AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Leftfield

form_srcid: Leftfield

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: Leftfield

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


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2007/09/05 12:47:56, Link
Author: Leftfield
Not exactly on the level of "piranha," but I enjoyed the typo in this paragraph:

But, macroevolution, on the other hand, would have to provide evidence that the offspring of an animal or plant was able to evolve, for example, a different and improved set of vital organs that could be inherited. Despite many breading experiments trying to cause such changes, this has never been observed. Micro changes are trivial in comparison to the long-sought macro changes.

From FTK's FAQ on micro vs macro

Mmmm, breaded piranha

<a href="" target="_blank"></a>

Date: 2007/09/19 21:27:56, Link
Author: Leftfield
This can't last, can it?


Rob, Your question betrays an insensitivity to the sensibilities of our group. One more strike and youre out. WmAD

Have you been getting anonymous email complaints, or is that appeal only wrong when issued by your enemies? -FJB

Comment by fbeckwith September 19, 2007 @ 9:12 pm

Date: 2007/11/01 16:15:46, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2007,15:30)
There may be trouble, ahead..




3:25 pm
Patrick (46)-

What can you calculate the complexity of? I cant figure out how to calculate the complexity of anything.

Yeah, somebody help me out, I wasn't expecting to get an actual answer!

I just wanted to join the banned!

leftfield aka congregate

Date: 2007/11/16 15:26:17, Link
Author: Leftfield
From the PBS forum (emphasis added by me):

Also, if humans are simply genetic mutations of some simpler life form, then why are we the only species that wears clothes? why then the timidity? are you going to contend that evolution also created human emotions as well, and the ability for men to know that they are naked? why then no such timidity in other species?


Argumentum ad figleafus?

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm convinced! ;)

Date: 2007/11/27 16:15:38, Link
Author: Leftfield
Best example ever of plain failure to understand the difference between science and religion. Sockpuppet?

since you pick and choose which of Darwins statements are binding, could you please explain the process through which you determine which ones are relevant and which ones are not?
Or is it solely based on which ones are currently shown to be incorrect?
In your response, please try to be alittle more thoughtful opposed to your stupid response to Bettawrekonize.

From Tedsenough, comment 34

Date: 2007/12/04 10:32:48, Link
Author: Leftfield
From the Dennett D'Souza Debate thread


Carl Sachs


10:40 am
I dont appreciate being called a fool by someone who wallows in ignorance and calls it faith.

Enough. Im done here. Have fun fellating each others egos over your self-imposed martyrdom.
Is this a self-bannination?

Date: 2007/12/08 22:51:03, Link
Author: Leftfield
Hermagoras quoted BA77, and then tied to wrap things up:  
I dont own the computer I use, so someone else has it set up to prevent por^no from being displayed in front of sensitive eyes.


I think we're done here, people.

We're not done here. You can't just say there's an intelligent filterer, and then not try to determine who the filterer is, and how the filter was implemented! That would be a science stopper.

Sorry, it's late, I've been reading UD, I don't know what to think anymore!!!!eleventy-one!!!!!  :O

Date: 2007/12/31 10:58:46, Link
Author: Leftfield
I'm a little slow, I've just gotten around to reading Darwin's Black Box. As much as I could stand anyway, the discussions of biochemical details were more than I could digest. I thought there might be a discussion of the book and its arguments somewhere around here, but a brief amateur search did not turn it up. Is there a good one here or elsewhere?

My thoughts on it were that:
1) it seems to argue entirely from personal incredulity.
2) it is difficult (impossible?) to come up with the demanded step-by-step molecular history given that we don't currently know the molecular starting point for any particular system.
3) the last chapter is full of self-congratulation on the magnitude of the scientific leap "we" have made in recognizing design; self-congratulation that would be inappropriate if a great leap had actually been made, and seems laughable in light of the real world results of the book.


Date: 2008/01/11 14:19:40, Link
Author: Leftfield
This excerpt from Your Inner Fish, discusses evolutionary "reasons" for obesity, hemorrhoids, hernias, apnea, hiccups etc. By Neil Shubin of U. of Chicago and Field Museum.

Date: 2008/02/12 13:50:49, Link
Author: Leftfield
Mapou at comment 6 in the "Not a Darwinist? thread

Sorry, I am a Christian but I have to disagree with the cheek-turning philosophy. God did not create the human spirit. Got [sic] can only create physical matter. Spirit can neither be created not destroyed. A-holes (non-believers) are not part of the body of Christ.

Can somebody point me to the Bible verse regarding a-holes?

And God can only create matter? Hence the law of  conservation of spirit?

And if the a-hole is not part of the body of Christ, can He have been truly human?

Has to be a sockpuppet!!one!!

Date: 2008/02/27 09:37:23, Link
Author: Leftfield
A recent novel I'm reading (listening to, actually), Ghost, by Alan Lightman, might be of interest to ATBCers. The protagonist works in a funeral home and sees something strange. Word gets out, exaggeration occurs, and he gets involved with the "Second World Society," a pseudoscientific group researching the supernatural. Scientists from the local university also get involved in the situation.
The book attempts to take a realistic look at a ghost story situation. It's not about the mystery of the ghost, it's about how seeing something strange affects the rest of the witness's life. The character ruminates on memory, consciousness, and the nature of time.

Date: 2008/03/07 12:44:33, Link
Author: Leftfield

I think step 1A in the RC argument is that the creationist perspective on topic A is not supported by any peer-reviewed scientific publications.

I think that is the point of Lenny's long ago offer to pay up $100 for any argument in EE that had appeared in the peer reviewed literature in the last 50 years.

Edited: To say Alb beat me to it, and because I wanted to make sure my edit button worked.

Date: 2008/03/07 15:04:56, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (Paul Nelson @ Mar. 07 2008,12:57)
Leftfield wrote:

I think step 1A in the RC argument is that the creationist perspective on topic A is not supported by any peer-reviewed scientific publications.

Well, that's where RC becomes problematic, as I think Alb and the other professional biologists reading this thread know.

I appreciate the amplification. We'll come to to the peer-reviewed business further on, I expect.

Ahhh, right the onspiracy-cay. Say no more.

Date: 2008/03/12 21:10:40, Link
Author: Leftfield
Another ID discovery: the world's oldest infant?

StephenB, from the Thomas Jefferson thread:

To me, it is unreasonable to de-intensify our rhetorical defense of ID until it produces some scientific miracle. Once that happens, it will not NEED defending and will no longer be vulnerable to assassins who would kill it in its infancy.

To me, it is unreasonable to rule out Jeffersons clear words in support of ID simply because he is not one of our contemporaries. In fact, ID is over two thousand years old, and everything that was said about it in antiquity still applies.

Date: 2008/03/17 12:15:52, Link
Author: Leftfield
More from the publisher's newsletter:
Working with specialists in Canada and India, our web site for the book features a blog that now averages 221 visitors a day, and climbing - not bad for a young blog!

Maybe that explains DO'L's prose stylings: her exquisite work is all edited by "specialists" in India before being loosed on the world! :p

Date: 2008/03/24 14:16:20, Link
Author: Leftfield
But what do you really think about DaveScot? Don't hold back!

On an unrelated issue, Pannenberg Omega let slip this pearl of poorly punctuated non sequiturial wisdom:

Alot of the current Darwinian guys, were allegedly involved with radical causes during the 1960s.

Edit: And by "wisdom", I mean "TARD".

Date: 2008/03/26 10:41:23, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 26 2008,10:05)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 26 2008,09:36)
Kairosfocus continues to get pimp-slapped by Jack Krebs, larrynormanfan, and Congregate. See comment 490 (yes, 490) and following.

I am amazed that they actually continue to read his comments.

I just scan for my name: I only had to read parts 6 and 7 of kf's latest dump.


Date: 2008/03/26 17:00:35, Link
Author: Leftfield
Query from non-scientist, non-mathematician, non-computer enginer here.

In the KD Kalinsky "paper" linked at UD, there is some mumbo jumbo about "whether there actually is such an impressive fitness function encoded in nature"

In nature, isn't the fitness function . . . nature? In a simulation, there is a fitness function to evaluate which are the fittest "organisms" in order to allow for selection, right? And in natural selection, that's what the nature does?

Is my understanding about what fitness functions are wrong, or is my assumption that KD is a tard correct?

I'd add a link, but you can find it yourself if you really want to subject yourself to it, it's in the "Is Intelligent Design Required by Biological Life" thread

Date: 2008/03/26 18:09:26, Link
Author: Leftfield
DaveScot, on the Clinton Dawkins thread:
Well, there is no longer any doubt. Richard Dawkins registered for the screening as Clinton Dawkins. How many of you knew Dawkins first name was Clinton?

I was afraid my response to Dave's question might not make it through the filters, so I thought I'd better cross-post it here:

Probably quite a few of us, since it was mentioned less than a year ago on this blog. I think it was when some individual was trying to minimize Prof. Dawkins' publication record, but botched the whole thing. I can't recall the details. If you search Uncommon Descent for "Clinton" you get a link to the post, but clicking on the link just gets a 404 search error. Unfortunate the way computers make things disappear.

That was Dembski who posted about Dawkins only having two published papers, right? I really can't remember the details. The non-working link to the post is on the last page of the UD search results, in case anybody wants to replicate my study.

Date: 2008/03/27 16:11:08, Link
Author: Leftfield
Neither PZ nor I went looking for that URL. I got it from someone else who found it in a very public place. And an ironic one.

Date: 2008/04/10 17:30:18, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (Zachriel @ April 10 2008,17:20)
poachy goes meta.

poachy: Is it a unpardonable sin to play tricks on the less intelligent and then laugh at them? I sure hope not!

Is there an award for sockpuppet post of the week? Top notch work, poachy!

Date: 2008/04/18 14:08:45, Link
Author: Leftfield
I think the best way to resolve the whole question is to put Dr. Herrmann, kairosfocus and a monkey in a locked room with three typewriters and not let them out until they produce a sane and intelligible paragraph. :p

Date: 2008/04/23 15:55:51, Link
Author: Leftfield
UDer Nathan, reflecting on the Investigating Atheism website:

I just cant figure out the point of the site. It doesnt make arguments for or against and it doesnt seem to represent one side or the other particularly well. Weird.

Gee, it's not spouting a party line, twisting facts, and quote mining. What's the point of putting that on the Internetz? And bringing it to the attention of the UDenizens?

Date: 2008/04/24 21:37:05, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (bystander @ April 24 2008,17:32)
Behe when faced with reality say's "irrelevant". Paul says "Interesting, could you research it for me and I'll get back to you". Dembski of course calls the National Guard and publishes your kids school's on the web.

Well, ID is a big tent!

Date: 2008/04/25 13:37:04, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 25 2008,13:28)
Gods iPod


12:37 pm

I PERSONALLY have witnessed a bona-fide New Testament-level miracle.

I dont expect you to believe on my say-so, but I have witnessed, not on a stage a hundred feet away, but less than 10 feet away, a womans leg grow about 1 1/2 inches. She was born with one leg shorter than the other. There was no song and dance, no raised voices, no spectacle, just a short request to God to heal her leg, and it did. In front of my eyes.

So yes, I believe in miracles.

Guess David Blaine isn't on God's Playlist.

I wanted to reply to this one with my testimony regarding David Copperfield making an Air Force jet disappear on my tv, not ten feet from me, but my comments on UD seem to have been getting caught in the spam filter lately, so why bother.

Are they getting dumber, or am I just suffering a bout of TARD burnout?

Date: 2008/04/25 15:15:44, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 25 2008,10:56)
It wasn't hard to find this, either.

Or this.

I know it's rather adolescent, but I was amused how the 3 names listed there were "Dingding Chen", "William A. Dembski", and "Orlando DeJesus".

I like the fact that "Christian" is misspelled in the URL in the first link. Jeebus, as Homer says.

And I think I'll name my next child DingDing. Works for a boy or a girl!

Date: 2008/04/30 10:57:39, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 29 2008,23:16)
Not very omnipotent / omniscient if you have to twiddle..

Isn't the whole Bible one long story of twiddling, interrupted only by occasional meddling? Well, except for the first two chapters, maybe . . .

Date: 2008/05/05 22:25:24, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (didymos @ May 05 2008,18:23)


The story of the Rothschild family has been featured in a number of films. The 1934 Hollywood film titled The House of Rothschild, starring George Arliss and Loretta Young, recounted the life of Mayer Amschel Rothschild. Excerpts from this film were incorporated into the National Socialist (Nazi) propaganda film "The Eternal Jew" (Der ewige Jude) and another German film Die Rothschilds (also called Aktien auf Waterloo) was directed by Erich Waschneck in 1940.

Ooh, lookie.  There's that "Waterloo" word. Quick: someone do a Bayesian thing.

I wonder if the Nazis obtained permission to use portions of "The House of Rothschild", or did they just rely on fair use? :p

Date: 2008/05/08 13:51:43, Link
Author: Leftfield



1:07 pm
All future Old Testament comments will be deleted.

As a wise man said: "All Science So Far".

Date: 2008/05/13 08:27:45, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 13 2008,06:27)
According to today's release from The Word Guild, The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul is shortlisted in Book-Culture, Book-General Readership, and Book-Leadership/ Theoretical, in the Canadian Christian Writing Awards."

I'm guessing they mean "theoretical" in the non-scientific sense.

Date: 2008/05/13 13:45:05, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 13 2008,13:31)
An interesting tardmine was linked to by one of the commenters in O'Dreary's post about mitochondrial Eve. It is here, and is the summary of a contest-winning paper written in 2006 for Koinonia House Online (Bringing the world into focus through the lens of Scripture).

My favorite:

Genetics has confirmed the Bibles (long discredited) claim that Noahs family populated the entire world, putting to rest the widespread theory that humans evolved simultaneously in several places.

And then there's the author's bio:
Wendy Wippel is a former molecular biologist at the CDC, now a medical and science writer and founder (in her dreams) of the new scientific discipline, molecular theology. She resides in Hernando, Mississippi with her husband and two daughters.

Formerly of the CDC? Maybe she was expelled!!!!ONE!!

Date: 2008/05/15 13:02:40, Link
Author: Leftfield
Following up on JonF's comment in the UD thread, this morning (5/15) when I looked in, the list of topics page showed 940 pages for the thread. I read 939, clicked on 940, and on 940 there were no posts showing. I've never seen that before. That may have been in the midst of the copying and moving of the space travel posts to the new thread and the BW. FYI/YMMV, etc.

ETA: I read page 939 this morning, not all 939.

Date: 2008/06/25 14:13:27, Link
Author: Leftfield
I submitted this in the "First paragraph of
Lenski's paper . . ." thread. I'm guessing it might not get through moderation.

Maybe that kindergarten teacher could help you with reading comprehension. Bob O'H said he was throwing paper airplanes at Texas, not that he was trying to hit you.

Compare Bob O'H's original:

<blockquote>Now, if I started throwing paper aeroplanes at Texas, in Might hit Dave. </blockquote>

with your inadvertent misrepresentation:

<blockquote>The mere fact that youre throwing paper airplanes at Texas instead of New Jersey when its me you want to hit makes it something less than random throws. </blockquote>[QUOTE]

Date: 2008/07/16 16:08:25, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (dvunkannon @ July 16 2008,12:51)
What Denyse has in mind when she says Big Bazooms I shudder to imagine.Science as wish fulfillment perhaps?

I think the Bazooms Theory is DO'L's dismissive characterization of evolutionary psychology, which she sees as the theory that men choose their mates based on breast size.

Date: 2008/07/22 12:20:54, Link
Author: Leftfield
For me at least the new links (to the former stickies) go to the first page of the linked threads. Can the 1 2 3 . . . 291 292 293 be reproduced in the links area of the page, to give the user direct access to the latest pages as well as the first?

Date: 2008/07/23 13:41:07, Link
Author: Leftfield
I said:

Can the 1 2 3 . . . 291 292 293 be reproduced in the links area of the page, to give the user direct access to the latest pages as well as the first?

After getting used to the new layout for a couple of days, I've changed my mind. I don't think what I requested is really needed. Most of the time I want to look at the latest pages of a stickied thread. Since they still appear in the main list, with the page numbers, they are easy enough to access there. The original UD thread will drift down, but there aren't any new messages to see there, so a link to the first page in it is as good as any other.

So, never mind.

Date: 2008/08/06 10:20:14, Link
Author: Leftfield
DaveScot has apparently ruled out the possibility of an omnipotent designer:

That [perfect replication] would require a perfectly replicating error checking mechanism. Therein lies the problem - the mechanism that does the error checking is itself subject to imperfect replication. If it gets corrupted then what? This is a constant problem in my line of business - information processing systems. While you can design in redundancy (an error checking mechanism that checks the error checking mechanism or guards to guard the guards) in various ways to acheive acceptable data integrity for any practical length of time, increasing entropy is in an inescapable law of nature and it will always prevail in the long run.

Date: 2008/08/27 17:16:07, Link
Author: Leftfield
As long as there's no discussion of specific UD items to interrupt, can I just say the current discussion of TE and ID etc., etc., makes me want to ask "how many pinheads can dance on the head of a pin?"

Date: 2008/09/16 16:17:30, Link
Author: Leftfield



12:59 pm
StephenB, because homosexuality violates the natural moral law.

How do you figure?




1:30 pm
-How do you figure.

I am not going to stretch out on that one without the expressed permission of UD administrators. Suffice it to say, that until 1973, the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a diagnostic disorder. That was before political pressure put these kinds of discussions to an end. In any case, my broader point still holds: There is no such thing as a value free education.

American Psychiatric Association (pre-1973) = inerrant explicator of the natural moral law

OK, good to know where to turn for natural moral law answers.

ETA: From the "Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism" post, which of course tells the story of a teacher who was reassigned (not fired) because he refused to teach the prescribed curriculum (not because of his privately expressed doubts about Darwinism). But apart from those minor quibbles, they're right on the money as ever.

Date: 2008/10/11 11:20:12, Link
Author: Leftfield
From the Expelled Event Recap, interesting how they seem to consider scientists and journalists to be a separate category from "people".

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 09 2008,14:03)
In case anyone was, like me, wondering who Craig Hazen is and how he's connected to "Expelled":

"Expelled" Event Recap

. . .

The gym was packed with 1,500 people, scientists, and journalists.

Date: 2008/11/12 22:04:02, Link
Author: Leftfield
Happy day Louis-

I saw it was your birthday, I assumed everybody knew but we were pretending not to just to yank your chain.

Date: 2008/11/19 09:53:58, Link
Author: Leftfield
The problem for Darwinists is that they state that social morals have evolved because these cooperative morals helped humans survive together. But this assumes an end (survival) for evolution, which by definition has no end since its a nonintelligent process.

Not a familiar name. Sock puppet, or could somebody so clueless really consider themselves qualified to comment on such a high level site as UD? :p

Date: 2008/12/05 15:42:45, Link
Author: Leftfield
I liked the following reply deep in that FreeRepublic thread midwifetoad linked to above:

To: Southack [who said]
When a man in a lab inserts a gene into an animal, we have Intelligent Design...we have a new life form such as a pig that produces human growth hormones.

LibertarianSchmoe replied:
What you have is micro-design. That's not the same thing as macro-design.

Date: 2008/12/23 14:06:12, Link
Author: Leftfield
I like Casey's comment that:
This week alone the IDEA Center received requests to start about 3 new IDEA Clubs.

About 3? That's the sort of mathematical and scientific precision I've come to expect from the DI and its mouthpieces.

Date: 2009/01/22 11:22:21, Link
Author: Leftfield
Tard quote from "EvilSnack" at UD. Maybe a sock puppet?

I have wondered if the angels that designed the megafauna of Africa and Australia tended to drink a bit. The ones in charge of Europe and North America were much better artists.

:O :O

Date: 2009/02/02 16:09:56, Link
Author: Leftfield
From StephenB-
At a bare minimum, we would ask that the academy, the press, and the United States court system to stop lying and to desist from characterizing ID as a faith-based initiative when its methods are clearly empirically based.

and then a few paragraphs later, responding to R0b's statement "I know that some scientists are jerks, although I dont know that the number is disproportionate.":
Just so that you will know, 95.8% of evolutionary biologists are either agnostics or atheists, and, yes, we do have the data to support that. Is that disproportionate enough for you?

No connection to religion here, go about your business. Pay no attention to the G-d behind the curtain.

Date: 2009/02/03 15:10:28, Link
Author: Leftfield
The glossary is a barrel of fish.

Darwinism theories of evolution deriving from the work of Charles Darwin and Richard Wallace, as published from 1858 9 on. Subsequently, in the 1920s 40s, in light of developments in genetics and related studies of evolutionary population dynamics a neo-darwinian synthesis led to the classical form of the modern evolutionary theory. Currently, this is undergoing changes in light of various observed and proposed mechanisms such as horizontal gene transfer and the like.

Richard Wallace? Alfred Russell's twin?

Date: 2009/02/12 22:01:45, Link
Author: Leftfield
As for the "immediate precursor", I don't think you understand what I mean by that. I'm asking for the immediate precursor to an extant biological system - with the evolutionary path between them. It's not enough to just point to something and say that it's the immediate precursor. The two must be connected by a real pathway.

What do you mean by an immediate precursor? If it's immediate, there is no pathway, there's only one step.

I forget, are you an ID supporter? Can you provide an example of a system and its immediate precursor where the difference between them is too great to be traversed by evolution as it is generally understood? What is the immediate precursor to a bacterial flagellum?

Date: 2009/02/17 14:00:22, Link
Author: Leftfield



2:26 pm
KRiS is yet another sock puppet from the Pandas Thumb forum. Same one I ejected a couple months ago when his subtle mockery of Denyse became too obvious.

Just so yall know.

. . . so remember, Dave only approves of mockery of Denyse that is subtle!

ETA: From the current Walter ReMine thread.

Date: 2009/03/10 12:26:21, Link
Author: Leftfield
Now KF has two consecutive replies on the scepticism thread that are each just a paragraph or two!

Are the wheels falling off the most prolific spewer of tard flavored verbiage? I picture sputtering going on. Maybe the discussion has never been allowed to get this far without the banninators stepping in, so he doesn't have material prepared to cut and paste. Sad.


Date: 2009/03/21 12:35:50, Link
Author: Leftfield
I propose the AtBC crowd stay off UD for a day or two. I imagine it would be a ghost town, but maybe in the absence of their common enemy, the inmates would start arguing with each other, which could provide new and different pleasures.

Date: 2009/03/27 11:03:56, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 27 2009,09:52)
What! get KF to focus on a single point, no chance, expect twenty mullet points of inchoherant and irrelevant ramblings.

Please, let's stick to making fun of ideas and sweaters, and leave the hairdos out of it. :p

Date: 2009/03/30 16:19:51, Link
Author: Leftfield
OK, which one of you magnificent bastards is "ScottAndrews"?

Varying models of Corvettes do not illustrate common ancestry, as no car has ever had an ancestor except in the figurative sense. Theres no analogy between living things producing offspring over multiple generations and someone repeatedly producing new objects from raw materials.

Is it just me, or is that non-existent analogy the entire basis of the intelligent design intuition?


Date: 2009/04/22 13:18:21, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (olegt @ April 12 2009,07:20)
Little Joe hasn't had anyone to play with lately. No one posts on his blog and even fellow UD creationists ignore him. He's so ronery!

ETA: He begs for someone---anyone---to show up, insulting them at the same time:

Does this- your absence- mean that you didn't have a point?

And Touch-hole-

What happened to you?


Little Joe hasn't had anyone to play with lately.

As Mynamehere, I'm trying to communicate with him on the nested hierarchies issue. After I started, I realized that I don't even know why it's an issue! But hey, it's all about getting some insight into how other people see the universe.

E (because I can, and) TA: linky:

Date: 2009/04/22 13:24:35, Link
Author: Leftfield
How does one make a nice, standard underlined link? On the commenting page, when I click on the button that says http://, I get a message saying I have to enter a URL and a title. Where do I enter them?

I'll hang up and listen for my answer.

Date: 2009/04/22 16:42:53, Link
Author: Leftfield
Thanks for your responses. It was the pop-up blocker. I know the http button has worked for me in the past, but I guess the settings changed or it was on a different machine, or something. Grumble, grumble, grumble.

Anyway all fixed. I just wish I had something interesting to link to.

Date: 2009/04/22 21:15:09, Link
Author: Leftfield
From Bleak conclusions:




12:32 pm

Off Topic (so sorry):

Does anyone know how to get a hold of Dave Springercant get his old email to work.

Please email me at

In the midst of yet another UD rehashing of the inevitable horrors of atheism (ASSF), FtK pops up in search of the late, lamented DaveScot. Is this her meek way of trying to remind people that Dave would not have put up with this religious baloney in the ivied covered halls of UD? Or is she just wanting to share with him some wisdom she discovered over Easter weekend? We report, you decide.

ETA: ASSF=All Science So Far

Date: 2009/04/23 10:44:55, Link
Author: Leftfield
It may be useless to try and understand him, but does anybody know what Joe means when he says:

Umm the whole tree [of life] is caput, not just the base.

But that is NOT evidence against universal common descent.

How can the caputness of the tree of life not be evidence against universal common descent?

On this thread.

Yes, I know it's kaput with a k, but there's only so many hours in a day.

Date: 2009/05/07 11:35:36, Link
Author: Leftfield
PaV explains how he figured out, at age 5, from the fact that people have personhood, and dogs and plants do not, that a personal God exists. And then he lists the three reasons why not everyone can see it:

Confusion about this comes from three sources: my sinful impulses, the presence of evil in the world, and college professors.

Date: 2009/05/13 15:06:05, Link
Author: Leftfield
Is this new news to those following this thread?

Chemist Shows How RNA Can Be the Starting Point for Life

If that's old news, let me recommend this headline instead:

Ancient Figurine of Voluptuous Woman Is Found

Date: 2009/05/27 12:53:14, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 27 2009,11:48)
Deep thought: IDC just needs one more website to win the day!

It does seem to be yet another link farm, not much fresh content. I guess the latest developments in ID thinking will be posted when they occur. Don't hold your breath.

Anyone with UD posting privileges want to point out that the glossary of key terms does not include "information"?

Date: 2009/05/27 16:19:17, Link
Author: Leftfield
At least the web's leading resource for all matters of Intelligent Design Research is still as active as ever.
31 July 2006
(diff) (hist) . . Glossary:D?; 03:29 . . JosephCCampana (Talk | contribs) (?Darwinist)
(diff) (hist) . . m User:Idadvisors?; 02:03 . . Idadvisors (Talk | contribs)
(diff) (hist) . . m User:Idadvisors?; 02:00 . . Idadvisors (Talk | contribs)
(diff) (hist) . . m User:Idadvisors?; 01:49 . . Idadvisors (Talk | contribs)

That log of changes ends pretty abruptly. Evidence of the Rapture?

Date: 2009/06/05 10:20:56, Link
Author: Leftfield
Teh stoopid it burns:
Not to mention even if the evolution is continuous scientists still say there was a first homosapien to be born called mitochondrial Eve.

Date: 2009/06/05 11:15:14, Link
Author: Leftfield
I finally have a signature-worthy quote from Ms. O'Leary, I just have to figure out how to save a signature!

Speaking for myself, I have long been confused . . .-Denyse O' Leary

Date: 2009/06/16 12:42:47, Link
Author: Leftfield
This guy sounds reasonable to me. What is he doing on the Internet? :D

Date: 2009/06/21 11:43:58, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (sparc @ June 21 2009,00:55)

In case you are wondering where my avatar comes from go here. You will also find it in google maps

Photoshop request: Can we see Denyse O'Leary and WmAD in those hats the TARD ladies are wearing in the picture in that first link?

ETA: Happy Father's Day, Louis (if the Greco-Welsh celebrate such a thing). And the same to all the fathers among us.

Date: 2009/06/27 21:15:40, Link
Author: Leftfield
After being corrected 57 or so times on his misquote of the statement in the Kitzmiller decision with respect to the inability of ID to disentangle itself from its roots in creationism, StephenB has finally admitted it, in comment 527, with what I'm sure is a truly remorseful "OK, duly noted."
In the same comment StephenB quotes Learned Hand quoting the decision:
ID cannot uncouple itself from its roots in creationism and its religious antecedetns [sic],
(I'm assuming the spelling error was StephenB's, not Learned Hand's, or Judge Jones's. But that's just me, I'm selectively hyperskeptical that way).

Then he goes on (in comment 534) to paraphrase the statement inaccurately again, though in a slightly different way:
Yet, Judge Jones ruled that Michael Behe, and the rest of the ID community, cannot uncouple themselves from the roots [thank you] of creationism or religious antecedents?

StephenB, the point is that ID cannot be disentangled from "its roots in creationism." Not the roots of creationism, ID's roots in creationism.

Perhaps some day it could be disentangled. It might help if ID made some arguments that hadn't been made by Paley and modern creationists. Or if some science was done. But changing the name from creationism to ID to think-poof theory isn't going to fool any federal judges.

As a law school graduate, I salute Learned Hand's valiant, eloquent, clear, and almost certainly hopeless efforts to introduce the regulars at UD to the real world of legal reasoning and judicial decision-making.

Date: 2009/07/10 12:30:36, Link
Author: Leftfield
I think distaff members are even smaller than boy titties.

Date: 2009/08/06 17:02:41, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 06 2009,16:09)
God did whatever creationists need God to have did to support their current argument. If they need God to have did something contradictory in some other debate, or at a different point of the same debate, well, God did that too. God can do that. He's God.

To paraphrase Mel Brooks, "It's good to be the God"

Date: 2009/08/11 12:43:07, Link
Author: Leftfield
Mr English:

I repeat; I was not born yesterday.

Your onward attempt to turn a serious matter of privacy violation and false threat report to US Homeland Security into satire simply underscores the force of the point I have made on the breakdown of civility on ID and many other matters.

And, let us not forget, the whole point of this thread is that Mr Barrett Brown made a slanderous false allegation against Mr Dembski; in a context of the known theocracy slur.

I think onlookers can see for themselves why such a malicious false report threat will have to be taken seriously; and why it merits a serious response.

Which I have taken.

I guess it is an irony that the current matter so sharply underscores my overall point on where the sort of breakdown of civility that the theocracy slander represents, historically leads.

I picture Warren Oates (Sergeant Hulka) in Stripes, responding "Lighten up, Gordon".

Date: 2009/08/28 14:01:51, Link
Author: Leftfield
This run of illustrated messages above compels me to nominate page 491 for best page of the second Uncommonly Dense thread! Thanks to all you artistes for a good start to the weekend. :) :) :)

Date: 2009/09/02 22:56:44, Link
Author: Leftfield
Interesting guest post at Sullivan's Daily Dish explaining Genetic Algorithms (especially for those of us who don't really know how they work) and contradicting Coyne's claim that evolution disproves God (so to speak).

Date: 2009/09/03 09:24:55, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 02 2009,23:36)
Kairosfocus aka Gordon E. Mullings renowned selfspamming bandwidth burning UD entity has another alias: Dictionary
Oops, forgot my own discussion [warning, fat web page -- download and save to your own PC please . . .]:

You can't teach an old dog new tricks.

If a copy of the always linked is created on another PC, is any information created? And what if one crucial bullet point is left out? Or duplicated? If only Joseph would come here to answer my questions.

Date: 2009/09/14 14:07:05, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 14 2009,13:13)
.... I keep on asking the resident evolutionists to please offer me a Bible-supported, and rationally-supported, version of "Christianity" that evolution as currently taught is clearly compatible with.
But they can't deliver the goods.

Shocking. And has anyone been able to provide a "rationally-supported" version of Christianity of some other sort?

Date: 2009/09/15 10:04:17, Link
Author: Leftfield
I got a little snarky with ChunkyD and Bradford when they accused me of hypocrisy in one of the political threads. In case it doesn't show up there, I at least want to refute the charge here.

My post was not an example of hypocrisy. Your posts are examples of shooting your mouths off based on partisan sour grapes without regard for the facts of the situation. Or would it be more charitable to suggest that you don't know that U.S. Supreme Court Justices have lifetime tenure?
Please note the following sentence from my three sentence post (It was three sentences long! You don't have the attention span to read and understand three sentences without going off on a partisan accusation of hypocrisy?):
Let him appoint who he wants to bureaucratic/political positions that the next president can replace.

Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas were not nominated for bureaucratic/political positions that the next president could replace.
Cass Sunstein was nominated for a posiiton that the next president could replace.
Can you understand why that makes a difference?

Date: 2009/10/10 16:19:15, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 10 2009,13:42)
... and their hmies.

POTW (phrase of the week?)

Date: 2009/10/20 08:25:07, Link
Author: Leftfield
Shameful confession: As a layman, sometimes I start to think that maybe the people over there at UD might be onto something. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while and all that.

But then something so colossally stupid as the recent post, reporting that the last universal common ancestor was complex, therefore Jeebus, comes up and none of the regulars points out that the last universal common ancestor might, just possibly, not have been the first self-replicating entity. And so I am reminded that any of them who have might the common sense God gave a chicken have no interest in science or reality.

Date: 2009/11/14 09:32:13, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 14 2009,07:53)
O'Leary's being channeled in another outlet:

It's close, but the tags on each post are too useful. The real o'bleary tags almost everything as (and only as) "Intelligent Design".

For example: More coffee!!: Killers sentence cut due to supposed aggression genes?

is posted in "Intelligent Design"

Date: 2009/11/25 22:30:20, Link
Author: Leftfield
Hilarious argument about whether or which Catholics are Christians in the comments here.

Exhibit A for the All Science So Far file. Can somebody who still has a sock jump in there among the scripture arguers and ask StephenB if this book they are struggling to parse is where his objective morality comes from?

Date: 2009/12/04 21:27:16, Link
Author: Leftfield
Yeah, if evolution is true, how come Americans haven't evolved bear arms? :p

Date: 2009/12/04 21:32:31, Link
Author: Leftfield
Gil seems to be confusing scientists with clergymen.

Carlsonjok, do we have a code for this one? Or does the Dodgenator 3000 needs an upgrade to handle global warming issues?

The major point in all of this is that we have been led to believe that scientists are a special, absolutely sin-resistant special breed of humanity . . .

Date: 2010/01/05 21:30:43, Link
Author: Leftfield
I hope Nakashima gets a chance to follow up on this Joe gem:

Also sexual reproduction pretty much squashes Common Descent.

Date: 2010/01/11 18:18:04, Link
Author: Leftfield
Oh. My. God. Appropos of something, Collin says:  
Concerning pain in childbirth, my wife read a book that showed that a small minority of women have orgasms when they give birth. Alas, she did not, but she did give birth without meds, which gave her a great sense of accomplishment.

To this non-expert in theology, the theology threads are like car crashes; hideous, but I can't look away.

Date: 2010/01/22 22:19:29, Link
Author: Leftfield
My reply to vjtorley's epic collection of information definitions, just in case it doesn't show up for some reason:

vjtorley- I too salute you for all the work you've done to bring together this "information information," as it were.

I have a couple of questions regarding your introductory matter, specifically the paragraphs which say:
[c) Complex specified information (CSI) is information that is both complex (i.e. highly improbable) and specified. An event is specified if it exhibits a pattern that matches another pattern that we know independently either because we have seen such a pattern before, or because it satisfies a functional requirement that we can readily understand from investigating it. Because we can readily make sense of a specified pattern, it follows that a specified pattern will be easily describable in our language.

(d) Information is just a mathematical measure of improbability or complexity.

The first sentence of paragraph [c) says (among other things) that CSI is information that is specified. The second sentence explains what it means for an event to be specified. I don't usually think of information as an event. Might it be better to say a thing is specified?

Secondly, if as stated in paragraph (d), information is just a measure of complexity, what does it mean to say that information (itself a measurement of complexity) can be specified and complex? It seems like you are using the word information in two ways. It might be clearer to come up with another term for one or the other.

Date: 2010/03/18 20:00:29, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 18 2010,12:11)
I'm not sure I'm following the debate on postmodernism correctly, but it's a fact that PCA tends toward fundamentalism and PC-USA tends toward liberalism in doctrine and politics.

This should make it perfectly clear.

Joe (or ID Guy, either one is fine), is this is a nested hierarchy?

Date: 2010/07/31 16:07:21, Link
Author: Leftfield
All this talk about who lied about what, and then to see a statement like this:

In his next comment Gordon says something very interesting:

oldman, I hope you are a liar. Because if there is one thing I thought I could count on in this crazy world, where something can come from nothing, and not every effect has a cause, it's that Gordon would never say anything interesting.

Date: 2010/08/28 20:16:43, Link
Author: Leftfield
If you get down to Hyde Park, I recommend pizza at the Medici on 57th, and a stroll through the neighborhood bookstores. 57th street books for new books, or powell's or O'Gara's for used books.

Date: 2011/04/05 17:33:29, Link
Author: Leftfield
Neal Tedford on scientific procedures:

As a comparison Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel are usually careful to perform their tests by setting up their experiments as equal to the original claim as possible. They then test their experiment quite thoroughly. Evolutionary theory would not stand up to this kind of scrutiny.


Date: 2011/05/17 21:26:38, Link
Author: Leftfield
It is like DeNews is blissfully unaware of how Stephen Jay Gould was punished and ignored: [edited to add that the following is from Wikipedia]

In 1973, Harvard promoted him to Professor of Geology and Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the institution's Museum of Comparative Zoology.

In 1982, Harvard awarded him with the title of Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology. The following year, in 1983, he was awarded fellowship into the American Association for the Advancement of Science, where he later served as president (19992001).

Sure, Harvard professor and president of AAAS, but just imagine how far he could have risen if not for the conspiracy to punish his heresy! Why, he might have become the pope of science! :)

edited to remove double redundant extra repetition of quote and quoted material.

Date: 2011/07/18 19:18:13, Link
Author: Leftfield
Gordo on probability calculation:
"Conceive of an observed event E, for specificity a string of digital elements ( as every other data structure can be broken into connected organised strings, and systems that are not digital can be captured as digital reps)."

If you type his name three times, will he come running? What about mentioning his wife?

Gordon E. Mullings' wife! Gordon E. Mullings' wife! Gordon E. Mullings' wife!

Now that you are here Mr. M: an object is not an event. You cannot calculate the probability of a string. You can (theoretically) calculate the probability of a string coming to be in some certain situation. "Coming to be" is an event; a string is merely an object.

So if we have a string of digital elements in the form of a run of bases in a flagellated bacteria's DNA, before that string came into being what was the situation? There was a similar string in its parent's DNA. So what was the probability that the string would arise? Pretty high. And it goes all the way back to the first bacteria with a string like that. And so what did that bacteria's parent have? I don't think you know, and I don't think anyone else does either, but you can be sure there was a nearby island of function.

Good day, sir.

ETA - fix'd linky.

Date: 2011/08/31 11:26:24, Link
Author: Leftfield
KF lets the truth slip:

Quote (JLT @ Aug. 30 2011,20:51)
At the same time, we see outright . . . that the God of the Bible is a moral monster, and those who follow him are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked would-be tyrannical Christo-fascist theocrats and child abusers.


No, I think that's too much of a quote mine, even for Glom of Talkie.

Date: 2012/03/14 21:02:29, Link
Author: Leftfield
Another reason not to bother trying to convince WJM of anything based on science:

I dont believe in things because evidence or argument compels me to; I believe in them because I choose to.

Some of my beliefs I can make logical and/or evidential arguments for; others, I cannot, but my belief in any of them is not predicated upon being able to make such arguments. I believe what I choose; not what I must. I choose to believe in ID; I choose to believe in God, and II choose to believe in a universal, objective good.

Date: 2012/10/09 21:59:29, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 09 2012,16:46)

That is a cool depiction of the shrub of life. Thanks for sharing, oldman.

As I understand KF's concepts of body plans and islands of functionality, there must be spots in that shrub where evolution as it is generally understood (that is, without interference from a designer) could not have traveled the path that the chart indicates.

Even if he rejects the entire shrub for other reasons, say the "unreliability" of dating methods, those concepts imply that there must be some impossibilities in the shrub.

I'm pretty sure he would place the unbridgeable gap somewhere between molecules and man. Has he ever narrowed it down further?

Where is the spot where evolution says that one body plan birthed another?

Perhaps only "additional" ID research will make it possible to narrow it down.

Date: 2013/01/27 17:30:19, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 27 2013,07:29)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 26 2013,01:08)
jerry's back!
This should raise the flow of tard over there if he sticks around.

You could have warned it was graphic man-love!

It was a link to UD. What else would it be but man-love?

Date: 2013/03/31 08:46:04, Link
Author: Leftfield
nightlight has been offering a new brand of bafflegab. WJM assures us nightlight is in the big tent:

I dont really see how any of what you are saying is threatening in any way to any other ID position. It seems to me you are offering the same kind of description of the way intelligence computes and generates ID phenomena as Newton offered in his mathematical description of gravity.

It is a model for describing the mechanism of intelligent ordering towards design nothing more, really. It doesnt claim or even imply that god doesnt exist or that humans do not have autonomous free will (which, IMO, is a commodity distinct from intelligence anyway).

So, as long as your ID position doesn't claim, or even imply, that god doesn't exist, your position does not threaten any other ID position, and (presumably) you are welcome at UD.

All Science So Far.

[edited to remove non-working link to comment 134 in UD thread titled "Optimus, replying to KN on ID . . . ".]

Date: 2013/04/02 06:03:36, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 01 2013,16:14)
piling on the heap of adulation for that wonderful litany of gordon mullings's tardisms

I think gordon's tardisms rise to the level of "tardistry"

Date: 2013/10/16 09:52:49, Link
Author: Leftfield
Almost as poor a writer as Denyse.

Things beyond human comprehension:
1. That number
2. Much of Denyse's writing
3. The ways of g-d.

Date: 2014/07/05 07:29:59, Link
Author: Leftfield
R. Bill-
When you tire of rubbing his nose in his failure to answer the rock question, ask him if closely-held, for-profit corporations can have religious beliefs, as VJ Torley states.

Date: 2014/10/28 19:12:47, Link
Author: Leftfield
At comment 18 drc466 asks interesting questions:
My favorite example is reptiles that give live birth (lizards and snakes). All other reptiles are egg-layers; some lizards and snakes are egg-layers; so where did live-birth come from? What is the evolutionary pathway to live-birth in snakes and lizards? Are live-birth lizards closer related to live-birth snakes than they are to egg-laying lizards?

I don't think UD is a good place to get answers. Anybody want to guess at how their favorite IDer would answer? I'll take the easy one--Joe.

"ID isn't about the details like that, and it's not anti-evolution.  Asswipe."

Date: 2014/11/22 13:06:01, Link
Author: Leftfield
BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong.

I do feel silly, and I must admit I was wrong. It turns out UDers are not able to handle basic logic. My mistake.

Date: 2015/05/14 19:59:41, Link
Author: Leftfield

Another clue that morals are not reducible to a material basis is the fact that when someone does something that they don’t feel right about, they don’t say ‘my morals are bothering me’ but they always say that ‘my consciousness is bothering me’.
And as we all know, or as we all should know, consciousness refuses to be reduced to a material basis

May 14, 2015

Date: 2015/08/31 18:53:19, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 31 2015,16:30)
Maybe notpologies?


Date: 2015/11/14 08:19:37, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 14 2015,06:17)
Another kairosfocus gem:
PS: Americans need to wake up to the global geostrategic responsibilities implicit in displacing the Royal Navy and British Empire as leading Oceanic power, in a 500 year old global age critically dependent on sea borne trade and ME oil.

Sounds like he wants the US to man up and take over as Montserrat's sugar daddy.

I see Gordon E Mullings, Internet wackadoodle is missing from wikipedia's list of notable Montserratians. How long will this travesty be allowed to stand? Bydand!

Date: 2016/02/04 08:12:07, Link
Author: Leftfield
Law #1: For any creature with legs, the legs in their resting state will be exactly as long as the distance from the creature's body to the ground.

Therefore designed. I mean what are the chances, out of all possible leg lengths?

Date: 2016/04/15 12:38:51, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 15 2016,12:29)
Quote (k.e.. @ April 15 2016,17:40)
Quote (Learned Hand @ April 15 2016,18:21)
Quote (Henry J @ April 14 2016,21:34)
Well shucks!

God, is this another one of those corny threads that turns into a cereal list of sequential puns? Those are such a tassel. I'll just lurk and stalk the thread until it's over.

No need to get floury.

Go on, amaize me.

Y'all oat to be ashamed of yourselves.

Date: 2016/06/18 10:33:17, Link
Author: Leftfield
Quote (sparc @ June 18 2016,01:38)
Quote (JohnW @ June 17 2016,11:31)
I look forward to Montserrat winning the lack-of-self-awareness gold in Rio:

I guess it would even be more fun if KF provided MP3s of his pompous oeuvre.

Helluva band name: KF and the Pompous Oeuvre, now appearing in the Tiki-Wiki Room at the Manjack Heights Motor Inn

Date: 2016/07/09 07:30:36, Link
Author: Leftfield
Dopes on parade:
Commenting on the latest anti methodological naturalism post, Larry Moran states his view that supernatural hypotheses can be tested, pointing to the hypothesis that God caused a worldwide flood some time in the last few millennia.

Resident dope UB asks:
Why use an example that has nothing whatsoever to do with ID? Perhaps you’ve used the “ID creationism” line one time too many, and misplaced the simple fact that they are not the same thing?

But UB, I ask, what does intelligent design have to do with the supernatural? Haven't we been told many times that the designer need not be supernatural?


But UB, I say, he uses an example of a creationist hypothesis because ID has no testable hypotheses?

Meanwhile, over on the Rabbit and Coke can thread, Origenes grandly refers to the law of conservation of information. Unfortunately, the (UD) page he links to for an explanation of the law of conservation of information is 404ed. So that information wasn't conserved, I guess.