AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Lowell

form_srcid: Lowell

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: Lowell

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


DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2008/03/24 13:14:52, Link
Author: Lowell
I'm an attorney in the U.S., so I voted as Phd, humanities, like steviepinhead.

I'm starting to rethink that. Even if it's technically a "Juris Doctor" degree, it's only four years, no dissertation or anything like that.

Then again, the concept of elevating form over substance is not entirely alien to me.

Date: 2008/03/24 23:32:58, Link
Author: Lowell
I haven't seen the film. (I RSVPd for a viewing and received an e-mail confirmation, but had to cancel the day before.)

Nevertheless, Dawkins's review made me think we should revive this thread because it describes the evolution/Nazism theme the movie apparently tries to push. It also suggests the idea (which is purely my own deduction) that the filmakers wanted a Jewish spokesperson (Ben Stein) for "cover" because of how flimsy that connection is.

Dawkins wrote:

"He visits Dachau and, when informed by the guide that lots of Jews had been killed there, he buries his face in his hands as though this is the first time he has heard of it. Obviously it was not his intention, but I thought his rotten acting was an insult to the memory of the victims."

I was raised Jewish (although I'm now an open atheist), but I find the evolution/Holocaust conflation extraordinarily offensive for all the obvious reasons, including (1) the Reich clearly relied more on religious rhetoric than scientific, (2) whatever scientific grounds it relied on were wrong, and (3) even if those scientific grounds were not wrong, the fact that scientific knowledge is put to an immoral end has no bearing on its truth value.  

ERV blogged previously on a potential ADL (Anti-Defamation League) response (which I'm not yet computer-savvy enough to link to). I hope such a response will be forthcoming (probably not until after the release).

It seems to me that even non-scientists (like me) from a Jewish heritage would see through this movie insofar as it misrepresents the forces that drove the Holocaust. It's not quite Holocaust-denial, but it smells similar.

Date: 2008/03/25 00:58:12, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (dochocson @ Mar. 25 2008,00:03)
Consider the contrast between the ham handed scene of Stein at Dachau and Jacob Bronowski's wrenching visit (at Auschwitz?) in The Ascent of Man.

I can only imagine what Bronowski would have to say about all this.

It was Auschwitz. Thank you for the reference.

Bronowski at Auschwitz

Date: 2008/03/26 14:15:38, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 26 2008,10:46)
Speaking on Nazis and Ben Stein, Michael Shermer noted that during his Expelled interview Stein made some questionable comments about "blacks" that lead him to believe Stein probably harbors racist ideas.  He also said he (Shermer) wrote a review for Scientific American.

Has anyone seen that review or read more about Stein's alleged racist leanings?

A google search for '"Ben Stein' racist" returned this article he wrote for the American Spectator after Katrina.

After Goodwining himself in the first sentence, he gives us his thesis: "The big lie of the Hurricane Katrina story is that it reveals deep and hateful racism in America, that blacks were treated worse than other people because they were black, and that this shows the hypocrisy of this supposedly egalitarian nation."

The fact that black people were disproportionately affected is merely a coincidence, in Stein's view. It was "poverty" that was to blame.

Well, maybe they were poor, at least in part, because they were black? No, says Stein. Their poverty was "in no sense caused by white mistreatment of blacks unless it was white mistreatment of blacks that ended many decades ago." (The possibility that past discrimination could have an effect on future generations is not addressed.)

Oh, and lots of white people tried to help out afterwards. So, obviously, racism had nothing to do with it.

Date: 2008/03/26 14:39:15, Link
Author: Lowell
Here's a really long article from the Hollywood Investigator in 2003 that traces Stein's career:

Ben's a real pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps kind of guy:

Stein recalled a black woman who'd asked him, following his speech at Pepperdine University, how people were to get an education after cuts in the school budget.  "What I said to her was, no public school system has ever been invented that is so poor that a really well-motivated, well- disciplined student cannot get an education.  There's libraries, there's internet, there's newspapers, there are inexpensive books.  Some of the problem of the unemployment among inner city African-Americans is due to their own inability to educate themselves, to get themselves marketable skills.

"I'm a huge fan of rap.  I'm floored at the incredible creativity and discipline and hard work of some of these rap stars who make themselves into giant sensations.  I keep thinking to myself, the inner city is an enormous reservoir of talent that has yet to be tapped by America -- but it has to tap itself first of all."

Date: 2008/03/28 00:01:39, Link
Author: Lowell
Off topic, but I didn't know where to post this. A quote from Leslie Nielsen (actor):

"There's an old saying that God exists in your search for him. I just want you to understand that I ain't looking."

Esquire Magazine, Apr. 08, at 142.

Date: 2008/04/02 16:10:05, Link
Author: Lowell
I finally figured out where Leo Stoch's name is from:

Date: 2008/04/18 16:18:09, Link
Author: Lowell just posted an article examining Expelled's claims of academic suppression in the context of other conspiracy theories.

Date: 2008/06/02 11:46:58, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 02 2008,10:54)
I might as well be the first:

Interesting surname that Judge has...


ETA:  Google isn't readily turning up a direct relationship, for the record.

Yeah, they're not related, although it is interesting where Judge Stein went to law school. Yale, class of 1972. Ben Stein was valedictorian, class of '70.

Stein, Sidney H.
Born 1945 in Passaic, NJ

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Nominated by William J. Clinton on January 11, 1995, to a seat vacated by Pierre N. Leval; Confirmed by the Senate on March 17, 1995, and received commission on March 17, 1995.

New York University Graduate School of Education

Princeton University, A.B., 1967

Yale Law School, J.D., 1972

Professional Career:
New York Army National Guard, 1969-1975
Law clerk, Hon. Stanley Fuld, Chief judge, New York Court of Appeals, 1972-1973
Private practice, New York City, 1974-1995

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male

Date: 2008/08/15 11:19:39, Link
Author: Lowell
Although Nick Matzke’s problematic evolutionary narrative of the Type Three Secretory System (TTSS) into the bacterial flagellum never (AFAIK) made it into a peer reviewed journal . . . .

I rarely post here, but this really illustrated to me just how intellectually lazy DaveScot really is. I found the citation for the Matzke article in less than 10 seconds on Pub Med:

I mean, c'mon, Dave. Do at least a cursory amount of research before you go shooting your mouth off.

Date: 2008/08/15 14:16:39, Link
Author: Lowell
The press conference is on CNN right now. They promise DNA results and more pictures. (No body yet, surprise, suprise.)

Date: 2008/08/15 15:59:11, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Nomad @ Aug. 15 2008,15:34)
If I try to put myself into the con artist mindset, there has to be a hitch with the DNA angle somewhere.  Either they're going to really analyze something, but then never show the real report and just type up a fake document and show that, or else fabricate the report and skip the whole analysis thing in the first place.  I find option B more likely, because then no one can find the lab that did it and get a copy of the genuine report.

Regarding the DNA results, I've read two conflicting reports so far. (I didn't have the patience to watch more than a few minutes of the press conference.)

A poster on the board linked to earlier says:
DNA test results...

3 samples...

1 came back inconclusive
1 came back human
1 came back opossum

They took the sample from the intestines! How stupid is that?

Another blogger reports:
TEST results:
First test: Inconclusive
Second test: Human DNA
Third test (taken from the creature’s intestines): Possum DNA

It just keeps getting stupider and stupider.

Date: 2008/08/19 13:48:12, Link
Author: Lowell
This is hilarious! Looks like the Georgia boys took Biscardi's money (an "undisclosed amount"), and then skipped town after Biscardi's investigator thawed out the supposed body and realized it was, in fact, a rubber costume.,2933,406101,00.html

Date: 2008/08/19 13:56:20, Link
Author: Lowell
I should add that that's Biscardi's version of the story. It's also highly likely that he was in on it from the start and is now portraying himself as a victim to distance himself. Still, I like to think that the Bigfoot scammer got scammed.

Date: 2008/09/04 18:44:28, Link
Author: Lowell
DaveScot tells everybody what's what at Pharyngula. Sarah Palin is going to be "teh American Margaret Thatcher." Write that down!

Finally, someone is going to make you chance worshipers pay for your crimes.

Date: 2008/09/11 17:13:48, Link
Author: Lowell
Nice cut-and-paste from wikipedia, Charlie:
The question is, given a program and an input to the program, whether the program will eventually halt when run with that input. In this abstract framework, there are no resource limitations of memory or time on the program's execution; it can take arbitrarily long, and use arbitrarily much storage space, before halting. The question is simply whether the given program will ever halt on a particular input.

Date: 2008/10/09 00:36:24, Link
Author: Lowell
Oh my god. Revisions to the Barack Obama article! I don't know how they did it, but somehow they managed to make it even stupider than it was before.

Two of my favorites so far:
If elected, Obama may become the first Muslim President of the United States.

I think they're seriously trying to use the "may" in that sentence for plausible deniability on the Muslim accusation. When presented with evidence that he's clearly not a Muslim, they can say, "well, we said that he 'may' be a Muslim; not that he 'is' a Muslim." Incredible, even for CP.

Even better, though, is this piece of evidence for why he is "likely" a Muslim:
uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one

The talk page is full of commenters trying to explain to Schlafly that there is no such thing as a Muslim pronounciation. Earlier today, it read "Muslim pronounciation," not "Muslim Pakistani pronounciation." So I guess adding the "Pakistani" was Schlafly's compromise. That makes so much more sense.

Date: 2008/10/09 12:58:43, Link
Author: Lowell
[quote=oldmanintheskydidntdoit,Oct. 09 2008,03:04]
And I think this
The odds of Obama being truthful in his claim that he converted to Christianity are less than 100 to 1 against it, as fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity
is worthy of Dr Dembski himself as it's the sort of specious reasoning he is wont to use.

I love this comment from the talk page:
I think someone should add the following line to your page: "The odds against Aschlafly's claim to be named 'Andrew Schlafly' being truthful are less than 1 billion to one, as fewer than 6 people in the world are named Andrew Schlafly."

Date: 2008/10/19 09:19:45, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Nomad @ Oct. 18 2008,20:28)
Quote (bystander @ Oct. 18 2008,17:27)
I just hit refresh and I got the 57/14/29

Woah, I got the same thing.  First I got 50/25/25, then hit refresh and got 57/14/29.

How odd.

Same here: 50%, 25%, 25%, then refreshed and 57%, 14%, 29%. Lame.

Date: 2008/10/23 16:10:42, Link
Author: Lowell
This week's Christopher Hitchens column in Slate criticizes Palin's apparent support for "teach the controversy":
The same vaguely cunning wish to have everything both ways is to be found in her suggestion that both evolution and creationism be taught in our schools. In one way, this seems fair enough—if the Scopes trial is taught in history class, then the views of William Jennings Bryan and those of Clarence Darrow and H.L. Mencken must necessarily be given equal time. But that is not the same as saying that classes in biology or geology be diluted by instruction in what is laughably called "intelligent design." It would be like giving equal time to alchemy and astrology. "You know, don't be afraid of information," as she so winningly phrased it in a gubernatorial debate. "Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

I would like to ask her whether by this she means that creationism ought to be given equal time in science classes. And I have a follow-up: How many years old does the Republican nominee for the vice presidency of the United States believe the Earth to be? There are several other questions I would like to ask her, as, no doubt, would you. Lots of luck with that, because it seems that the Grand Old Party intends to go all the way to Election Day without exposing the No. 2 person on its ticket—the person who would become chief executive if President John McCain succumbed to illness—to a press conference.

Date: 2008/10/30 10:16:44, Link
Author: Lowell
Since Erasmus brought it up, just a quick Phelps update. The jury's $10 million damages award in the Snyder case was reduced to $5 million by the trial judge. That award is now on appeal to the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Oral argument is scheduled for December 2, 2008, in Richmond, Virginia. If you're in that area, you might want to check it out. Margie Phelps, who I'm pretty sure is Fred's daughter, will be arguing for the defendants. I'd love to see that, but the Fourth Circuit doesn't put their oral arguments online, like some courts do, and I'm up in Chicago.

Date: 2008/11/06 10:27:41, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 06 2008,08:19)
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 05 2008,23:46)

Fox News's Shep Smith: "How could they end up with a running mate who doesn't know that Africa is a continent?"

Color me naive, but I have a hard time believing this is actually true.

I was thinking the same thing, although this report this report made me think twice:

In a separate report on Fox News it was claimed Mrs Palin had confided in Mr McCain's aides that she was unsure whether South Africa was a region in a country called Africa and did not know what countries made up the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Date: 2008/11/06 13:38:49, Link
Author: Lowell
Glen D,

I read most of those expelled blog threads way back when. (I know, I've since learned not to mainline pure Tard like that.)

Just wanted to thank you for your herculean (or maybe sisyphean?) efforts to battle the idiocy there. You definitely helped me (a non-scientist) see through it.

Date: 2008/11/17 13:57:35, Link
Author: Lowell
it would take up too much of my time to continue effective moderation of the site under relaxed rules.

I don't have any experience at moderating a blog, so maybe this is a stupid question, but why would it be more time-consuming to enforce a "relaxed" moderation policy than a "ruthless" one?

I know Davescot has an impeccable reputation for honesty, so I'm assuming that it's a reasonable excuse.

Date: 2008/11/19 17:56:14, Link
Author: Lowell
Some rich, creamy TARD from Patrick in a discussion about Expelled! I'm involved in on the Slate message board (the Fray):
I feel free to reject things that I see as incorrect but that doesn't mean I automatically dismiss the evidence outright or erect a "Forbidden Zone", as in the Planet of the Apes. For example, I believe that evolution is incomplete and is built upon Newtonian physics when there are also Einsteinian or quantum mechanical forces. For example, just a week or two ago someone published a news article that mentioned how strands of DNA could seek each other out upon something like telepathy force of some kind, but this could not be explained simply by electromagnetism.

Date: 2008/11/20 10:29:27, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 19 2008,21:42)
who the fuck are you anyway?

Maybe he's the guy who said this:
I grew up in a Christian, but more than a Christian household a spiritual household where prayer and personal spiritual life was more of a focus, not religion. It wasn't about a bunch of rules you know, it was about real spiritual life, real talking to God and hearing from God. I remember being really young and talking to God and knowing he's real. I, of course, like any spoiled teenager you know, you want to move on and do your own thing, and you want to make sure that it isn't just your parents belief system and blah, blah blah. You try to grow up, I went through that, exploring different ideas and in late college God just kept bugging me and he just kept just hounding me and kept telling me "Don't forget who I've made you to be." And I am a child of God, and that's who we're all made to be, that's who we are and so I got tired of fighting and doing my own thing and being miserable and lonely and selfish and I gave up my own plans and told God I'd do whatever he wants. So that was my return to my spiritual quest, you know, my lifelong quest of doing less of what I want to do and more of what God wants me to do. As for the supernatural, I think the supernatural is part of the creation of anything. God is the creator of all things, and the enemy is a theif and a liar. So, theologically I can"t see how evil can create anything I only believe that the Creator can create things. And so, to me, if we're looking to make things and talk about new ideas to make something out of nothing, I think that's something only God can do. For me, I don't see it as trying to jam spiritual ideas into art making. I see it as you can"t make art without God. Clearly, many don't believe that, and many artist and people who create things don"t give God credit, but that doesn't mean that God isn't doing it. So for me, the more that I can turn myself over to God, hopefully that'll take in his good ideas instead of my pretend ideas. And so I'm not trying to jam any agenda or any kind of propaganda into what I make, but it's just going to come out. When I'm trying to make something joyous, we're going to talk about joy because that"s what"s there, that's who God is. We"re going to talk about love, we're going to talk about peace, and also we're going to talk about struggle, talk about frustration, I mean these are all things that life is made of.

Date: 2008/11/20 13:05:16, Link
Author: Lowell
Upon further investigation, I really doubt that's our Daniel Smith. This guy's actually kind of interesting.

He's a Christian rock musician in a band, Danielson, that perform in nurses uniforms (to symbolize spiritual healing, I gather).

And it looks like they're on tour right now. They have dates coming up in Dallas; Memphis; Athens, GA; and Asheville, NC.

Date: 2008/11/23 00:16:38, Link
Author: Lowell
It could use some random capitalization, but still pretty hilarious.

By the way, what is with the capitalization thing? What makes people think that capitalizing X makes X more real? I've sunk into the depths at Slate's "Faith-Based" forum and that rhetorical device (if it can even be called that) is all the rage.

Date: 2008/12/04 17:04:18, Link
Author: Lowell
O'Bleary has a post up on UD reporting on her interview with Expelled! producer Walt Ruloff

Why didn't the film do better commercially? You guessed it: the Darwinists.

Why didn't it contain more evidence of intelligent design? It's difficult to understand O'Leary's point here (surprise, surprise), but it has something to do with the producers being "discouraged from understanding what happens when one uncovers evidence against materialism. So even when they are making a film about it, they don’t get it."

In other words, that's the Darwinists' fault, too. You rotten Darwinists couldn't even let poor Walt make a good movie. That's just mean!

Date: 2008/12/06 11:08:34, Link
Author: Lowell

The same thing invariably happens on threads about Christopher Hitchens. You get complaints about "Hitchen's atheism," etc. It's infuriating.

Just for the record, I use Dawkins's and Hitchens's as the possessive forms of their names. I can tolerate Dawkins' and Hitchens'. But Dawkin's and Hitchen's? No, sorry.

And, yes, as far as I'm concerned, you can haz Steve's Law.

Date: 2008/12/17 10:07:43, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 17 2008,00:07)

So not admissable in say Texas?

Well, it's not a matter of admissibility (that has to do with rules of evidence). It's that the Kitzmiller decision is technically not controlling anywhere outside of the middle district of Pennsylvania. No other court is bound to follow it.

That said, any court dealing with ID in the future would have to at least consider the Kitzmiller decision. A court that wants to disagree with it would have to come up with some damn good reasons not to follow it in order to avoid reversal on appeal.

Date: 2008/12/17 17:33:11, Link
Author: Lowell
I was unaware of UD's "Put a Sock in It" page. That's hilarious. Do you think Davescot wrote the whole thing? (I saw at least one "write that down.")

I thought it was funny that, to refute the notion that IDists don't do research, it states that "John Davison has been publishing on his prescribed evolutionary hypothesis." They also have another link to JAD stuff elsewhere on the site.

Isn't Jarvison banned from UD? Is one their paragons of brilliant ID "researchers" too crazy to trust with posting privileges? That's awesome.

Date: 2008/12/18 11:04:04, Link
Author: Lowell
To use an analogy, you asked how to ride a bicycle and were shown how. Now you are complaining that I have not told you exactly how I rode across the country, the route I took, the places where I slept or ate, the details of which foot I put down when I stopped to take a photograph, where I had to stop at road junctions and so on.

As a non-scientist, I have found this analogy very useful in getting a general grasp of evolution (and other subjects, such as geology). I wonder why Daniel doesn't address it?

Date: 2009/01/12 16:06:08, Link
Author: Lowell
Man, Conservapedia's Counterexamples to Evolution page is chock full of TARD.

My favorite:  
Many cases of beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, lack any plausible evolutionary explanation.

That's just brilliant. Humans find it beautiful, but there's no reason why evolution would select for things that humans find beautiful, therefore it didn't evolve. Genius!

Date: 2009/01/12 18:36:42, Link
Author: Lowell
Excuse me, but if you're going to peddle full strength undiluted tard like that you really ought to give us some kind of warning.  I mean that stuff burns.

Yeah, sorry about that. I now realize that posting from CP without warning is dangerous. I mean, what if some kids (other than the homeskoolers in Schlafly's study group, who are deliberately and repeatedly exposed to it) got ahold of it and hurt themselves or others?
Tard would be a step up for Conservapedia.

LOL, that's true. It's almost like the CPers are trying to copy the cool kids like Behe and Dr. Dr. D.
Total tard. Natural selection doesn't weed out crap that kills you off AFTER successfully reproducing.

The prostate example is particularly stupid. (It's so hard to choose!)

Good design? Evolution must be false. Bad design? Evolution must be false. Schlafly wins again!

Date: 2009/01/16 14:47:23, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 16 2009,13:11)
So a school in La. might get Bushwhacked the same way as the one in Dover? :O


Maybe. But they're being smarter about it this time.

The language of the rule, in isolation, sounds unobjectionable to people unfamiliar with creationist bullshit. So, a court might not find it facially unconstitutional like Judge Jones did with the Dover board's rule in Kitzmiller.

That's a problem because then best the plaintiff can do is establish that it is unconstitutional as applied in a particular curriculum.

If the ACLU (or other advocacy group) has to go case-by-case, there might be practical difficulties. That's a lot of litigation.

Man, these people piss me off.

Date: 2009/01/17 11:31:08, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Jan. 17 2009,11:07)
But wouldn't it be simpler to admit that your Germany/Nazi analogy was inaccurate and that anonymous character assassination is your forte?

Bwah, hah, hah, hah, hah!

You've got to be fucking kidding me!

Date: 2009/01/17 21:40:26, Link
Author: Lowell
I made raviolli for the first time ever tonight.

None of them fell apart during cooking!!!!

Purchased flat sheets of fresh pasta (too lazy to make it myself). Then cut sheets into approx 5X5 inch squares (too big in hindsight).

Filled pasta squares with mixture of sauted wild mushrooms, onions, and garlic (plus salt & pepper, of course) sauteed in olive oil, then cooled a bit, then food processed for 30 seconds or so.

Primed the edges of pasta squares with egg wash. (This must be what kept them together, to my surprise.)

Put heaping teaspoon of food-processed mushroom filling in center of each pasta square.

Pressed out air around filling, and crimped edges (both sides) with fork.

Boiled in softly-rolling water approx 4-5 minutes.

Served with a simple tomato sauce (onion, garlic, canned crushed tomatoes, salt, pepper, basil).

Pretty good, but I have a lot to learn about making raviolli. Mine had way too much excess pasta around the edges.

Date: 2009/01/19 17:58:43, Link
Author: Lowell
Looks like DaveScot has gone back to his old standby: AGW denial.

And as a bonus, another DS prediction realized:     
In other news, what I said before is coming to pass. I wrote that when global cooling takes hold we’ll be left with only a fervent wish that more CO2 could warm it back up. Well, a newspaper editor in Flint Michigan has started praying for global warming.

A newspaper editor? Oh, well that settles the matter.

I thought Dembski put his foot down about non-ID posts, didn't he? You'd almost think DaveScot doesn't listen to him.

Date: 2009/01/20 11:52:30, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (dhogaza @ Jan. 20 2009,11:41)
Even tho he hasn't taken the oath yet, it's past 12 noon DC time, Obama legally is now president

Actually, Biden, already sworn in, was acting president during the gap.

Didn't do much with his few minutes of fame, did he? :)

I'm not sure if you were joking about that or not, so I'll just point out the Twentieth Amendment, section 1:

Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

At noon today, Bush's term ended and Obama's began.

Date: 2009/01/20 16:29:39, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 20 2009,16:19)
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 20 2009,14:50)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 20 2009,12:42)
yeah, and someone please point me to the part where it says the oath has to be taken over the bible, please...

It doesn't.  One of the past Presidents put his hand on a law book, NOT a bible.

John Q Adams, I believe.

Yup, that's what this article in Time says.

I would lurve to see that happen again in my lifetime.

Date: 2009/01/23 14:48:58, Link
Author: Lowell
It's not Conservapedia, per se, but anyone can anonymously sign up for access to the course materials at Eagle Forum University.

Andy Schlafly is teaching American History, Principles of Microeconomics, Evolution & Politics, and Evolution Fallacies, among others.

The Evolution Fallacies materials might be the most highly-concentrated stupidity I've ever seen. Even dumber than Conservapedia itself. I recommend for your own sanity you stay far, far away.

But, I will supply you with the following excerpt simply because you may not be aware that the very existence of mathematics disproves evolution:          
Ask an evolutionist if 2+2=4 exists.  Or if mathematical pi, the parameter for calculating the distance around a circle, exists.  Are they merely figments of human imagination?

Put another way, did humans discover arithmetic and geometry, or did humans invent them?

For most of us and most mathematicians, including the highly celebrated late Paul Erdos, the answer is obvious:  humans discovered these principles, which have always existed.  "Dr. Erdos, like many mathematicians, believed that mathematical truths are discovered, not invented." Ditto for Albert Einstein:  "An equation is for eternity."  (Encycl. Brit.)

But for evolutionists, non-material principles do not exist.  If they existed, then there would be the question of where they came from.  There would also be the question of how nature might relate to these and other principles.

And there would be the question of what other principles exist based on math or logic.  Like law and religion, for example.

Materialistic evolution simply does not allow for the existence of principles.  But principles plainly do exist.

What I want to know is whether anyone takes these "classes" seriously. Do homeschool parents actually assign this drivel to their children? God, I hope not.

Date: 2009/01/23 17:16:02, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 23 2009,16:47)
Sounds like one of those tearjerker, find-yourself-everyone-hugs-at-the-end chick flicks.

I have to stick up for The House Bunny. It was actually really funny. Here's a positive review from Salon (and a picture of Anna Faris illustrating some of her *ahem* considerable talents).

The lesson I took away from the film: "The eyes are the nipples of the face."

Date: 2009/01/26 14:29:34, Link
Author: Lowell
Denyse O'Bleary asks "Why do people so often only repent of darwinism when they die?" and proceeds to blabber on for at least a couple-hundred words without giving a single example of someone who supposedly recanted teh Darwinianism on their deathbed.

Hah! JT in the comments:

Shouldn’t an article entitled, “Why do people so often only repent of Darwinism when they die?” actually provide examples of people who repented of Darwinism when they died? Then maybe we’d have quotes from some of them and an answer to the question.

Date: 2009/01/28 17:46:00, Link
Author: Lowell
I think that's actually 26 days, Kristine. But I'm sure the collective members of the National Association of Trailer Manufacturers wish it was only a matter of hours.

I mean, with all his economics expertise, Stein must know an awful lot about how to finance a trailer manufacturing business.

WTF? Even if he didn't have a terrible track record of economic predictions, why would anyone think Stein would know anything about that subject? I wonder how much they're paying him. Someone should call his agent and find out what his rates are.

Date: 2009/02/02 17:17:44, Link
Author: Lowell
I don't know if anyone cares, but just for the record, donations to UD go to Uncommon Descent, Inc., a Colorado non-profit formed last November. I don't know what kind of setup they had prior to then.        
ID Number:  20081595100  
Name:  Uncommon Descent, Inc.  


Registered Agent:  Barry Arrington  
Registered Agent Street Address:  7664 East Phillips Circle, Centennial, CO 80112  
Registered Agent Mailing Address:  


Principal Street Address:  7664 East Phillips Circle, Centennial, CO 80112, United States  
Principal Mailing Address:  


Status:  Good Standing  
Form:  Nonprofit Corporation  
Jurisdiction:  Colorado  
Formation Date:  11/11/2008  
Term of Duration:  Perpetual  
Annual Report Month:  November

Other enterprises with a the same principal address and registered agent (Barry Arrington) include the Center for Evolutionary Informatics, Inc.; Colorado for Family Values, Inc. (protecting your heterosexual marriage from teh gay since 1991); Mountain Power & Communications, Inc.; and North Star Academy, Inc.

There are a bunch of other ones, some defunct, some active. Barry is quite an entrepreneur!

Date: 2009/02/03 14:39:15, Link
Author: Lowell
StephenB clears things up for everyone
Clearly, the mind is not part of “physical” nature, since it defines itself as non-material.

Clearly. I mean, you'd have to be an idiot to think that the mind is something other than what it "defines itself as."

Is that supposed to mean something?

Date: 2009/02/06 17:11:27, Link
Author: Lowell
Guess who gave a lecture at Liberty University's convocation last Friday?
According to Behe, “irreducible complexity” is the idea that a system has a number of parts that interact to produce a function that each part on its own could not produce. Using a mousetrap as an example, he explained how the complexity of bacteria flagella (self-propelled cells) in the human body point to an intelligent designer.

Bacteria flagellum is made up of three essential parts: a paddle, a motor and a rotor. He said without any one of these parts the flagella, like a mousetrap without a spring, would cease to function properly.

“Like the mousetrap, it’s extremely difficult to see how something like [bacteria flagella] could be put together by numerous, successive, slight modifications,” he said.

There's a nice big picture of Behe accompanying the article. It would be a shame if someone were to photoshop it in some demeaning way.

Date: 2009/02/12 16:39:41, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 12 2009,16:00)
** Breaking News! **

The DI has listed a series of Darwin Day peer-reviewed research articles written by DI fellows and supporters.

Oh, sorry, they're OpEd pieces.  John-Boy Wells has a "nice" article that's getting shredded in the comments.  The article sucks but the comments are fun.

Anybody got a link? I couldn't find it on, and it sounds tardalicious.

Date: 2009/02/23 13:52:47, Link
Author: Lowell
Kairosfocus's concise definition of "information":
Or, slightly modifying how I recently tutored some of my students:

. . . information is data — i.e. digital representations of raw events, facts, numbers and letters, values of variables, etc. — that have been put together in ways suitable for storing in special data structures [strings of characters, lists, tables, "trees" etc], and for processing and output in ways that are useful [i.e. functional]. . . . Information is distinguished from [a] data: raw events, signals, states etc represented digitally, and [b] knowledge: information that has been so verified that we can reasonably be warranted, in believing it to be true. [GEM, UWI FD12A Sci Med and Tech in Society Tutorial Note 7a, Nov 2005.]

Bolding mine. Seriously, who are KF's "students"? The prospect of listening to KF give a lecture is truly horrifying. Who would voluntarily endure such torture?

Maybe "students" is just his way of saying, "the other patients in the psychiatric ward who are too doped up to run away from me"?

Date: 2009/04/01 13:22:09, Link
Author: Lowell
I got 417 hits on Google for "cumulative climbing," in quotes. Link

The first page at least looks like the hits are in the context of mountain climbing and cycling.

Is Joseph really such a dumbass that he can't just Google the term before making such a fool of himself?

Date: 2009/04/13 09:38:17, Link
Author: Lowell
I stay away from philosophy because it takes too much effort to understand and has always been too squishy for me. Though I love Plato and Socrates.

Plato and Socrates? Could someone please tell me where I can find the collected writings of Socrates? Been looking for it forever!

Date: 2009/04/14 18:10:26, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 14 2009,17:00)
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 14 2009,12:54)
Can anyone explain what suangtheman is on about?
What one needs is a theory that explains and predicts facts that scientists collect everyday. If yeast A shares 40% identity in a gene with yeast B as well as with human, which is called the genetic equidistance result first found in 1963 by Margoliash, we need a theory to explain this.

neodarwinism would predict that yeast A and B should be much more closer than A is to human. This has been proven to be sheer nonsense. Thus, came the molecular clock and the neutral theory, which says yeast B and human have the same mutation rate or clock rate. This is also sheer nonsense as one can easily prove that yeast and human have vastly different mutation rates and generation times.

I've just looked at the Margoliash paper, and in there he writes          
[i]t appears that the number of residue differences between the cytochromes c of any two species is mostly conditioned by the time elapsed since the lines of evolution leading to these two species originally diverged. If this is correct, the cytochromes c of all mammals should be roughly equally different from the cytochromes c of all birds. Since fish diverged from the main stem of vertebrate evolution earlier than either birds or mammals, the cytochromes c of both mammals and birds should be equally different from the cytochromes c of fish. Similarly, all vertebrate cytochromes c should be equally different from the yeast protein. This is borne out by the comparison in Table 1.

By this argument two yeasts would each be roughly the same distance from humans.

I'm having difficulty believing that Shi Huang, a proper scientist, is so clueless.

Bob: I did a bit of poking about after reading Shi Huang's papers: he has a blog that is ...unusual in content; He posted up his last journal article rejection letters.

He's going to make an interesting case study, I think.

ETA; If you read the older posts on his site, ol' Huang has no problem in taking on Jerry Coyne, Francisco Ayala, Doug Futuyama and anyone else that doesn't hop up immediately to exalt his Maximum Genetic Diversity ("MGD") Hypothesis.

He's also posting his battle-cries on forums ranging from Amazon to Forbes magazine -- this is getting curiouser and curiouser

Pay dirt! I read a couple of Huang's blog posts, including his response to the journal rejection letter. I think you're really on to something.

To this non-scientist, he sounds a lot like a certain retired professor from a certain university in the Northeastern U.S. who also happens to have a paradigm-changing theory with a pithy acronym that only a fool or a member of the Darwinian mafioso would question.

Date: 2009/04/21 14:16:02, Link
Author: Lowell
Tribune7 wants a theocracy:
Theology is not something one should impose on another but values are something that certainly should be.

Translation: I won't force you to believe in my god, but I will force you to live by his rules (as I interpret them, of course).

Go live under Sharia law somewhere, you totalitarian fuckwad.

Date: 2009/04/21 16:07:55, Link
Author: Lowell
JAD is getting more unhinged than usual:
They can’t help themselves. They are “born to lose” losers.

Christ recognized such pathetic creatures -

“Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.”

Two thousand year later they still don’t. It is the forgiving that is the tough part. I find it most difficult myself as one can no doubt tell.

(My emphasis).

Apparently, JAD is the "Father" from whom forgiveness should be sought. That might come as some surprise to the regulars at UD.

Date: 2009/04/22 14:49:07, Link
Author: Lowell
That's some serious sophistry there.

Daniel managed to weasel his way from "final answers" (the topic of discussion) to "known chemical reactions" to "settled science" as if no one would notice that these are different things.

Really weak, Daniel. Couldn't you talk more about teh flud or something similarly ridiculous? At least that's kind of funny.

Date: 2009/04/22 15:48:15, Link
Author: Lowell
Amid all the philosophy, Ludwig asks a more practical question:



3:29 pm
Clive #157:

“Please explain the origin and nature of this code and how it is administered.”



Administered–written in your conscience.

Clive, did you employ any particular design detection technique to determine that this moral code was “written in your conscience” (presumably, by the Christian God)?

Date: 2009/04/22 16:46:33, Link
Author: Lowell
I agree with almost everything Coyne wrote here. I have to say, though, I think phrases like the following are not helpful or necessary:
First, it dilutes their mission of spreading Darwinism, by giving credibility to the views of scientists and theologians who are de facto creationists, whether they admit it or not.

(emphasis mine)

Spreading Darwinism? Come on. That's just playing right into their hands for no good reason. I can't fathom why he would do that.

Date: 2009/04/24 17:15:01, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 24 2009,17:01)
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 24 2009,15:53)
That doesn't count the experiments I conduct in my basement.

Isn't experimenting on insects in your basement one of the signs you might be a serial killer?

My first thought was of Jame Gumb and his death's head moths. So beautiful. So powerful.

Date: 2009/04/25 12:13:08, Link
Author: Lowell
For Christ's sake Daniel, "settled science" does not equal "final answer." Quit conflating terms!

Even if a scientific principle is considered "settled" to the point where it can be relied upon without retesting it at every turn, that does not mean that it is a "final answer" beyond being revised or discarded in the future.

A scientific theory is provisional, even if we have great confidence in it because it has worked so well in the past.

What is so hard to get about that?

Date: 2009/04/25 18:30:34, Link
Author: Lowell
What is Gordon complaining about here?
longstanding patterns of Anti Evo [which have included privacy violation and gleeful citation of unsubstantiated criticisms in the media that the newspaper in question had to allow a correction of].

I suspect the "privacy violation" is the fact that everybody knows his real name (which is his own fault, as I recall, and wouldn't be a "privacy violation" in any case).

But what's the newspaper criticism stuff about? It sounds like I may have missed something funny.

Date: 2009/04/27 14:20:40, Link
Author: Lowell
Somebody help! Angryoldfatman is in danger!!!!:



1:37 pm
Angryoldfatman #10:

So if other animals endanger us with their tools, we will use our tools to purposefully exterminate these other animals, rather than just accidently and haphazardly doing so as in the past.

Could you please expand on this? I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Are you being threatened by tool-wielding wild animals?

Date: 2009/04/28 15:12:38, Link
Author: Lowell
Uoflcard inches his way toward manifest destiny:
When Native Americans came to this land, they exterminated many magestic species, like the Wooly Mammoth. They did not exert loving stewardship.

You know what comes next, right? Because Native Americans "did not exert loving stewardship," they deserved to have their land taken from them by force, deceit, whatever means necessary. That train ain't never late.

Date: 2009/04/28 18:08:20, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 28 2009,17:31)
Typo, or was the original post # 55 expelled?

It was the latter. I didn't save it, but the original #55 was by Allen MacNeil stating that the OP, like its author, was "confused."

I imagine the justification for removal was the reference to the respectable grandmother herself--instead of just her atrocious writing.

Date: 2009/05/03 00:24:08, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 02 2009,22:57)
Allen MacNeill pins O'Leary's ears back rather impressively in the "Why do evolutionary psychologists exist?" thread.

O'Leary opens with a confused letter on the mind's inherent tendency to spot "agents" (anything with a mind, such as bears, wolves, and other things that go bump in the woods) and then expounds on it at length, proving that she's totally unclear on the concept.      
"I’ve never had any trouble detecting the difference between, say, a fox and a ghost."

MacNeill sets her straight in replys 3 & 4 and again in 8.  

rvb8 (r0b?) joins in on the fun in #5 and Ludwig puts another knife in in post 7.      
"So, please provide a citation to where Pascal Boyer asserts that the agent detection device “disproves God’s existence beyond any reasonable doubt” and is “completely unreliable.”

After you provide your source, I’ll be happy to go confirm it at the library. (I suspect Allen would be able to check it as well.)

So far, no reply from O'Leary.  Not a good day for Granny Tard.

Obviously, the problem is that O'Bleary is working from some other source:



12:04 am
Thanks for your informed response, Allen. It appears that Denyse’s characterization of Pascal Boyer’s views is not supported by Religion Explained

Of course, it’s possible that Denyse has some source from Boyer other than Religion Explained where he asserts that (1) there is some unitary “agent detection device” that (2) “disproves God’s existence beyond any reasonable doubt” and (3) is “completely unreliable” due to its hyperactivity.

Maybe it’s available only to subscribers to Respectable Grandmothers Monthly.

(My emphasis.)

Date: 2009/05/03 00:46:39, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 03 2009,00:29)
Important contextual point: Denyse's evolutionary psychology thread is in response to someone who writes to Denyse this way:        
I greatly enjoy your writing

Since that is impossible to believe, it seems the whole thread amounts to Denyse taking the bait.
Are we just making fun of the slow kids? I hope that's not the case and that O'Leary is really just the opportunistic (but mentally compotent) propogandist she's always seemed like to me. But maybe she's genuinely mentally disabled in some way.

Date: 2009/05/03 01:01:44, Link
Author: Lowell
This post from Ludwig on "Why do Evolutionary Psychologists Exist?" appeared and then was deleted within the hour:




12:04 am
Thanks for your informed response, Allen. It appears that Denyse’s characterization of Pascal Boyer’s views is not supported by Religion Explained

Of course, it’s possible that Denyse has some source from Boyer other than Religion Explained where he asserts that (1) there is some unitary “agent detection device” that (2) “disproves God’s existence beyond any reasonable doubt” and (3) is “completely unreliable” due to its hyperactivity.

Maybe it’s available only to subscribers to Respectable Grandmothers Monthly.

Date: 2009/05/04 07:46:52, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (sTARTERkIT @ May 04 2009,05:42)
Darwin sb Darwinism.  Darkin's sb Dawkin's. (although Darkin has a ring to it)

Dawkin's isn't right, either, dumbass. Look at the man's name, and think carefully about how to make it possessive. If that doesn't do the trick, it's time for a remedial English class.

Date: 2009/05/23 10:23:09, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 23 2009,08:18)
The Democratic Party platform is contrary to the mission of Liberty University and to Christian doctrine (supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the ‘LGBT’ agenda, hate crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc.)

What the fuck does that even mean? The argument that one's sexual orientation or gender identity could be morally wrong is at least comprehensible (even if I totally disagree), but how could even the most deluded homophobe convince themselves that it is a "hate crime"?

If someone is gay or transgendered or whatever, who, exactly, is the victim?

Tell me I'm just reading it wrong.

Date: 2009/05/23 11:13:07, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 23 2009,10:54)
Quote (Lowell @ May 23 2009,10:23)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 23 2009,08:18)
The Democratic Party platform is contrary to the mission of Liberty University and to Christian doctrine (supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the ‘LGBT’ agenda, hate crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc.)

What the fuck does that even mean? The argument that one's sexual orientation or gender identity could be morally wrong is at least comprehensible (even if I totally disagree), but how could even the most deluded homophobe convince themselves that it is a "hate crime"?

If someone is gay or transgendered or whatever, who, exactly, is the victim?

Tell me I'm just reading it wrong.

Nope, I can't tell you that.

But it's possible that the logic goes something like this. Lots of right-wingers are opposed to the very concept of defining certain crimes as hate crimes, arguing that if you kill a gay person, you should be prosecuted under standard murder statutes. You shouldn't be punished under some other hate crime statute, hate is a "thought crime" and nobody should be punished for thought crimes...

This ignores the reason that hate crime statutes came into being; local jurisdictions were pretty lax in punishing someone who harmed a gay person, or a black person, and federal prosecutors could get involved if there was an appropriate hate crime statute at the federal level.

Or that sentence could mean something else entirely. Who knows?

Okay. I see what you're saying. Thanks, Alby.

I guess they meant the group is contrary to the mission of the university because it "supports . . . hate crime laws, which include sexual orientation and gender identity . . . ."

It's still stupid, but at least it's comprehensible.

Date: 2009/07/06 11:29:00, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 21 2009,18:54)
OK, OK.  

Gotta keep up:

- Say pretty much whatever you want so long it isn't defamatory or profane. And no vicious personal attacks.

- And no history of ridiculing UD elsewhere.

- And no asking questions we can't answer, or answering questions we can't ask.

- And don't be rude.

- And no comments that appear to be intended to confuse or obfuscate, even if it is we who are confused and obdurate.

- And no levity at BarryA's expense.

- And no hurting Gil's widdle feewings.

- And no underscoring the hypocrisy of all this.

- And no commenting that UD has become a political blog.

- And make sure you read the Wedgie of Evolution and conform your comments to same.

- And no cracking wise on moderation at UD.

- Scratch all of the above if you are pro-ID. We won't more than gently reprimand you if you insult others.

- But if you explain that the target of your personal attack was being just plain stupid, then it's OK after all, you can call them stupid.

- Moderators get to call people stupid too.


Where the fuck is DaveTard??

Clive doesn't have to explain himself to you, but rest assured that all deleted comments violate the "normal criteria":

Clive Hayden


10:48 am

To be honest, I don’t remember the content exactly. I read a lot of comments, and the normal criteria applies to all of them, so I recollect that it was offensive or vilifying or rude in some manner.


Date: 2009/07/06 16:53:49, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2009,16:49)
Clive is asked    
I’m curious if you could tell us what technological or scientific advancements have been achieved thanks specifically to non-materialist assumptions (not just non-materialist thinkers).

Clive summons up the courage to actually say something substantial for once instead of pure snark:  
What empirical evidence do you have that tells you you should have empirical evidence? The distinction is not scientific v. non-scientific thought, for all science relies on inference, that is, it relies on proper thought, laws of logic and reason, which cannot be something seen in a beaker or read on a dial. It is, as they say, something in your head. All achievements have been made because of our thought processes, and on that, empiricism gets you nowhere as far as development, for empiricism relies on thought, and not the other way around. I know I have to keep reminded the scientism folks here of this fact almost constantly, always correcting their misconceptions that science somehow brings you out of the magical world of inference and into some direct communication with the world, something like osmosis. It doesn’t. If popular thought believes that scientific thought is more reliable than any other kind of thought, popular thought is mistaken. For it is only on the power of thought to begin with that science even becomes known, not the other way around. I haven’t run into any evidence that the natural world isn’t supernatural, only half-witted philosophies that believe it to be, but have no real basis for it.

My bold. And perhaps my new sig!

Oh, snap! I added it right before you posted!

Date: 2009/07/06 17:51:16, Link
Author: Lowell
Clive is really on a roll today. David Kellogg is inspiring him to reach new heights in tardery:
It’s simple, really. The very fact that anything can add to your understanding is an a priori reason to reject materialistic theories of mind, for it shows ability outside of material changes, for an argument doesn’t physically do anything to your material.

Date: 2009/07/07 16:44:08, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (keiths @ July 06 2009,21:01)
Granville Sewell's post is lingering like a pimple on a forehead:
I wish someone would add a new post, mine has been at the top for nearly two days, this one isn’t worth that much exposure.

Denyse, Bill, somebody…post something new and more interesting!

Granny's plea appears to have been deleted, and it's been more than two days since a new post has gone up.

I assume the Intelligent Design Community is hard at work somewhere trying to figure out how much CSI is in a fracterial blagellum?

Date: 2009/07/17 16:42:18, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Hawks @ July 17 2009,16:34)
Anyone remember that Dembski posted a list of ID predictions a while back? He was doing them for a radio show, but for some reason they ended up being published in the comments section of a thread I can't remember. Can anyone else remember? I was trying to bring this up in Cornelius' latest "religious assumptions" thread, but my comment has failed to appear (because I am moderated?). What I wanted to do was to check if Demsbki's predictions all relied on religious assumptions.

There was this post by O'Bleary in response to a question from some TV producer to Dembski asking for scientific predictions made by ID.

She posted a list of nine "predictions" here, demonstrating the she has no idea what a scientific prediction is.

Date: 2009/07/24 13:15:41, Link
Author: Lowell
From Dembski's fall 2005 final exam in Christian Doctrine and the Natural Sciences. Question 3 is my favorite:
3. It’s some time in the future. New leadership at the Templeton Foundation has decided it’s time to use the $50,000,000 that the foundation spends yearly on promoting the relation between science and religion to overthrow scientific materialism and the evolutionary worldview it has fostered. You are the Templeton Foundation’s new program director and are charged with overseeing its programs and directing its funds. Sketch out a 20-year plan for defeating scientific materialism if you had $50,000,000 per year in current value to do so. What sorts of programs would you institute? How would you spend the money? [Example of a zero-credit answer: give all the money to the ACLU or to the UN.]

I don't know. Give it to Bill Dembski? Did I get an A?

Date: 2009/07/24 13:49:42, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 24 2009,13:38)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 24 2009,14:31)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 24 2009,13:28)
3 of the 4 "courses" "taught" by DrDrDrDrDr Dembski have the same requirement "10 posts defending baby jesus on interwebz". for 10 points

this spring, all 3 "courses" "taught" by DrDrDrDrDrDR Dembski had that same requirement, for 20% of the grade.

if i didn't know better (yukyukyukyuk) I'd say Friar Sweater was trying to mass produce copies of BA^77

You might say he is the Dick Cheney of Information Theory Christian Apologetics.  Quite willing to send young people off to act as cannon fodder, but always managed to get a deferment when it was his turn.

check out the napkin scribbling here and you might come up with another analogy

I like how, at page 5, Dembski juxtaposes "hyper-Darwinist atheists like Richard Dawkins," on the one hand, with "creationists/intelligent design proponents like me," on the other.

Letting your slip show a little there, Dr. Dr.?

Date: 2009/07/24 14:43:49, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (someotherguy @ July 24 2009,14:24)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 24 2009,14:09)
can anyone provide any evidence that any other 'players' in this petty worldview war (constructed in Dembski's head) instruct their students to go out and troll creationist blogs?  

what a warped sombitch

I bet his classes are a trip.  Maybe somebody should start a CBEB fund to send an intrepid sock puppet eager student to enroll in his class.  That person could report back here, and much fun would be had by all!

Not it! I wanted to see what his students had to say, so I looked him up on Rate My Professor. Three negative, two positive. My favorite:  
What a vacuous tool! He is SO full of himself. He is actually full of **** and that's it. You could NOT design a worse professor.

Date: 2009/07/24 15:01:15, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 24 2009,13:56)
what about this pathetic bit of wishful thinking???

2. You are an expert witness in the Dover case. You’ve been asked to summarize why you think intelligent design is a fully scientific theory. Do so here. Sketch out ID’s method of design detection and then show how it applies (or could apply) to biological systems. Further, indicate how ID is testable: what evidence would confirm ID and what evidence would disconfirm ID?


Oh my god. That is too good.

Step one: back out of your deposition using some lame excuse. Step two: let somebody else do the testifying. Step three: demand $20,000 for your services.

Date: 2009/08/13 16:32:09, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 13 2009,14:27)
It looks like we will have Kevin Miller to kick around some more. He's scriptwriting a film trying to make heroic the life of exceptional loon and religious antievolutionist Kent Hovind.


Resurrection Pictures was founded in 2006 as the first—and possibly the only—501©(3) non-profit, tax-exempt ministry with a mission to produce and distribute Christian-themed entertainment for movie theaters worldwide.  This Christian film ministry is shaping the future of the faith-based film industry by investing in the work of others who share a vision to create high-quality, culturally relevant entertainment options that share the Gospel message.  In September 2009, Resurrection Pictures is partnering in the release of "The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry"—a heartwarming coming-of-age story about three 12-year-old boys who are shown how to apply Scripture to daily struggles—and is a 2009 Silver Sponsor of the 168 Hour Film Project & Festival.  Creation, Resurrection Pictures’ first original film project— a humorous and tearful story of a high school biology teacher’s struggle to expose the lie of evolution, based on the life of creation evangelist Dr. Kent Hovind and written by Kevin Miller the writer of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is scheduled for production in 2010.

Uh, Kevin, it hasn't been produced yet, so you could actually work to correct the errors we know you've written in so far. After all, we know your idea of "research". We'll give you a hand, I'm sure. Just post excerpts and after we get done laughing, we'll explain why going with your draft would continue your reputation as a laughingstock.

First hint: Calling Kent Hovind "Dr." isn't doing yourself any favors. Have you read Hovind's "dissertation" as distributed by Patriot University? I have.

My god that sounds awful. And boring. I wonder if that's what he's trying to drum up capital for here on his blog.

Date: 2009/08/14 11:05:30, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 14 2009,08:51)
Quote (Lowell @ Aug. 13 2009,16:32)
First hint: Calling
My god that sounds awful. And boring. I wonder if that's what he's trying to drum up capital for here on his blog.

He's Ixnayed that posts, along with the comment I out there.

Ha Ha! Maybe whoever's producing the Dr. Dino drama didn't like Kev's marketing technique. Or maybe Kev's just a doofus.

Date: 2009/08/14 13:16:44, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 13 2009,14:57)
I just had dinner with Lowell. We did eateded at the Atwood Cafe. It am delishus. We are all sofisticated and shit.

I'll tell you, Richard knows how to live. We had banana-bread pudding for, well, pudding, that nearly put Rich into a sugar-induced seizure.

Date: 2009/10/05 17:35:38, Link
Author: Lowell
Barry "free speech" Arrington seems to specialize in helping municipalities get rid of “sexually oriented businesses” through zoning ordinances.

I found one successful case, Z.J. Gifts D-2, L.L.C. v. City of Aurora, 93 P.3d 633 (Colo. App. Ct. 2004) (holding that adult video store could be forced out of location by zoning ordinance), and one unsuccessful, JAM Restaurant Inc. v. City of Longmont, 140 P.3d 192 (Colo. App. Ct. 2006) (holding that “topless and nude dancing establishment” could not be “amortized” out of location through zoning ordinances).

Way to protect free speech, Barry!

Date: 2009/10/06 11:12:36, Link
Author: Lowell
ZOMG! My very own thread? I'm flattered.  

Or at least I was until Louis posted on it. (And, yes, Louis, I am jealous of your ever-so-slightly youngerness, minus the infant, which adds several years, I hear.)

Oh, and thanks for the Jesus caek, Richtard! My favorite!

Date: 2009/10/09 14:43:22, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Oct. 09 2009,13:52)
Oh noes! ID expelled again! Constination and uproar!

But would you guess, it's another foot-bullet from Disco:

Avi Davis said the cancellation had nothing to do with contract issues, but rather a press release touting the film issued a few days ago by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based "intelligent design" think tank.

The institute's release announced that some of its fellows were featured in the film to be screened at a location they described as the "Smithsonian Institution's west coast affiliate."

The comments there are good, too. A few "design proponents" showed up and got their asses handed to them by some regular posters who seem pretty familiar with the ID dog-and-pony show.

Date: 2009/10/12 16:20:24, Link
Author: Lowell
Denyse O'Bleary easily-discoverable factual error number 10,287:
Basically, after he stopped doing serious science and unwisely became a “professor of the public understanding of science”, due to the unwise beneficence of a Microsoft billionaire, Dawkins committed himself to more and more to completely ridiculous positions: The selfish gene and the meme are part of the story.

Aside from everything else, that chronology is totally wrong. Dawkins published The Selfish Gene, which introduced the term meme, in 1976. He was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science nearly 20 years later, in 1995. So, no, Denyse. He advocated those "ridiculous positions" long before he took the Oxford position. Not after.

And while we're at it, why was it "unwise" of him to take that position, anyway? It seems to have worked out pretty well for him.

Date: 2009/10/23 10:31:53, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Oct. 23 2009,07:21)
Ms O'Leary must have blown a fuse:

In her opening post at UD "Cambrian Explosion Film to Be Shown After all"

she links to her blog

As if to prove that modernization and secularization are not the same thing, as sociologist Peter Berger maintains, long-deceased cultural icons are "appearing" again. Darwin's face has been discovered in a tree and Turkish secularist Kemal Ataturk's face in a hillside shadow in a remote Turkish village. All the more interesting because Darwin is the icon of North American atheists and Atatürk was a devout secularist.

Uggh! That's nonsensical even for O'Leary. Instances of pareidolia in "modernized" parts of the world demonstrate that those places are not "secularized"? I guess so, if "secularized" means devoid of any superstition whatsoever, even in the everyday private lives of the populace. Which it doesn't.

From the same post:
We are expected to forever wait for a Darwinian explanation [for the Cambrian "explosion"]. That’s like waiting for the guy dead drunk at the bottom of the stairs to pay his rent.

Denyse O'Leary: Queen of Simile.

Date: 2009/10/23 10:49:54, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (RDK @ Oct. 23 2009,10:08)
Does anybody know what the dominant religion of the Caribbean is?

According to the Wikipedia entry on Demographics of Montserrat, the CIA Factbook states:
Religions: Anglican, Methodist, Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, Seventh-Day Adventist, other Christian denominations

Considering that the CIA has never been wrong about anything, ever, that should settle the matter.

Date: 2009/11/19 17:11:58, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2009,15:45)
Have fun:

It has begun.

Date: 2009/11/19 17:14:40, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2009,15:45)
Have fun:

Hey! It's from last year! You trying to pass off stale Tard, Richard?

Date: 2010/01/15 16:17:10, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Tom Ames @ Jan. 15 2010,14:47)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 15 2010,11:58)



6:40 am
Nice contribution. I’ ve always been a great supporter of John Davison, it is fine that his work is mentioned

Is Davison still alive?

Hell yes! JAD is still going strong over at his blog.

Apropos of this thread, he's really pissed that he's banned at UD, but he's willing to come back if Dembski asks him nicely:
You can also tell them that I will be happy to return to Uncommon Descent as soon as I get a formal invitation from Bill Dembski and not a moment before. Until then, he is just one more enemy and will be treated as such.

JAD demands a personal invitation from Dr. Dr. Dembski

Date: 2010/01/19 19:26:22, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 19 2010,17:51)
Quote (someotherguy @ Jan. 19 2010,17:29)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 19 2010,17:23)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 19 2010,17:15)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 19 2010,16:29)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Jan. 19 2010,16:24)
P.S.  PM Ras!

No way?

I thought you knew! LOL.

This isn't actually true, is it?

Geez - I thought we all knew?


Srsly?!! Good god, man! Brilliant. Absolutely fucking brilliant!

Does this mean we're not going to see Jerry calculate the FSCI content of a cantelope vs. an antelope, or whatever? Damn!

Date: 2010/02/03 10:55:17, Link
Author: Lowell
the mar/wolf is 90-95 % like a regular wolf and a dolphin about 5% like a fish at best.

Robert should use this as the title for his Ph.D. dissertation at Patriot University.

The first line could be, "Hello, my name is Robert Byers." Just like Kent Hovind's "dissertation."

Date: 2010/03/26 12:02:22, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 26 2010,07:34)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 26 2010,07:14)
Having said that UD is apparently a charity. They must have accounts we can view by now? I ask this every few months, any sign of them yet? Let's see to what extent ID supporters are putting their money where their mouth is.

It is registered in Colorado and the CO Secretary of State does require non-profits to file an annual report.   Alas, the report only seems intended to affirm the non-profit is still active and contains no financial information.  You can see Uncommon Descent's latest annual report here.

Anyone out there live in Colorado who might be interested in investigating further whether the financial statements are filed with the state and publicly available?

Jeez! That annual report contains very little specified information, pretty much just Barry's name and an address.

UD is not listed in the IRS's Publication 78, which is a list of 501©(3)'s that are qualified to accept tax-deductible donations. I'm not sure why, but the IRS website explains here that "Churches, their integrated auxiliaries, conventions or associations of churches, and public charities whose annual gross receipts are normally not more than $5,000 may be treated as tax-exempt without filing an application."

So, I think the reason why there's no Pub 78 record for UD must be either (1) it's a religious organization or (2) its takes in less than $5,000 per year.

On another note, consider this, from UD's articles of incorporation, available here
no substantial part of the activities of the corporation shall be carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation . . . and the corporation shall not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office or in any activity not permitted to be carried on (i) by a corporation exempt from federal income tax under Section 501© (3) of the Code, or (ii) by a corporation, contributions to which are deductible under Section 170© (2) of the Code.

I wonder: Is "carrying on propoganda" a "substantial" part of UD's activities?

And can anyone tell me how to prevent the board from turning a "c" in parentheses into the copyright symbol?

Date: 2010/05/07 14:02:39, Link
Author: Lowell
After reading Barry's post, I couldn't help think of the Kentucky Fried Movie:
The Architect: What are you saying?
The Nurse: Leave her... come back to Montana with me.
The Architect: I could no sooner run away from her than myself.
The Nurse: I'm not asking you to run, I'm asking you to face reality!
The Architect: Whose reality, yours or mine?
The Nurse: My reality AND yours, that's whose!
The Architect: What are you saying?
The Nurse: Leave her! Come back to Montana with me!
The Architect: I could no sooner run away from her than myself!
The Nurse: I'm not asking you to run, I'm asking you to face reality!
The Architect: Whose reality, yours or mine?
The Nurse: My reality AND yours, that's whose!
The Architect: What are you saying?
[Repeat ad absurdum]

George Lazenby played the Architect, by the way.

Date: 2010/05/11 15:23:02, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 11 2010,14:47)
Therefore, Genesis is an historical document, without factual errors or distortions.

Yeah, or (outside church): Therefore, Genesis is equally as likely as the other possiblities, and people choose to believe one or the other based on preconceived biases.

Teach teh controversy!

Date: 2010/07/03 10:46:34, Link
Author: Lowell
RichardtHughes? That magnificent bastard? Happy Birthday to you Rich!

Date: 2011/09/01 10:19:27, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 31 2011,10:49)
I've talked to Schubin on the phone. HE'S REALLY NICE.

Funny. I met Schubin at a restaurant in Little Italy a few weeks ago. Told him I loved Your Inner Fish, etc. Super nice guy! Very gracious about my rudely interrupting his dinner.

Date: 2011/09/09 10:38:55, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 08 2011,19:20)
Casey goes to bat again:

Venema's latter posts in the series discuss evidence that could count as weak, or circumstantial, evidence for common descent -- evidence such as high levels of human / ape genetic similarities. At most, however, this evidence shows circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. It says nothing about the information-generative abilities of random mutation and natural selection. Venema would have done well to heed Behe's advice in The Edge of Evolution that "modern Darwinists point to evidence of common descent and erroneously assume it to be evidence of the power of random mutation." In fact, if we factor into the analysis the possibility of common design of functional genetic programs, Venema's evidence doesn't even strongly point to common descent. But Venema ignores the possibility of common design.

Amusing that Casey, the lawyer, cites Behe, the molecular biologist on the power of random Mutation, then promptly sidesteps the inconvenient fact that Behe accepts common descent.

Good thing you turned off cross examination, eh Casey?


Also amusing that Casey, the lawyer, doesn't understand what circumstantial evidence is. "Circumstantial" is not synonymous with "weak." Cases can, and very often are, proven beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence. It's basically any evidence other than witness testimony.

E.g., the bloody knife with the defendant's fingerprints on it is circumstantial evidence that he stabbed the victim. It may not prove the case in itself ("a brick is not a wall"), but you add enough similar circumstantial evidence to the mix and you manage to convince the jury. This is basic law-school stuff.

If we're talking about piecing together the evolution of a species, such as humans, in the distant past, I don't see how you could have anything but circumstantial evidence.

Date: 2011/09/09 14:01:48, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 09 2011,11:37)
Casey is a lawyer. He's a professional deceiver. He knows what circumstantial evidence is, and he also knows it's commonly regarded as weak.

Oh, I know Casey wouldn't hesitate to intentionally misuse a term to score points (at least in his own mind). I'm just not sure he's doing that here. He wouldn't be the first attorney I've seen equate circumstantial with weak. (And you have to keep in mind that he is pretty stupid.) I guess one of us is giving him too much credit one way or the other.

Date: 2012/02/14 10:29:43, Link
Author: Lowell
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 14 2012,08:50)
Just think, this unscrupulous, deluded shyster could someday be a judge:

arrington's idea of overwhelming evidence and FACT

Christ, that was painful to read. But I was rewarded with a new sig line! Thanks!