the government to influence the culture.
A recent speaker at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary said Christians have a responsibility not just to preach the kingdom of God, but to impose Christian principles upon culture. That was on the heels of the president of another Southern Baptist seminary saying on a radio program that fears by liberals and moderates that fundamentalist Christians want to establish a "theocracy" are overblown. ... "That's a command to us," he continued. "We are to have this culture live in obedience to every command of God. You say, 'Now wait a minute. That's not lawful. The Supreme Court of the United States says you can't do that.'

"So? So what? When did they get above God?"

... Bruce Prescott of Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists, a longtime observer of the Religious Right, called Sharpe's chapel address "the most unambiguous advocacy for Christian Reconstructionism that I have ever heard from the pulpit of a Southern Baptist institution."

"The fact that Shelby Sharpe works as general counsel for Southern Baptists of Texas should give some indication of the intentionality with which Southern Baptist political organizing across the country has the creation of a fundamentalist-Christian theocracy as its goal," Prescott said.
Link to the video. No it's not our three D's at UD, so maybe this is OT, but I'm awake; I'm paying attention to this stuff. Maybe I'm wrong. But I don't think I'm being hysterical.  
Southwestern Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas is the largest seminary in the world. It has trained more Christian ministers and missionaries than any other institution in history.

Date: 2007/04/04 00:10:00, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 03 2007,20:16)
Quote (Kristine @ April 03 2007,20:53)
No it's not our three D's at UD, so maybe this is OT, but I'm awake; I'm paying attention to this stuff. Maybe I'm wrong. But I don't think I'm being hysterical.  

Read the Wedge Document, and you'll see that it's not OT, and you are not being hysterical at all.  ID is permeated, through and through, with a barely-disguised Reconstructionist-based agenda.  We are all supremely fortunate that they are such incompetent boobs that they couldn't organize their way out of a wet paper bag.

Ahmanson, BTW, not only sits on the DI's Board of Directors, but provides, by some estimates, about one-third of the yearly budget for the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, all by himself.  He is one scary dude.
*Shimmies out of view of Ahmanson* Yes! Thank you! This chick ain't chicken little.

It's so ironic that earlier k.e. took me to task for appearing too soft on our Bill the fundertaker.    
Quote (k.e @ April 01 2007,21:23)
Who is trying to have their blind spot beyond their horizon and their rosy world view too?

Moi? :)
Quote (k.e @ April 01 2007,21:23)
Romanticize away with 'Billy the Kreationist Kid' a Psalm Slinger of the Old East as he rides into town on the back of his flock of sheep with his devil may care disregard of the law (in particular the constitution).

How does a man ride a flock of sheep when he is wearing spandex? You forgot that part.
Quote (k.e @ April 01 2007,21:23)
You could try seeing if he can be 'converted' to play on the other team ...I suppose... but it would take more than a shimmy in a feather boa.

I don't use feather boas. They shed. And who do you think I am anyway, Quetzecotl? Not that I mind. ;)

"We are the arsonists." So, are you saying that I, instead of cursing the fartness, should light a match? I'll try.
Quote (k.e @ April 01 2007,21:23)
In which case I say ...bring me the head of Bill the Baptist.

Revenge is mine. He and I have an anniversary even if he can't remember.

Date: 2007/04/04 12:25:18, Link
Author: Kristine
O'Leary plays dumb. (I thought maybe she's come off as smarter when she does this, but no.) Moi? A fundamentalist?

Oui, vous, une fundamentaliste, cherie. There are fundamentalist Catholics, my dear. There are anti-Semitic Catholics, too.

I read the referenced article last night on the train.

Oh, and Denyse: it seems that intelligent design is not very popular among Jews. What say you now? Gee, the whole flipping world doesn't act like your catechism says it should! Maybe the world isn't fallen - maybe the big shimmy harpy has you in her talons. Up, up, and away! Struggle a little, huh?

Date: 2007/04/04 15:53:20, Link
Author: Kristine
Indeed. How can there be a supernatural, anyway? If angels and devils exist, aren’t they natural? (Just a rhetorical question – I really don’t care about angels and devils.)

I differentiate between reality, which is the world of phenomena, and truth, which is a mental model of reality. Reality is “out there,” but truth is a human value. Attaining “truth” is more ideal than method – it means to have our model of reality square with reality.

Numbers are our models of relationships that we see in the behaviors of real things. Numbers don’t exist “out there” in any Pythagorean sense, but matter behaves in ways that allow us to conceive of these behaviors in terms of numbers.

One cell splits into two daughter cells. You can assign whatever name or symbol to the result, but the result is a material fact and remains so.

You can argue that 2 + 2 = 5 all you want, but if you have chromosomes that fuse or certain kinds of gene duplication, you may not end up with a brain to argue with in the first place. The universe does not think – it just acts. We think about how it acts (hopefully).

To have the software of the mind, one must first have the hardware – and the software can propose ideas that contradict the reality of the hardware. Frankly, I don’t think consciousness is all it’s cracked up to be. We’re screwing up the planet because of our idea of being the lords of creation. Ideas are more real to too many people than life itself, than in living life now. Especially in the West we’re obsessed with reducing everything to words and symbols. Holy scripture is what is truly reductionist in my opinion, not science, because at least science is a way of doing.

Date: 2007/04/04 18:36:54, Link
Author: Kristine
A good rule of thumb is to put your finger ;) to the wind :D and see what the mob hates most—very often that’s where the truth is.

Yeah, they are losing it.

They wouldn't know irony if it put its finger...

Date: 2007/04/04 19:20:27, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 04 2007,15:26)

Off topic slightly, am I the only one amused by the fact that premed majors came in dead last in the MCAT sweepstakes, even behind English majors?
*Snork* Huh? "Amused"? Is that my cue?

You dissin' English majors, Arden? *Wields indexing handbook threateningly*  :D

Date: 2007/04/04 19:28:45, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 04 2007,18:04)


*Folds arms, nods, BOINK! disappears* Catch me now. :)

Date: 2007/04/04 19:44:00, Link
Author: Kristine

I just tried to index (Arden, my degree's in English) UD's main page using Dublin Core. The first subject/keyword that came up: "fray."  :D Also "pixie," "Rude," "nice," "okay," "holds," "sex," "ostriches," "God," "warning," etc.

Tralala. They should be happy somebody wants to fix their little red metadata wagon.  :p  (It's just practice, I can't create a record yet.)

Date: 2007/04/04 20:46:16, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 04 2007,18:28)

Quote (Kristine @ April 04 2007,12:25)
Oh, and Denyse: it seems that intelligent design is not very popular among Jews. What say you now?

That's OK -- in the fundie fantasy world, the Jews will all convert before The End Of The Show ------ oh, and those that don't convert, will all perish in Armageddon and pay the price in ####. (*)

It might not be surprising that many Jewish advocacy groups consider fundie Christians (like our pal "Dr" Hovind) to be anti-Semitic.  

The fundies, of course, are utterly baffled as to why Jews would consider people who argue that Jews should become non-Jews or die, could be considered as anything other than *friends* of the Jews . . . . .

(*) As I noted previously, there are several fundie groups who are actively raising money to send Jews to Israel, precisely so they can bring about The End Of The Show and make those Jews convert or die.

Nice guys, huh.
Some buy into it though, if they think it will bring the Messiah. :angry:

Israel needs red cows. And Mars Needs Women. (You know, with the way things are going some days I think, that sounds okay...) :p

Date: 2007/04/04 23:14:00, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (ToSeek @ April 04 2007,21:30)

Quote (Kristine @ April 04 2007,19:28)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 04 2007,18:04)


*Folds arms, nods, BOINK! disappears* Catch me now. :)

Sounds more like "I Dream of Jeannie." The witches I remember twiddled their noses. Or am I showing my age?
Not as much as Methuselah here. I'm 1000 years old.

And don't listen to Richard. He's a warlock!


Date: 2007/04/04 23:37:06, Link
Author: Kristine
Whoa, I sure came late to this party!  
Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,21:42)

"Wow.  Can you please stick around long enough to make this a TOP 10 list?"

Not a problem, blipey.  Here are your last 8 of 10:

I can’t discuss science with you because...

8.  Apparently there are a lot of homos around here, and everyone knows that conservative Christians have homophobia.

But I'm an australiopithicine.
Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,21:42)
7.  I fear further wrath from PZ due to my comment that “biology isn’t rocket science”.  God knows the man actually believes that biologists are at the top of the professional food chain.

But what really counts is who's at the bottom. As Gould said, we live in the age of bacteria, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.
Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,21:42)
6.  Atheists scare the bejesus out of me.

But after the beJesus is gone, you're an atheist, and there will be no more fear.

Come with us. Drink the ambrosia. It is good.
Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,21:42)
5.  J-Dog keeps referring to me as someone with an “expansive backside”.
I saw that cartoon. Now I admit I feel weird for once calling Dembski a "lost soul!"
Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,21:42)
2.  I’m frightened that I might actually become attracted to Richard Hughes (I was always a sucker for the bad boys).

Quote (Ftk @ April 04 2007,21:42)
1.  I’m scared to death that Lenny will end up wanting to sleep with me.
*Throws her copy of Das Kapital at Ftk*

Date: 2007/04/04 23:57:14, Link
Author: Kristine
If you provoke me I shall unleash my zombies!

(Haha, look at the caption of the 5 customer review down.)

Date: 2007/04/05 09:42:19, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 04 2007,23:48)

Quote (Kristine @ April 04 2007,19:28)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 04 2007,18:04)


*Folds arms, nods, BOINK! disappears* Catch me now. :)

Aw Jeez, you're not gonna start addressing Dembski as 'master', are you?  ???
No chocolate. (I swear I'll quit.)

But we can infer qualities about the Designer from the designs of  this genius, found while hunting for Easter eggs at OE (I don't spend much time at that site). Have people already seen this?    
I've really got an ID bug in my bonnet! [I know the feeling.]
And yes, as a young man I'm comfortable enough with my sexuality to put it that way.
Today I was thinking about design, design, Design! My dogs, they're designed. I'm, well, I'm designed too! It fascinates me that somewhere in a part of the universe inaccessible to the reach of science, we now know that there is an intelligence who has been working in some sort of shop, drafting up design after design and then releasing them here on Earth. Though we know little about the process employed by the designer (except, perhaps, as revealed through ancient texts), it's possible to draw some conclusions about the thinking of the designer from his designs. For one, it's clear the the designer is conservative with his designs. For example, he designed the vertebrate liver and then instantiated it in slightly-modified forms in various groups and sub-groups of vertebrates, modifying its design (and other organ designs) roughly in parallel to what evolutionists misguidedly describe as an "evolutionary tree." Through ID, though, we now know that these differences were design differences. "Oh, I need wings so my birds can fly!" thinks the designer. And so he takes the design for a reptilian forelimb and modifies it, fusing together digits and lightening the structure. "Oh, but I also need wings for my insects" thinks the designer, but this time he decides they might better be formed by modifying a design he created for larval insect gills. This is analogous to the way a programmer programs. He looks around at his code base and says, hmm, this new programming problem I have - what is the closest I've ever come to addressing it in the past? And then he takes some vaguely similar code and modifies it to address the latest programming challenge. To an observer looking at the evidence, the result can look a lot like structures somehow modifying themselves over the course of generations (perhaps through the hocus pocus of natural selection), but anyone with any sense can see that these are modifications of underlying designs that came from OUTSIDE the natural world (though the instructions for those designs ARE given to creatures to pass down to their descendants in the form of DNA). To say creatures are responsible for their own designs is like saying that computer algorithms are responsible for THEIR designs. I admit there is one small difference between computer algorithms and creatures - the latter reproduce, and contain mechanisms in their code to bring this reproduction about, while the former do not. But surely my metaphor is a sound one in all other respects.

The Designah: Bill I need drapes to go with the rug.
Bill: Ummm...
The Designah: Go to Home Depot and pick up some new ones.
Bill: Oh. Okay. [Does it]
The Designah: Now move the couch. No, I don't like it there. I need an endtable to go with the couch.
Bill: Okay, I obey. [Does it]
The Designah: Well, now that doesn't work because it doesn't match any of my etchings. Take it back.
Bill: Before I do, may I please ask [praying] is this in chronological or kairological time?
The Designah: We are talking withholding shimmies time if you don't do as I say. *Crack of thunder*
Bill: [Does it]
The Designah: This is fun.

Date: 2007/04/05 11:12:02, Link
Author: Kristine
And I've heard that his father taught evolutionary biology.

Well, perhaps this is OT but I need to vent – I swear I won’t get apoplectic this time – but there I am after midnight last night, sipping wine and watching an interview with Jeffrey Dahmer and his dad, you know, to relax before bed/work/school/bed/work/school… And suddenly, Dahmer turns to his dad: “And thank God you sent me that creation science book! I was raised [turning now back to the breathless reporter] to believe that the LIE of evolution was true! That we all came FROM THE SLIME! It CHEAPENS life!”


JHC, can I get away from this shit for five minutes? ;) Like Jeffrey Dahmer has any insight into himself. Then he and his father went on a long tear about “There was a time when I did not have any religious beliefs… I think it would have made a difference… I believe that our Lord died for our sins…” Yakkity-yak.

I'm mean it doesn't really matter whether Jesus was based upon the historical Mithras or not, does it? It's self-perpetuating, and that's the real issue.

Kristine points her remote at the screen. *Click*

Date: 2007/04/05 16:37:54, Link
Author: Kristine
So easy a caveman can do it.
*with mango salsa*

But then, I hear her ribs were mighty tasty!

I don't have much of an appetite, thank you.

Date: 2007/04/05 18:37:03, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 05 2007,14:20)

Quote (Steviepinhead @ April 05 2007,10:16)

I started to see myself in Arden's "amateur" linguists comment.

Hope I don't really come across as quite that clueless/deluded when I venture into an area that interests me but about which I know much too little...

Don't put yourself down, just wing it, like I do :)

I'm hip [stop that sniggering] to winging it. :)  (Now I've done it.)

Date: 2007/04/05 18:58:35, Link
Author: Kristine
Nice save, J-Dog. But I am as maternal as a stone. :) I am all for the creatins and the IDjits coming here (am I being insulting?) even if we are banned/ignored/oogled but ignored at their blogs. Why? Because this site archives their blah-blahity. And it's for sure few people are archiving, indexing, or cataloging this, er, conversation (and I have to say Wes has done a much better job collecting stuff on Dembski that the librarians who are supposed to be indexing the Net). Which I think is important, even if these people do occasionally turn me into Ms. Hyde.

I don't have a problem with the respect issue. To be perfectly honest, I'm very busy and I skip a lot of posts (I didn't even read your whole thing Louis - sorry), especially if I, uh, don't understand what you're talking about. (In other words I appreciate but miss out on a lot of Zakriel's stuff.) Because I'm a humanities person. *Ducks*

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. The two chief things would cause me distress:
1) If people think I'm here to seriously hook up with a man/men (I'm not - just enjoy joshing you all)
2) If people tell me I'm totally stupid (because I'm not a scientist at all)
3) If people tell me that I'm boring

Okay, the three chief things

4) And people thinking I'm a guy

Okay, four chief things. Dang.

Date: 2007/04/05 19:09:38, Link
Author: Kristine
Louis, you just touched on something very important, that "relatively simple systems undergoing relatively simple interactions can produce very complex systems." I think this is what sticks in the creo-ID craw. They assume that complexity cannot arise from simplicity. They cannot even imagine it and they're stuck. All one needs to demonstrate how easy it is to create complexity is to swing a metal pendulum between two magnets, and then add a third magnet and try to predict the pendulum's behavior. But it's almost gospel with people that simple rules lead to simple results. I think this is a very common misconception. Hence the call for a "simple morality," etc. (Doesn't obeying one of the Ten Commandments ever present a situation in which a strict moralist must disobey another, for example?)

Date: 2007/04/05 21:30:33, Link
Author: Kristine
Unless someone hands me a glass of Viking Piss.  :p

I hope number 4 didn't burst anyone's bubble.  :D

Date: 2007/04/05 21:39:43, Link
Author: Kristine
This is what I was thinking of, Rob Price's ideas - I've never heard anyone say that Jesus was derived only from Mithras, so maybe I misunderstood you, Louis. But this particular resource doesn't mention Mithras at all. (?) Oh well, it's a good introduction to his ideas anyway.

Date: 2007/04/05 23:10:41, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 05 2007,15:07)
Here's a peer-reviewed article that is that rare bird, an article explicitly about "intelligent design" that hasn't been repudiated by the publisher. FtK can access it online, even, eliminating the need for a trip to the library.

Very nice! (I'll ignore the quip about her not going to the library.)  ;)
We know, for example, what the function of the Antikythera Device, a clockwork bronze assembly found in an ancient Greek shipwreck, was because we know the kinds of organisms that made it, we know the scientific, religious and navigational interests they had, we know about gears, and we know what they knew about the apparent motions of the heavens. … But suppose it was found by interstellar visitors long after humans went extinct. What would they know about it? Unless they had similar interest and needs to ourselves, or were already able to reconstruct from other contexts what human needs and interests were, for all they know it might be the extrusion of some living organism (which, in a sense, it is), just like a sand dollar. It might never occur to them to compare it to the apparent motion of the heavens from earth circa 500 BCE.

Add to this that so much of the world's creations have been discarded as unimportant "primitive" idols due to the cultural biases of the discoverers at the time, only to be finally examined and recorded by later curators as the background information of our cultural assumptions changed. Dembski's EF is so naive.

Love the Sam Spade motif throughout - with a great twist at the end. Great humor. So much of scholarly writing in the humanities is (even when it's not crazy postmodern bunk) obfuscative and dry.

Date: 2007/04/05 23:29:35, Link
Author: Kristine
Jeepers Wells is such a tool:  
So much for civilized discourse. Darwinists have replaced it with character assassination.

Oh, well. [And now for some civilized discourse.] As Johnny Cash reputedly once said, “It’s good to know who hates you, and it’s good to be hated by the right people.”

I bet the people who are fighting AIDS really hate your guts, Wells. Hey Dembski! Does HIV cause AIDS?

Use your EF and get back to me on that, huh?
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 05 2007,21:21)
Quote (franky172 @ April 05 2007,21:44)
Wells' newest monologue is posted on UD here:

Hasn't "Father Moon" (ya know, the younger brother of Jesus Christ) ordered Wells to marry anyone yet . . . . ?
*Runs and hides*  :D

Date: 2007/04/06 08:52:33, Link
Author: Kristine
Eh, don't cry to me, go cry to the doll... "'Hello there!'" *Snigger* :D

Date: 2007/04/06 09:22:47, Link
Author: Kristine
I must admit I thought about it, but I'm too busy to engage this poor thing
Hi to all. I have a big favor to ask of the ID community- Two days ago, I posted a comment on a paper which Dr. Dembski had so kindly shared with us ( Carlos Gershenson’s paper on Viewing the world as information). In that comment, I mentioned that I had a debate going with several atheists in the comments section of an essay I had written on intelligent design versus evolution at my own blog. I invited folks to weigh-in and got deluged by about 400 hits. My intention was to try to bring some balance to the discussion by getting an ID and/or creationist perspective on the matter. Somehow or another, I managed to accomplish the exact opposite. I put my fist in a hornet’s nest, and I am now single-handedly trying to defend myself against a total atheist/evolutionist onslaught. A small sampling of a few words that have been applied to my sincere and polite advocacy of ID are as follows- ” go educate yourself”, I “argue from ignorance”, I am an “intellectual coward”, I speak ” despicable lies”, I “pretend”, I “know nothing”, my arguments are “ludicrous”, I display ” agressive ignorance”, I am “ignorant”, “dishonest”, and “intellectually dishonest”. All this because I politely, and reasonably ( or so I thought), expessed some conscerns that I had about the probabilistic liklihood of human DNA evolving from random particles. I am absolutely getting hammered guys. If there is ANYBODY out there with a reasonable, rational, and polite argument in FAVOR of creationism, [OOOPS!] could you please stop by and add a comment? I feel like a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest. Dr. Dembski, all I can say is that you must have a very, very thick skin. Because I have tasted but a thimbleful from the cup of scorn that you drink deeply from every day, ( despite the fact that all you do is offer fair alternatives to an established orthodoxy in the marketplace of ideas ), and I havent’ enjoyed the taste very much. Again, thanks for your efforts to enlighten and inform. By the way, have you ever considered just how much the advent of the internet has changed the terms of the debate? When you consider how much hate and resistance there is out there in academia directed at ID even having a chance to be CONSIDERED, arent we all blessed beyond our wildest dreams by the ability to take the message straight to the people? There is really no stopping the free exchange of ideas now. ID advocates have such an opportunity to be heard now, that we never could have dreamed possible 10 years ago. Anyways, if there are any thick-skinned ID advocates or creationists out there, who are ready for an intellectual rumble, please feel free to stop by and enter the comments-war-zone at;
All I can say is I didn't do it.  :)

Even with my school account I cannot access the article - but for pity sakes what a big to-do about nothing. Semantic slights-of-hand again. "Random." "Design." "Both." Don't worry Tyharris, I'm after bigger fish.

What are you doing in my rabbit hole, Bob? *Pounces*

Date: 2007/04/06 10:30:23, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (k.e @ April 06 2007,08:34)
Quote (Kristine @ April 06 2007,17:22)
I must admit I thought about it, but I'm too busy to engage this poor thing
Hi to all. I have a big favor to ask of the ID community- Two days ago, I posted a comment on a paper which Dr. Dembski had so kindly shared with us ( Carlos Gershenson’s paper on Viewing the world as information). In that comment, I mentioned that I had a debate going with several atheists in the comments section of an essay I had written on intelligent design versus evolution at my own blog. I invited folks to weigh-in and got deluged by about 400 hits. My intention was to try to bring some balance to the discussion by getting an ID and/or creationist perspective on the matter. Somehow or another, I managed to accomplish the exact opposite. I put my fist in a hornet’s nest, and I am now single-handedly trying to defend myself against a total atheist/evolutionist onslaught. A small sampling of a few words that have been applied to my sincere and polite advocacy of ID are as follows- ” go educate yourself”, I “argue from ignorance”, I am an “intellectual coward”, I speak ” despicable lies”, I “pretend”, I “know nothing”, my arguments are “ludicrous”, I display ” agressive ignorance”, I am “ignorant”, “dishonest”, and “intellectually dishonest”. All this because I politely, and reasonably ( or so I thought), expessed some conscerns that I had about the probabilistic liklihood of human DNA evolving from random particles. I am absolutely getting hammered guys. If there is ANYBODY out there with a reasonable, rational, and polite argument in FAVOR of creationism, [OOOPS!] could you please stop by and add a comment? I feel like a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest. Dr. Dembski, all I can say is that you must have a very, very thick skin. Because I have tasted but a thimbleful from the cup of scorn that you drink deeply from every day, ( despite the fact that all you do is offer fair alternatives to an established orthodoxy in the marketplace of ideas ), and I havent’ enjoyed the taste very much. Again, thanks for your efforts to enlighten and inform. By the way, have you ever considered just how much the advent of the internet has changed the terms of the debate? When you consider how much hate and resistance there is out there in academia directed at ID even having a chance to be CONSIDERED, arent we all blessed beyond our wildest dreams by the ability to take the message straight to the people? There is really no stopping the free exchange of ideas now. ID advocates have such an opportunity to be heard now, that we never could have dreamed possible 10 years ago. Anyways, if there are any thick-skinned ID advocates or creationists out there, who are ready for an intellectual rumble, please feel free to stop by and enter the comments-war-zone at;
All I can say is I didn't do it.  :)

Even with my school account I cannot access the article - but for pity sakes what a big to-do about nothing. Semantic slights-of-hand again. "Random." "Design." "Both." Don't worry Tyharris, I'm after bigger fish.

What are you doing in my rabbit hole, Bob? *Pounces*

Is he for real?

I'm finding it harder to tell the parody from the 'real' thing.

He's real. He's just overstating the "hammered" whine. It looks like a healthy discussion and he only got 22 comments. (Who complains about getting 400 hits? Certainly not me.) :(   :p

Date: 2007/04/06 11:40:05, Link
Author: Kristine
Barring the possibility that I am psychic, for some reason I seem to have an ability to tell brilliant parodies of creationist thought to real creationist thought.

A paper posted by Wes gave me the idea that we need a parody filter. Because of both the plethora of really stupid ideas in the blogosphere and the parodic defenses deployed to counter these viruses, people are becoming seriously confused when they should be amused. Therefore, I propose the construction of a decision chart much like the one that Wes and John Wilkins created by amending Dembski’s

except the the parody filter would account for the "They Don't Knows" in the creationist/IDist background information.

First of all, we need a snappy acronym.

I have considered the obvious: PF, for parodic filter, but I don't like that unless I can add a TTT! to it. PETARD is a good candidate, but I also really like a short and sweet one, an analogue to Dembski's, such as DA.

Any other ideas?  :D

Date: 2007/04/06 15:23:42, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (J-Dog @ April 06 2007,11:33)

I think this might be a little too long to fit Kristine's parameters, but I think it is applicable, and so easy "even a caveman" can remember it.  Whenever there is a DI press release, or some IDist moves his lips, you just have to answer:  Is it STOOPID?

My $.02 and worth every penny of it.
Naturally, I adore all of your ideas but I think this one's a winner.

F.A.R.T. - Found Another Realistic Troll (or Tard) is a good one for defining one outcome of the process. (And what about defining the other result as Found Another Parody? Oh my - maybe not.)

Now to the warlock: You think you can outsmart me! I don't watch CSI, but I know how to find it in the TV Guide! *Shakes fist*

This is as far as I've gotten: No, I can't make the image work for me, either. *Shakes fist*

Date: 2007/04/06 15:48:39, Link
Author: Kristine

Date: 2007/04/06 16:29:57, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Ftk @ April 06 2007,12:44)

[whispering to Kristine]

What's your going rate for a few quick shimmie lessons?

[/whispering to Kristine]

You're not going to believe your luck. It's all in the knees.

However my price is high. It involves a certain Dembsknee.

Psst. I'm really a guy. Don't tell Richard.

Date: 2007/04/06 16:39:45, Link
Author: Kristine
And in case it's not obvious, that is a call to use the proposed new filter. This is a test.

What did you think of Wes's article, Ftk?

Date: 2007/04/06 17:09:10, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (GCT @ April 06 2007,14:46)
Quote (wintermute @ April 06 2007,14:30)
Because they produced very little CO2 relative to their population; does anyone know if DaveTard's comment about them being about to race ahead of the US in CO2production is true?

I read in a magazine today (I think it was Time) that China is forecast to surpass the US in total CO2 output by 2010.  They will, however, still lag behind us in CO2 output per person.

Edit:  I was at the doctor's office and the magazine there had a big cover story on global warming, so I picked it up and checked it out while I was waiting.
I'm not an expert, and I don't think they're going to actually surpass us, but China's and India's CO2 output is going to increase significantly and is a growing problem as well.
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 06 2007,13:41)
We've entered a new, golden age of hypocrisy as DaveTard starts a thread with "Angry Old Fat Man.."


Snore, I got the video's joke after the first minute. To be fair, though, there is a lunatic fringe to the Peak Oil crowd; Harper's had a good article about it ("Imagine there's no oil: Scenes from a liberal apocalypse," by Bryant Urstadt, Aug. 2006 - no, I don't care for the title either). A bunch of yucks talking about fleeing the cities, which will become scenes from Soylent Green, for "lifeboat ectopic communities" out in the crountry then, in the next breath, "in the future, we'll plant gardens on top of skyscrapers" (but I thought you were fleeing the cities? You gonna sneak in after dark and plant your gardens overnight?). Sloppy thinking from people I wouldn't share a bong-hit with. Apocalyptic thinking of any kind is a fantasy about stealing things from other people.

Dave should see Who Killed the Electric Car? no matter what he thinks of global warming.

Date: 2007/04/06 21:55:32, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Louis @ April 06 2007,06:15)
Quote (Kristine @ April 06 2007,01:58)
The two chief things would cause me distress:
1) If people think I'm here to seriously hook up with a man/men (I'm not - just enjoy joshing you all)
2) If people tell me I'm totally stupid (because I'm not a scientist at all)
3) If people tell me that I'm boring

Okay, the three chief things

4) And people thinking I'm a guy

Okay, four chief things. Dang.


I will forgive you for not reading the lengthy diatribe above, #### I am not even entirely sure I read all of it! ;-)

However, with reference to your 4 distressors:

1) You mean you are not? ####, and I wanted a mistress too. I will have to put out an ad.

2)  Well obviously you must be stupid because you are not a scientist. This goes without saying. Obviously the fact that you are offended by reality simply puts you in the same camp as the creationists. Deal.

3) Sorry, did you say something?

4) Dude, do not worry about it.

See all dealt with.

Wait did I get something wrong?


:D Now see? That's what I call respect.

And thank you Louis for supporting me as I approach my upcoming surgery.  ;)  :p

Date: 2007/04/06 22:10:42, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Ftk @ April 06 2007,19:19)
I think it sucks...

Filter that.

Okay. Done. That's pretty disrespectful, a slap in my face for no reason, as well as an obvious evasive maneuver. I filter that you do not want to discuss the science.

Whereas I do. Wes and John outline a scenario of deception that Dembski's EF is inadequate in teasing out. It seems that it's impossible to separate "design" from the motivation for design when you don't already have the answer that you are looking for. The EF is a retro-fit, rather than an actual process that can accurately find answers that are not already known.

What say others? I am grasping this at all? As you know I'm not a scientist. I enjoyed the paper, and we can continue this thread to discuss this with or without Ftk.

Date: 2007/04/06 22:50:07, Link
Author: Kristine


Now is that acronym just a coincidence? I ask you. Cons PI racy. That's got to be a divine message! *Fart*

Found Another Parody! Go, Science Kitten!

Date: 2007/04/06 22:58:19, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (J-Dog @ April 06 2007,18:32)

Quote (Kristine @ April 06 2007,10:30)
(Who complains about getting 400 hits? Certainly not me.) :(   :p

Kristine - You need to market yourself better girl!  ####, you didn't even post here about writing your story about burning down all those dinosaurs with saddles!

Everyone should follow Kristine's link (the not me)and read her story.

Gack! I just wanna say (before certain people give my name to Homeland Security) that the people who burn down the museum do so inadvertently, because rural homeowners in Kentucky, in defiance of the DNR, burn off their lands to get rid of the snakes.

The irony of that just killed me.

Date: 2007/04/07 12:10:08, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,09:04)
For some insane reason, some of you actually think I'm going to dive in and discuss science with you when I made it extremely clear from the start that I have no intention of doing so.
Unfortunately, I think that says it all.
Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,09:04)
I've been there, done that in other forums for years and I've had my fill.  There is not a one of you in these forums who has an inkling of respect for anyone who does not agree with your position in this debate (and many of you seem completely blind to the truth).  

The truth being? Not everyone here is an atheist.

I do not understand not being interested in science and not interested in discussing or even learning about it. (But you know, I get a lot of that too from arty-lit types and that's why I'm turning my back on a future in the humanities.)

Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,09:04)
I'll read the paper within the next few days because I find this stuff fascinating, but I'll do it when I have time.  I used to immediately read and respond to so much crap thrown at me in another forum that my family darn near disowned me due to my obsession with this topic.  There were usually 10-20 people on average responding to me and I felt compelled to answer every single comment.  Dave can attest to the fact that I like to have the last word on any given subject.  Psycho, I know, but it's just who I am.  
Okay. I can relate to not understanding something the first time I read it. But you don't have to be deliberately dismissive.

Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,09:04)
I wouldn't even be here if I hadn't been lured in --  I'm thinkin' you people are out recruiting creationists to munch on, and you send Richard out to find some poor unsuspecting target to lure back into the den.  Now, I find myself attracted to the lure and can't get back out again.
I would pass out with joy if any creationist just said, "I'm always going to believe in God but now I've become curious about the world and how it really works, and now I realize that we must have a means of knowing how we know things."

Quote (Ftk @ April 07 2007,09:04)
[ps...Kristine, sorry if my last post sounded snippy.  I certainly ~don't~ want you as my enemy.  We gals gotta stick together.  Girl power and all that.  If you be nice to me, I‘ll put in a good word for you next time I talk to Dembski.]

Ah, speak to Dembski often? Well, I am the queen of sarcasm so that would have to be a pretty good word. ;)

Ftk, I never hate anyone - I don't even know what that feels like - and I am never anyone's enemy. But I wish you would understand that we are not, in the larger sense, fighting for a "side" but for something that benefits us all. I really don't care about other people's religious beliefs. Literally, I deal with all kinds of religious believers and it's not my job to go waving my disapproving finger in anyone's face. What I do think is important is defining clearly what we can say as a species is not true.

Christian believers who have not met a lot of people from other cultures/traditions tend to think that other religions are just different flavors of Christianity and that drives me nuts. So don't talk to me about "truth" because I could pick any number of faith traditions if I was inclined to, and it wouldn't resemble yours, Dembski's, or Egnor's. From what I've seen I have a lot of choices.

We're actually talking about falsification here. It seems to me that Dembski with his EF is exploiting - rather than honestly exploring - a legitimate question: how do we recognize intentionality? There are birds in Papua New Guinea that create nests that look man-made. A biologist would recognize them for what they are but suppose an archaeologist wouldn't. There's a place, perhaps, for a real EF, but it seems that Dembski backs off any real filter because he doesn't like the fact that he would be participating in, instead of refuting, the science of today. That I cannot understand.

If you honestly do speak to Dembski ask him how many of his sycophants at UD actually read his "Christian Theodicy" paper, because I did, and I certainly didn't say that it "sucked."

Date: 2007/04/07 12:52:46, Link
Author: Kristine
Whaddaya mean, "boring?" A challenge! A challenge! He really does know my secret desires.
Now and again I’m asked to write the foreword to an ID book. Here’s a foreword I recently completed (I leave off the contributors and title so that Darwinists don’t sabotage the book before it sees the light of day):

Now to find it out before these mysterious Darwinists do. Even if I am occasionally a twit.  
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 07 2007,07:17)
Quote (Kristine @ April 06 2007,09:22)
Even with my school account I cannot access the article - but for pity sakes what a big to-do about nothing. Semantic slights-of-hand again. "Random." "Design." "Both." Don't worry Tyharris, I'm after bigger fish.

Access the Gershenson article here.  It appears at the top of the list. No special access required.
Oops.  :p
Oh, and Happy Easter.

Date: 2007/04/07 17:29:05, Link
Author: Kristine
Yes, Ftk, I realize that some atheists are jerks, and believe it or not I tell them so if they're being unreasonable. You are talking to someone who thinks peer pressure is a contact sport.

Whenever you want to discuss the paper, let me know. Then I'll know what you mean by the "truth" in this context. I guess it's hard not to make assumptions about what you mean when you don't answer concrete questions. I would be interested in your honest opinion if you're interested in giving it.

Date: 2007/04/07 23:50:32, Link
Author: Kristine
One thing that I don't get about Dembski's EF is that it assumes that events that have a low probability are, well, improbable no matter what. Individually they may have a high improbability, but nevertheless given time at least one (and actually many) of them is bound to happen, and at any rate, where does Dembski get off in claiming that any particular biological structure is improbable? What is that based on? The more I read about his ideas the less I understand them.

Not to inundate Ftk with reading material, but a book that I found really helpful is Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences by John Allen Paulos, which explains how common so-called coincidences and improbabilities really are (innumerate is a term I apply to myself).

He's a mathematician and must know this stuff.

(BTW, I can't believe that this book has no index. I indexed half the book for my midterm and would be interested in completing the project if people would use it.)

Date: 2007/04/08 14:08:36, Link
Author: Kristine
Oh goodie, another blonde-versus-brunette battle. The tall and willowy blonde Nellie Olsen versus the petite, brown-haired, strong-as-a-little-French-horse tomboy Laura Ingalls.

Favorite quote from Innumeracy:
One collection of coincidences too unlikely to be dismissed in this way is provided by the case of the proverbial monkey accidentally typing out Shakespeare's Hamlet. The probability of this occurring is (1/35)N [N is supposed to be an exponent] (where N is the number of symbols in Hamlet, maybe 200,000, and 35 is the number of typewriter symbols, and the blank space). This number is infinitesimal - zero, for all practical purposes. Though some have taken this tiny probability as an argument for "creation science," the only thing it clearly indicates is that monkeys seldom write great plays. If they want to, they shouldn't waste their time trying to peck one out accidentally but should instead evolve into something that has a better chance of writing Hamlet. Incidentally, why is the question never put as follows: What is the probability that Shakespeare, by randomly flexing his muscles, might accidentally have found himself swinging through the trees like a monkey?

Date: 2007/04/08 14:18:55, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (phonon @ April 08 2007,11:52)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 06 2007,23:27)
Quote (phonon @ April 06 2007,20:24)
Quote (Kristine @ April 06 2007,17:09)
Dave should see Who Killed the Electric Car? no matter what he thinks of global warming.

Dammit! I want an electric car!!


If it really flies, then he11 yeah. I'd call it the flying invisible pink unicorn! My bad chariot..

Hey, UDudes, why don't you try to win my heart? And help this poor persecuted man?
Flying carpet theorist refused a patent.
Pretty soon the gumm't will be saying that there's no such thing as a perpetual shimmy. :angry:

Date: 2007/04/08 17:45:56, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Ftk @ April 08 2007,13:20)

:angry:  :angry:  :angry:

I refuse to be "Nellie Olson"....

Going back to my party now...have a happy Easter (or whatever).

Well, I refuse to be Veronica. But thanks, we're off to the Guthrie now that my hangover has worn off.

Another Innumeracy quote:
Broadly understood, the study of filtering is nothing less than the study of psychology. Which impressions are filtered out and which are permitted to take hold largely determines out personality. More narrowly construed as the phenomenon whereby vivid and personalized events are remembered and their incidence therefore overestimated, the so-called Jeane Dixon effect often seems to lend support to bogus medical, diet, gambling, psychic, and pseudoscientific claims. Unless one is almost viscerally aware of this psychological tendency toward innumeracy, it is liable to bias our judgements.

Date: 2007/04/08 23:11:37, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 08 2007,16:39)
Quote (stevestory @ April 08 2007,17:30)
Quote (phonon @ April 08 2007,17:53)
And Dembski could pull it off, too. After all, William Dembski may actually be the most intelligent man currently walking the face of the planet earth.

Like Davetard, that guy got his scientific training by reading SciAm and watching science fiction.

Does their craziness extend in other directions as well? Do they watch a few episodes of Emeril and then imagine themselves expert chefs?


Richard you just want me to make a really creepy comment to make Arden (and Steve) go Ewwww!, don't you? :p

Date: 2007/04/09 09:45:47, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 08 2007,23:48)
Quote (k.e @ April 09 2007,00:11)
Quote (Kristine @ April 09 2007,07:11)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 08 2007,16:39)
Quote (stevestory @ April 08 2007,17:30)
Quote (phonon @ April 08 2007,17:53)
And Dembski could pull it off, too. After all, William Dembski may actually be the most intelligent man currently walking the face of the planet earth.

Like Davetard, that guy got his scientific training by reading SciAm and watching science fiction.

Does their craziness extend in other directions as well? Do they watch a few episodes of Emeril and then imagine themselves expert chefs?


Richard you just want me to make a really creepy comment to make Arden (and Steve) go Ewwww!, don't you? :p



GrrRrr. I hate it when people do better DT's than me.


Aw, little boys playing pirates!

I was going to say that 59 = 69 - x.

You know, sometimes less information is more.

Date: 2007/04/09 10:44:31, Link
Author: Kristine
That's my Dembster: out of the pool the minute he spies a vacant beach chair. Myself, I'm a big believer in stepping aside and letting the next generation take over.

GilDodgen could write the Complexity Sonata.

TroutMAC certainly deserves to be the big fish in an only slightly larger pond.

WinglesS could spread his. Um. Wings, I meant.

And then there's merry Joseph. And Jehu. "J- who?"

Date: 2007/04/09 11:19:15, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ April 08 2007,20:26)
Quick aside: brunettes rule.  Angelina Jolie, Cindy Crawford, Rachel Ray, Hurley, my wife.  Case closed!
Why, thank you. And may I say, creation "science" and jazz do not go together:
If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn’t it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?

Holy crap, do I need to relive my childhood and debate this stuff again? In the 1970s it was the arctic poles that ejected the water and that’s why they’re covered in ice, because “plate tectonics is a lie.” Yeah, I got out of Hush-puppyville, okay?

Ever wonder why that person needs to chip an arrowhead when God could have given him claws after he was “driven from the Garden” to hold his own against all the newly-carnivorous dinosaurs? If an intelligence made us, why did we have to remake ourselves more intelligently than that intelligence? What up with the Total Make-Over shows? (Oh, don’t even start, Kristine. There are educated theologians and honest biblical scholars whom you could debate instead of these losers like Brown.)

Let me just say that I know a ticket to nowhere when I see one. I knew one as a child and I know one now. Brown’s crap is a ticket to nowhere. It’s nowhere, and he’s nowhere. What a waste. There’s no consistency in what these creationist hawkers say. Their “predictions” are always made after the fact, after the “confirmation” has already been published! Not that it matters to the sheep who bleat for them.

You know, these creationists shouldn’t work so #### hard. I can’t tell you how many times I sat through a creationist presentation only to hear afterward, “Well, I didn’t understand a word of that, but I admire his faith!” I was the only one who followed the argument, such as it was. People want reassurance, not facts. They don’t even want theology. They want feel-ology. Who was the only one following the arguments and raising complex theological issues in confirmation classes? Me! The other kids—now church regulars—couldn’t have cared less. Religion for most people is a habit they perform about something they really don’t care about. Anything in front of their face is God to them and even if it turned out that they were really worshipping Satan they wouldn’t mind, for all the thinking I saw them doing.

Speaking of feel-ology, if that statistic about conservative Protestant women consistently reaching orgasm, then I’d honestly glad. I’m not so low as to wish unhappiness on people that I disagree with. So climax away, sisters. As for me I'm still waiting for a response to the paper.

Date: 2007/04/09 11:26:02, Link
Author: Kristine
“Why is it that anti-Evolution, Global-warming-scepticism, Political-conservatism, religiosity always go together?”

Some might ask why pro-darwinism, global-warming-dogmatism, leftwing marxism, and atheism, seem to go together.

Make one wonder.

:) This is why I don't worry when people say, "Don't speak out about atheism, because then you're turning people off to science!" Science will out. Go ahead and wonder, my sweet little creationist.

Date: 2007/04/09 13:23:57, Link
Author: Kristine
FTK- since you asked: Lutheran. I stopped believing in God (if I ever did) at age nine. I did what was expected of me and it never occurred to me to ask to go elsewhere - otherwise I would have asked to go to a different school, too (and grow up elsewhere). It's no one's fault that I was different, restless, a tomboy, a voracious reader, a questioner and an artistic kid stuck in a small town she hated.

I stopped going to Sunday school/confirmation classes at age 18, when I left for college and after I was confirmed. I did what was expected of me until I could do what I wanted. Yes, I had science teachers who went to my church. Yes, I talked with a family member who was a 6-day creationist about these things. I don't believe in the supernatural. I have no evidence for the nonexistence or existence of God. I'm more interested in what I can do. Reality is participatory, like democracy.

Anybody has the right to try to convert anybody. You wouldn't be alone in my life if you tried to convert me. It's all good, this is America. But look around you. A recent poll confirms that Americans, who are so religious, are biblically illiterate. Read Rick Warren and see what an intellectual he is. *Bleah!*

Date: 2007/04/09 14:36:29, Link
Author: Kristine
Suddenly I remember a story about my chemistry teacher, who went to my church. I adored this guy. Just about everybody did.

There we are, learning about covalent bonds, ionic bonds, chemical reactions, etc., and finally I raised my hand and said [I’m reconstructing all this, of course]:“I have to ask this, okay? These elements are active. I mean, they don’t just sit there – they do things. They do things instead of just doing nothing.” And my teacher got that gleam in his eye that I knew so well. “Why? [I had someone at home who was going to ask me this question.] What makes them do things?” And my teacher said, “Everyone, what is the Law of Inertia?”

Of course, the whole class starts reciting, “Things that are at rest remain at rest, and things that are in motion remain in motion, unless acted upon by another force…” And he put up his finger and said, “No – not quite. You were taught that, but now it’s time to unlearn something. Nothing is at rest. Everyone is in motion, all the time. ‘Rest’ is only relative.” And he said, “So the reactions of chemicals are a given. We have not observed anything ‘starting them up.’ The universe is in motion. For all we know it always was, even before the Big Bang.”

Whoa! You meant the Big Bang may not have been the beginning…?

He didn’t go there. “If you want to believe that ‘Something started it,’ and that’s God for you, fine. If you want to believe that things always being in motion is God, fine. Or you can just believe that everything was always in motion, forever back however long it extends if there was a beginning. But if you put down on any test that ‘God did it,’ you get an F.” He paused, and then said with a twinkle, “And even if God takes my class and puts down on my test that ‘I did it,’ He’ll get an F, too. And then I’ll keep Him after class and make Him write a paper. Boy, [winking] would I make Him write a paper!”

Science is doing. We're quibbling on and on. I guess all I can recommend at this point is for Ftk to pull back and just pick a science topic that interests her and just learn about it in detail. Hold off on all the It is/Is it not ID and just study what the mainstream science says about it. It could be zoology, astronomy, chemistry, biology, geology, whatever.

That's what I did. When I realized that I didn't believe in God I didn't automatically accept evolution - I hadn't heard of it yet. I went in other directions for a while. What attracted me to science was its evidence-trail, its cumulative effect.

I really don't care if anyone believes in God. I guess, though, that I'm disappointed that people were so desperate for me to believe in God that they didn't care how I believed. I think it's important how one believes, if one is going to be a believer.

Incidentally, Ftk, I have recently encountered, though unfortunately not yet met, a Christian who is a scientist and who impressed me very much with his book. He really took me by surprise. But look at how he is being treated.

Date: 2007/04/09 17:07:50, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (JohnW @ April 09 2007,15:30)

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 09 2007,15:11)


Priceless.  Time to add another wing to the National Museum of Tard.

Now if only they could find some peers to review this, they'd be able to increase the number of peer-reviewed ID publications to, um, hang on while I check... 1.[
Did you check out that last peer? John A Davison It's got the JAD stamperooo!

So, where is my little Dembster-diver fundertaker goin'? :(

Date: 2007/04/09 17:26:14, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Ftk @ April 09 2007,16:02)
Anyway, I am curious why a guy like Miller impresses you when he doesn’t seem to me to be using his intellect in regard to his religious beliefs - rather he seems to rely on “feel-ology“.
I doubt it. I think he's very well educated in theology as well. He strikes me as well read in literature, too; hardly the type that I adhor. (I guess you missed my comment on the UD thread that I'd rather listen to Dembski talk for an hour (and I have listened to him for many hours) than jump around in these "fun, fun, fun!" megachurches. You know, I'm probably Dembski's biggest listener. How ironic.)

What interested and impressed me was the science in his book, Finding Darwin's God. However, the last two chapters I did not get at all. I don't understand where his religious beliefs come from. I have no idea where they come from and I don't presume to know; it was, frankly, gobbledygook but at least they don't come from a vehement rejection of science that I've seen demonstrated by other people.

What impressed me was where his science came from. It is his example, the life that he lives and the science that he pursues, that impresses me. So I decided to let his religion be.

Now, my dear, I think that I have answered enough of your questions. This is not a thread about me. Quit deflecting the issue. I've asked you several times about Wes's paper. Let me know when you have a reply to that.

Date: 2007/04/09 21:06:18, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2007,18:55)
Good line at PT:
Behe killed ID at Kitzmiller and Dembski didn’t even have the courage to attend the funeral.

That and the "frock" comment brings to mind the Dickens' book Great Expectations and the character Miss Haversham.  :)

Date: 2007/04/09 21:29:57, Link
Author: Kristine
His reasons for his faith are "gobbledygook" IMO as well.  So, I’m not sure why you believe “he's very well educated in theology as well.”  And, if he is as well-educated as you believe, why do you believe his science, yet not his theology?

Because he mixed it up with quantum theory, that's why, and I didn't agree with his statement that the statistical nature of the position/momentum of subatomic particles meant that "we can never know some things about the universe." In fact that's one thing that we can know about the universe, that as one measures the position of a subatomic particle with more accuracy the momentum becomes less able to be accurately measured. It's something that we indeed do know. It's weird, but still an objective statement about phenomena.

Everyone I met who was deeply religious and who accepted evolution always hedged about the facts in some way, caricatured it, and he never did. And he doesn't come off as judgemental. I felt like I could talk to the guy without getting the standard horrified response that I do.

I don't believe his religion any more than I believe anyone else's. I can argue about theology from many theological points of view. I can also argue about literature from many theoretical points of view - that doesn't mean I need to believe that Little Dorrit actually existed once.

I know about theology because it's a part of anthropology. I'm interested in people, not gods, and I've met a lot of different people. The more you study different religions, the more inseparable it is from the material circumstances from which it arose, and the more it appears to be an invention of the human mind, like literature.

After reading his paper I believe that Dembski is well educated in theology as well, and I certainly don't believe in his religion, either.

Date: 2007/04/09 23:57:04, Link
Author: Kristine
*Sigh* Well, I have an invitation to pass on to you all.

JAD came to my science-only blog, the Triumvirate, to diss Dawkins, which I allow, and to try to provoke another fight with DaveScot, which I will not allow, because this blog is supposed to be actually be about science. After some tense moments, he has become rather nice toward me and even wished me luck on my finals, but he wants you guys to see the above link. I don't know why. *Groan* Anyway, I have dutifully made my announcement now.  ???

Date: 2007/04/10 00:17:06, Link
Author: Kristine
That's why I suggested that she pull back and just read the material. I'm not an expert so I go on the internet because practically nobody that I know wants to engage the material at this level. But going on the internet and yakking requires a lot of reading, and it doesn't hurt to actually participate, such as working on a dig.

The best advice I ever got about learning other people's religions was from a Muslim who told me to learn about religion from people who practice their religion, not just from reading the books. I think that's good advice about science as well, but when I brought up Miller I felt like she was putting him down. I don't get it.

Oh, well, I just realized that I have less than a month to go before I'll be in the Galapagos. I'll blog about it when I get back and everyone's invited. Okay, Ftk?

Date: 2007/04/10 10:06:27, Link
Author: Kristine
I would be interested in an abiogenesis thread just for my own education.

Date: 2007/04/10 12:44:23, Link
Author: Kristine
I sent a dismissive missive to the paper in turn:  
Bruce Chapman and John West of the Discovery Institute ask why busy scientists "are afraid" to come to their prayer-circle and "debate them."

This reminds me of the encounter I had last night at a bus stop with a belligerent man who kept bothering me despite the fact that I was trying to read my school assignment. “You just hate Indians!” he finally blared, after pooh-poohing my statement that I was related to some. [True story - what a flipping lunatic!]

Keep up the “they’re afraid” whine, fellows. It’s all you have going for you. You certainly haven’t come up with a testable hypothesis or cured any diseases, although you have aligned yourself with the “global warming is a lie, HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, women shouldn’t teach Hebrew at Southern Theological Baptist University” crowd. Big tent, small circus.

I don’t know how it is down in Texas, but here in Minnesota we have a saying, and I bet sensible Texans would agree with it: talk is like sex. The more you spread it around, the less it’s worth.

Get a lab, my dears.

Not that I haven't spread any sex-talk around or anything.  ;)

Date: 2007/04/10 23:42:35, Link
Author: Kristine
It's Peter Olofsson who is writing a satirical "postmodernist" piece. (He e-mailed me to comment on my dig at men at PT and confessed that the satire was his.)

Date: 2007/04/11 00:17:31, Link
Author: Kristine
*Gasp!* TroutMAC says Santa doesn't exist!  
Actually, there's quite a bit of evidence that Santa doesn't exist. For example, the laws of physics show us that reindeer can't fly. We know that nobody lives at the North Pole. People have been there, and the living conditions are, well, not that great. We know that there's no toy factory up there. We know where toys are ACTUALLY made. We know from logic that no one can be at every house in the world delivering presents at the same moment in time… we know that's impossible. Now, I'll grant you all that this evidence could be classified, perhaps, as "indirect"… but it is evidence nonetheless.

Boohoohoo, no brachiating Santa? Science sure is mean!

Please tell me that unicorns are still magic!  :D
(Does anybody think that TroutMAC could be a really clever troll?)

Date: 2007/04/11 10:22:05, Link
Author: Kristine
Truly himself TroutMAC says:  
Define “strict Bible literalist.” I’m not sure, but I don’t think that Lee Strobel is a Young Earth Creationist… I’m pretty sure he accepts an old Earth. Seems pretty hard to be called a “strict Bible literalist” and be an old-Earther at the same time.

Not according to this paper that I read by Dembski.

I think I’m the only one here who read this and I found it (among other things) really instructive in terms of the aims of someone like Dembski, aside from the short-term goals indicated by the nefarious Wedge.

Dembski plays both sides at UD, the YEC and the Old Earth paradigm,  very…I don’t want to say skillfully, because it’s so obvious a con to me, but for the average confused commenter, skillfully, I guess. I don’t know how people can be taken in so easily by him, but they are. I came away, once again, thinking that he is not a YEC, but he doesn’t want to lose one YEC sheep. He is one control freak. One would think that his Designer could take care of Himself.

Long paper short: I don’t believe that australiopithicines like “Lucy” never had bad thoughts or never committed what are called sins, until Homo sapiens sapiens were “brought into the Garden” where they committed “the Fall.” I think our hominid ancestors faced the choices and dilemmas (“evils”) of their own time and that everything they did helped us to become what we are. They deserve credit for that, not denial of being our ancestors nor denial of their nobility through denial of any ignobility. Likewise, “the Fall” could never be any one act at any time (or could it be the first time one cell consumed another?), as if life were a great glass globe to be irrevocably shattered in a moment.

Date: 2007/04/11 16:51:42, Link
Author: Kristine
To compound the problem you need a fully working automobile to gather the parts together to make an automobile.

What does that even mean? Automobiles have babies? I thought they came from Santa.
Quote (J-Dog @ April 11 2007,13:53)
The punctuated equilibrium of their posting is nice, but I believe the key to the insanity is in the Topics Of Discussion


I don't think the Bible contradicts the existence of cavemen (Well DUH! I'm here, ain't I?)

temporo-spacial anomaly on Noah's Ark: fascinating
(Next topic for the kids is How Many Angels Can Dance On The Head Of a Pin, and for Kristine - Why Do Chicks Dig Unicorns)

My dad once hired a plumber who worked in a faith-based manner (I PRAYED that the leak stopped - And it did... NOT! Maybe the Reverend Ted Haggard stopped by, and one thing led to another.... next thing you know they're ....well, you know...

I know a caveman who's gonna get coal in his stocking! :)

Date: 2007/04/11 18:40:03, Link
Author: Kristine
Dembski was raised Catholic though. I wonder, since he seems to have married his soul to the Southern Baptist Convention, if that means he's rejected Catholicism and thinks they're heretics. Except that Behe is a Catholic (I think).

Date: 2007/04/11 20:50:00, Link
Author: Kristine
"Just who is this 'nature' or 'evolution' as (an active) subject? It doesn't exist at all!" the Pope said.

Benedict argued that evolution had a rationality that the theory of purely random selection could not explain.

"The process itself is rational despite the mistakes and confusion as it goes through a narrow corridor choosing a few positive mutations and using low probability," he said.
Oh, yeah, this idea again: "Logic exists, therefore a logical mind must have brought forth logic." Well, it's not the Pope's fault that our language assumes a subject but our language can construct things that are not there.

Crandaddy came to my blog and argued something like this - and he was very nice about it - we had a civil exchange - and I don't know if I really answered his questions, but I stated that the universe simply behaves as it does, whereas "logic" or "truth" are ideas that we derive by watching reality, but they are our own ideas, not existing in a Platonic plane out there somewhere.

I don't think I really got it until recently that God is a personality to people. I had spent my childhood reinterpreting the words of scripture in a humanistic manner - God as the universe, or as a principle, or as an algorithm, etc., until I finally realized that people want a personal God. I can't explain why that idea spoils all the mystery for me, because somehow this is wonderous and mysterious to believers, but it does, it ruins it. *shrug*  :)

Date: 2007/04/11 21:54:06, Link
Author: Kristine
I don't think it's a feint, Evoken. I remember taking a class about Hawkings A Brief History of Time and thinking, "The Big Bang happened before there was consciousness. Evolution happened before there was consciousness." For a while, even though I had no belief in God, I had a block about this. Then - I can't remember when - something changed and then I had no problem with it anymore.

Date: 2007/04/12 00:31:27, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 11 2007,21:53)
Dembski seems to have just found Youtube.

No kidding! Well, how in the #### can they put that pottymouth mom on UD? GMAFB!

And that's not...that's not the "Way of the Banana Master" video, right? No, it simply cannot be - not after that whole crapola thread about artificial selection being "caused" and natural selection being "acausal," they're not going to parade Chiquita bananas before the world as not artificially selected, are they? Hahaha! :D

You see Phonon, it's gravity when an apple falls but it's not gravity when you drop an apple. That's intelligent falling, when you drop an apple. Got it? :)

Oh, but this breaks my heart.  
If the direct approach of withholding Christmas presents doesn’t work, here’s a more reasoned approach along the lines of classical natural theology...blah

Excuse me? Who withheld a Christmas card and original poem by Moi from themselves? :(

No Santa, no unicorns, no sugar from those guys. Not even a big red pen giving me an "F." I can't take it.

Date: 2007/04/12 10:44:29, Link
Author: Kristine
Richard linked to a snide comment by Dembski about liberals preferring politics over charity a few pages back (I can't find it).  :angry:

Well maybe one person's politics is another person's charity, Bill (and WinglesS, and all).

Study reveals "Robin Hood impulse" in human nature.

Date: 2007/04/12 10:53:01, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 11 2007,15:22)
Good week for Tard chicks:  

Down, Richard. You don't know that DanaMcgee is a gurl. It could be like the Woody Allen anecdote, when he was a kid with the other boys who were listing their favorite Hollywood pin-ups, and because he didn't know any Woody blurted out, "Dana Andrews!"  :)

Date: 2007/04/12 11:07:17, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Ftk @ April 12 2007,09:26)
Was there a "discussion" in Dover?  

I was under the impression that both sides gave statements and answered questions for a judge who knew next to nothing about the subject.  JJ then based his decision on the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” which had been submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling.

Dialogue?  Debate?  I think not.

You're saying there was no debate in cross-examination?

Well, if the trial transcripts lack drama for you (and the truth that came out about the purchase of that gobbledygook [and I claim credit for this word-meme!] Of Pandas and People was pretty riveting), I guess Dembski should have testified then.

Man, if my fav fundertaker is ever put under oath I want it videotaped.  :)

Date: 2007/04/12 12:43:47, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 12 2007,10:56)

IDC advocates do hurl insults, some of them quite nasty. Pretending they don't "hurl insults" is going nowhere. They are "hurling insults" even within their "invitations".

Wow, I wasn't aware of that thread. *Whistles*

Don't forget everything that Dembski has said about Barb Forrest. (I can’t find it now but last year he went on a tirade about something she wrote to him, thanking for something, etc. “What is she thanking me for?” etc. Maybe she was being nice?)
This especially creeped me. Yeah, let's joke about beating up a woman and an old man.

And I'm a terrible person. I felt pretty awful after that. Incidentally, Wells and Johnson have no right to call anyone else holocaust deniers.

Date: 2007/04/12 15:46:52, Link
Author: Kristine
Where do you find this shit, Oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit? It's good shit.  
The Wind once challenged the Sun to a contest. Below them was a man wending his way down a road. Each would attempt to make the man remove his coat. The Wind blew and blew, [*Fart*] but the man merely drew his coat tighter about him.

Then the sun said, "Wasn't me." And the wind said, "Your paper said very clearly that it was you." And the sun said, "You're misrepresenting my paper." And the wind said, "No, you're misrepresenting your own paper! If you would read your own paper, you would see how clearly you are misrepresenting what your paper says!" And the sun said, "How can I write my own paper without reading it?" Should I be smoking this stuff on the job?

But chemical processes cannot account for the mechanical marvels of life.

I refute it thus: Collagen proteins confirm dino-bird link.  :)

Date: 2007/04/12 16:24:37, Link
Author: Kristine
Yeah, actually MSNBC is worse than Newsweek.

Have at thee, Richardthughes! Warlock! Drown this! Hahaha!  :D

Date: 2007/04/12 19:11:54, Link
Author: Kristine
Why are we even talking about birth control in this context when, according to the reporter from Esquire (lionized in my story), Adam at the Creation Museum has no snakee, no T-Rex, no mini-Adam.  :(

Ya know, that just weirds me out. :O

Date: 2007/04/12 22:51:22, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 12 2007,17:38)

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 12 2007,15:06)
Job117 -- The Case Against Instrumental Music in Worship
Could lead to DANCING, ya know . . . . .

*Does war shimmy, contemplates Richard's fate* :angry:
*Points her inked, cat-scratched finger at WinglesS*
I'll get you my pretty. And your little god, too.
you might argue that a banana was designed for human consumption, but then again it’s also eaten by many other animals, many of which don’t have hands. Perhaps the designer favours humans though. However, we should also note that the current banana is a mutant. I think I’ve read that the original bananas had to be cooked.

Also, what about fruits like the durian then? Why would a designer design a heavy fruit that grows on tall trees, falls with the possibility of hurting people, and covered with a thick spiky shell?

Is such a fruit designed for human consumption?
Cocoanuts were designed to fall on your head. You're supposed to tithe 10% of your poppies, you twit. Give them to Dembski. He's the man behind the curtain.
*Flies off in a blast of black smoke*

Date: 2007/04/13 13:42:58, Link
Author: Kristine
Somebody needs to reboot the Info Theory Newt. He's thrashing.  
The Pope Circling Around ID
William Dembski
It will be interesting to see where this debate is in the Roman Catholic Church by the time we get to Darwin’s bicentennial in 2009.

Yes, it will be.

It will be interesting what you have to say for yourself then too, Bill. It will be interesting to see if UD is still around. It will be interesting to see what you cough up in nine years, when according to your prediction evolution will be "dead."

But what I think is really interesting is that you think you can predict jack when weatherpeople "can't predict the weather three days out."  :D  Is ID climate, then? Interesting, because the weather outside is frightful (and our fire is so delightful...) :p

Date: 2007/04/13 17:35:16, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Ftk @ April 13 2007,06:30)
I'm not promoting anything.  I'm telling you that birth control doesn't always work.  I'm also telling you that in our society today abstinence is unfortunately laughed at.  So, we have kids doing things that are counter productive to a happy healthy life.  

I suggest promoting abstinence ALONG with education about birth control for those who have no self control whatsoever, or those who are out to get laid regardless of the consequences.

Abstinence students still having sex. Which hardly surprises me.

Ftk, speaking only for me, you're talking to a nerdy bookworm who was 1) too unpopular to care about peer pressure 2) saw too many girls get pregnant and said, "Not me" 3) had an escape plan to get out of Dodge 4) was holding out for a Carl Sagan type. Believe it or not, I believe it's a good idea to wait at least until one is out of high school. But I also believe in advocating condom use.

Date: 2007/04/13 21:39:09, Link
Author: Kristine
Ah, Borges, the great librarian.

Actually though, I don't think their idea of ID is secret codes in Pi. It sounds more like turning the universe into a crossword puzzle to me - or a team game of Scrabble - ("It's your turn, Sal." "Psst Joseph, how can I create information out of ZXYWLRST?" "Well, just move the pieces around at random and see what you get, hahaha.") or one of those thingies in which words are hidden amongst random letters, and you have to circle the words...

Not unlike the Bible Code, eh, Bill? (Dembster! That was pathetic even for you! What about the Moby Dick code? What kind of revelations (other than the obvious) could I find in Origin of Species? I wonder how many "codes" one could find just in time for Darwin's 200th.) :)

Date: 2007/04/15 00:48:05, Link
Author: Kristine
Oh you "disagree" with angry Catholic mom's methods, do you WinglesS?    



11:54 pm
You shouldn’t force people to believe in God any more than you should force them to believe in evolution. Granted, some beliefs might be more irrational than others, but perhaps a person’s point of view can be changed with prayer, reason and example. If everything else fails though, I still hold that what a person chooses to believe in is his right and choice.
Remember that true belief is a decision of the heart, and going to church doesn’t make one a Christian any more than entering a plane makes one a pilot.

While I understand the mother’s concern for her son, I disagree with her methods.

What compassion! Why do I find that hilarious?  



11:51 am
I don’t think atheists are inclined to give away their money away. There is no reason to. It takes a more than just a good mood to get people in general to give away 10% of their income.

Then later, after I said I was leaving (you're a courageous one, WinglesS):
For a single person to give money away without grounds [emphasis mine] is also not hard to find. Or for a person to give money away on a whim isn’t hard to find either. For the populace in general to give money away consistently is another. I didn’t say that altruism is impossible for an atheist. It’s not impossible, but it’s impossible to justify consistently.

Geez, it's a good thing you don't believe in "forcing anyone to believe in anything" after telling me that I need to believe in something other than the somethings I already believe in (that you apparently don't) in order to give my $$$ away.

Yeah, come over to my blog anytime (preferably after finals this Wed.) and explain that to me WinglesS. Then tell me how Buddhists, who don't have a deity at all, can't give their money away either. Tell me about Taoists. I'm waiting for your superior charitable wisdom.

Date: 2007/04/15 12:23:02, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (jeannot @ April 15 2007,04:10)
Quote (stevestory @ April 15 2007,01:02)
Demanding that atheists justify their ethics, when the evidence is that they're as ethical as anybody else, always struck me as stupid thinking.

Believing that one can't have an ethic if it is not dictated by an higher power is not even stupid thinking, that's non-thinking. Can't those guys know by themselves what is right or wrong? That's scary.

That the same people tend to be global warming deniers, who apparently don't giva a sh*t about their children as long as environmental welfare is not mentioned in the scripture, is even more frightening.
And they accuse others of being amoral...

They disgust me, really.

It just occurred to me right now that they reject the reality of good atheists behaving charitably in the same manner that they reject the reality of evolution. They keep interrogating reality, saying that it must be different than how it really is, instead of just accepting reality as it presents itself. So there's my answer, I guess, about why they have this attitude. They are waging a war against That Which Is in order to impose that which they think should be. Wow, UDudes, good luck with the world.

And yes, the whole global warming denial is nothing but selfishness, so they should talk.

Date: 2007/04/15 16:19:54, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (phonon @ April 15 2007,15:03)
Why is it that the food which humans need to survive doesn’t taste bad?

That statement is a real winner right there.

Why is it that turds, something humans shouldn't eat, smell so terrible? Why is it that fire, which humans shouldn't touch, hurts when you touch it? Why is it that sex, something humans should do for the survival of the species, feel so good?

A better question might be: Why is it that common sense, which helps a human get through life, is so lacking in certain IDiots?

If food that we need to survive (as opposed to food, like McDonald's, that keeps us alive but is bad for us) smells so good, why is there a multi-gazillion dollar industry out there that markets "nutritious" processed food that smells and tastes good? Why are Americans so dang obese if the food that we need to survive smells (and tastes) so good? It doesn't taste good. I'll bet the UDudes makes jokes all the time about "rabbit food" (salad). Good food doesn't taste good. Fat and sugar taste good. Fat and sugar were just fine for Homo erectus but it's crappy for us, and for heaven's sake even the mainstream media talks about how we didn't evolve to eat the junk that we eat today. Geez, mentok, what do you snack on - carrot sticks? Do they taste better than corn chips?

Date: 2007/04/15 16:38:47, Link
Author: Kristine
Boy, dipstick Denyse was sure quiet for a while after her fatwa against "Darwinists." I knew it couldn't last. Letter to thinking Christians (and other theists):
Note: For your own peace of mind, try to avoid acting astonished at the number of grey eminences that have bobbled above a pew for some fifty or sixty years without developing a Christian mind. They are perfectly happy to make major decisions without any such mind. It’s mostly not even their fault. For decades, clergy of many denominations have functioned as therapists and social workers, not spiritual directors - and the results show.)

Hey! Other theists! Can you believe that there are people who have never developed a Christian mind? But shhh! Don't act surprised around them! We all know that other languages/religions/cultures are not supposed to happen. But we've got to...what's that you say? You're a theist who's not a Christian? You're wondering why I'm writing this letter to you? Well, uh...well...

Denyse O'Leary, aka little Nell from the country. Grow up.

Date: 2007/04/15 23:06:17, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (k.e @ April 15 2007,20:04)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 16 2007,04:51)
Phonon banned by the Big Head himself, for his impertinence:
1 phonon
04/15/2007 4:51 pm
Well, all of this is fine and good, but what does it have to do with intelligent design?

[[phonon is no longer with this group. –WmAD]]

Quite an honor to have WAD at the controls of the Nixplanatory Filter at the moment of bannination.  Way to go, Phon.

I thought D didn't read AtBC because it gave him the heeby jeebies. Does that mean one of his spies informed on phonon?

He makes the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (STASI) look benign.

Way to go Bill's Tard crush teh dissent

Cutie-PI has lost his mind.  

William Dembski


9:25 pm
I’ve removed Phonon and Dopderbeck from this forum.

For the record, I regard this piece as the best summary I’ve seen of the capitulation to materialism that has come to infest so much of what on the surface seems confessionally sound Christian thinking. Take Denyse’s message to heart. Indeed, it is prophetic.

It's incomprehensible! Take it to heart? I can't get through it (which is probably good news).

Is it "materialist" to ask that a verb follow a noun to create some understandable concepts?

And for a "non-materialist" WAD certainly seems to think that erasing something makes it never have existed. How very spiritual. 9 years and counting, mister. :angry:

Date: 2007/04/16 21:32:18, Link
Author: Kristine
Wha-? Steve Fuller's Dissy over Descy
The theme of descent and dissent, which has been a theme on this blog and in my book UNCOMMON DISSENT: INTELLECTUALS WHO FIND DARWINISM UNCONVINCING, has been picked up by Steve Fuller in his new book DISSENT OVER DESCENT: EVOLUTION’S 500-YEAR WAR ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Evolution's 500-year war on intelligent design?

Darwin's 500th coming up? WAD, I thought you said that evolution started with those ancient Greek gawds killing each other and transforming and crap.

Boy am I confused. How does it go again: there's PI in the sky (celestial spheres) when I die. Okay-doke. *Help me, I need a study break* :p

Date: 2007/04/17 00:13:40, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 16 2007,20:39)
Quote (Kristine @ April 16 2007,21:32)
Wha-? Steve Fuller's Dissy over Descy
The theme of descent and dissent, which has been a theme on this blog and in my book UNCOMMON DISSENT: INTELLECTUALS WHO FIND DARWINISM UNCONVINCING, has been picked up by Steve Fuller in his new book DISSENT OVER DESCENT: EVOLUTION’S 500-YEAR WAR ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Evolution's 500-year war on intelligent design?

Darwin's 500th coming up? WAD, I thought you said that evolution started with those ancient Greek gawds killing each other and transforming and crap.

Boy am I confused. How does it go again: there's PI in the sky (celestial spheres) when I die. Okay-doke. *Help me, I need a study break* :p

By golly, I thought that ID was, ya know, SCIENCE and all, and that the reason why it, uh, doesn't have any peer-reviewed results is, um, because it's, er, so NEW, and all . . . . . .

(snicker)  (giggle)
I wish these morons would at least TRY to keep their #### story straight . . . . .

Oops! I should get my story straight myself. I owe WmAd an apology, I was wrong. I misquoted wMAD. ;) It wasn't the Greek gods making war that he mentioned, it was the Babylonian gods making, um, er...
If you look at the Babylonian account, it's called the Enuma Elish, and what you have [enema elish??] are waters, sweet waters and salt waters, Tiamat and Apsu - they mingle, okay, and the mingle connotes some sort of sexual union, and out of that emerged one set of gods, and then there's another set of gods, and another, and then finally you get Marduk. And it's in this process of generations, the gods are begetting gods...

His point being that evolution is somehow like creation myths like this. Oooh, this kind of stuff can rile a girl up.

My point being, if I am salt water, what is wMAD? :) 'Cause he says that the naturalist view is "thin on the consumation part." Heh, I have news for him.

*Waits for shocked Marpuke from Arden* :p

Date: 2007/04/17 20:27:40, Link
Author: Kristine
Quote (Fross @ April 16 2007,21:30)
growing up in a southern town, going to a S. Baptist church and private school, I had my share of creationist teachings.  Luckily my father, while very