AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Maya

form_srcid: Maya

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.211.138.180

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Maya

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Maya%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2007/12/06 07:53:49, Link
Author: Maya
{ I've posted this on talk.origins too.  If anyone here isn't banned from UD, please let them know about it. }

A Challenge to the Censors of Uncommon Descent

Background
----------
I am a graduate student in a biology program.  A religious friend encouraged me to look at the claims of Intelligent Design and pointed me toward the Uncommon Descent website.  It didn't take long to realize that the people supporting ID were doing so for reasons other than good science.  While discussing the case of Guillermo Gonzalez on UD, I wrote the following comment:

DaveScot wrote:
"ID predicts that no evolution of complex structures will occur by chance & necessity within the temporal and geographical constraints imposed by the earth due to the statistical improbabilities involved.

What is the ID theory that predicts this?  The reason I ask is the following statement from a senior member of the Discovery Institute, Paul Nelson:

"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem."

DaveScot continues:
"ID can be falsified by the observation of a single complex structure built by mechanisms of chance & necessity."

What, exactly, constitutes a "complex structure"?  Michael Behe has admitted that a new viral protein-viral protein binding site has evolved in HIV.  This resulted in new function (an ion channel), a form of complexity that Behe claimed was beyond the "Edge of Evolution".  That falsifies your prediction.

DaveScot continues again:
"This prediction appears to have been confirmed by the observation of P.falciparum over the last 50 years during which time it replicated billions of trillions of times, which represents more opportunities for mutation than the entire sequence of reptile-to-mammal evolution, and nothing beyond trivial changes were observed."

Could you please provide a cite with more details?  For example, how was this experiment performed?  By whom?  what selection pressures were the populations subjected to?  What calculations support the claim of "more opportunities for mutation than the entire sequence of reptile-to-mammal evolution"?

{ end of comment }

I was immediately banned by a moderator named Patrick:

   What, exactly, constitutes a "complex structure"? Michael Behe has admitted that a new viral protein-viral protein binding site has evolved in HIV. This resulted in new function (an ion channel), a form of complexity that Behe claimed was beyond the "Edge of Evolution". That falsifies your prediction.

What the . . . did you even read what Behe wrote? He clearly said, "I explicitly pointed out in Chapter 8 of The Edge of Evolution that HIV had undergone enough mutating in past decades to form all possible viral-viral binding sites, but commented that apparently none of them had been helpful (now I know that one of them helped)." As in, this example was fully expected to be within the limitations of Darwinian mechanisms but when writing the book Behe was not aware of the example. Never mind that the discussion surrounding HIV was a small portion of the book. Why can’t you people understand that simple fact; or would that require you to actually read what Behe is saying instead of regurgitating the same crud I see all the time. It’s obvious at this point you have nothing left to say, so you’re just lashing out with the usual talking points that are distortions of the real issues. Adios!

{ end of comment }

While it will never be seen on UD, here is my response to Patrick's action:

To the moderators:

It appears that Patrick has banned me from this website, for the unpardonable rudeness of asking for evidence and pointing out flaws in the ID position.

Do you realize how poorly this reflects on the quality of your arguments? You have to resort to censoring a grad student because your claims cannot stand up to even minimal scrutiny. If you had evidence on your side you wouldn’t need to fear this very polite give and take, let alone the much harsher interactions that take place in the peer reviewed literature.

If you can’t answer my questions and address my relatively mild criticisms, that should suggest to you how weak your position, and your own confidence in your position, actually is.

{ end of comment }

It appears that UD does not welcome even mild dissent.  Instead, it is a place for like-minded people to reinforce their beliefs without considering alternatives.  That describes a church, not a scientific forum.

The Challenge
-------------
I publicly challenge Patrick and any other Uncommon Descent moderators or posters to defend their claims in a neutral venue.  I suggest the talk.origins Usenet newsgroup, but any forum that will preserve, complete and unaltered, the debate and that is not subject to control of any participants is acceptable.

If Intelligent Design really is a scientific theory that is backed by the evidence, prove it.  Show that you have the intellectual honesty and courage to discuss your views when you can't silence your critics.

Maya

Date: 2007/12/06 12:00:43, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 06 2007,09:01)
Maya welcome.  I noted your attempts at dialogue at UD and how the inmates reacted.  Schaudenfrude (sic)* is a diagnostic character of the uncommon dissenters.

May I offer a small piece of wisdom.  There is not a single thing to be gained from dialogue with those folks.  They are useful idiots to the PR machine that is Intelligently Designed.  In other words, both their capacity to understand AND their ability to affect public perception is very limited.

However, they are more or less the vanguard that the upper level tards keep between themselves and honest scrutiny.  I'm fairly sure that the top level tards watch what is going on down in the arena and take notes.  This allows them an opportunity to mold their platform without taking direct hits themselves.  More or less an Emmanuel Goldstein (the character, not the troll from PT or PZs place) type of manipulation of the inmates.

Therefore, and this is my conclusion and YMMV:  UD is not to be taken seriously except as an opportunity for juvenile humor, perfecting the art of irony and sarcasm, and most of all as a good place to visit in order to return here with goodies (armloads of tard).

Welcome again!

*Ed did it.

Thanks!  I think I may have wasted more study time than is justified on UD already, but I want to win, darnit!

At the very least, I'd like to know what DaveScot is on about with his P. Falciparum comments.  It sounds suspicious.

Thanks again,

Maya

Date: 2007/12/06 12:02:51, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 06 2007,10:57)
Maya, you'll be needing this.  Steve will hand you one, once Reciprocating Bill has processed your bannination.

Congratulations on joining a club almost as large as Project Steve!

Bob

Quote
Maya, you'll be needing this.  Steve will hand you one, once Reciprocating Bill has processed your bannination.

Congratulations on joining a club almost as large as Project Steve!


I was thinking of getting a tattoo....

Date: 2007/12/28 18:16:06, Link
Author: Maya
I did a bad thing.  dcost is a friend of mine.  We're in the same department.  I told him about my experience with Uncommon Descent and he got pulled into the front loading discussion.  Now he's banned and righteously disgruntled.  Terms like "dirtbag" and "disgrace to the Corps" (dcost is back in school after two tours in Iraq) featured prominently in our phone call.

At his request, for the record here is the post that got him banned at UD:

 
Quote

DaveScot wrote:
Actually you are asserting that that the fossil record is incomplete because it does not show the needed support for your preconceptions.

No, I am asserting that the fossil record is incomplete because the fossil record is incomplete. It has nothing to do with any preconceived notions, it is simply a fact that fossilization is a rare event.

I can’t have a reasonable discussion with you when you deny the substantiality of the fossil record as it’s the only real record we have of the history of life that doesn’t rely on speculation or self-reference.

That is not the case. We have the DNA of existing organisms. That can be used to determine relationships between extant species and to estimate the time since those species diverged. We have mitochondiral DNA to provide an alternative mechanism to nuclear DNA. The two correlate well and therefore support the predictions of modern evolutionary theory.

Even without that additional evidence, the fact remains that one cannot use the fossil record alone as evidence for de novo creation of species. The record is simply insufficiently complete to support that claim.

Unless you have any empirical evidence for de novo appearance of new species, or evidence for at least the possibility of such to occur based on known genomes, we can only rely on the existing evidence for incremental change in allele frequency of a population over time. That evidence, in conjunction with the fossil record, supports modern evolutionary theory.

I’d like to seque back to a previous question:

 
Quote

At a saltation event, does a new species emerge de novo from an egg/womb/seed?

I’m not sure it’s a necessity but there’s nothing in principle to make it impossible.

This would distinguish the front loading hypothesis from modern evolutionary theory. Do you have any empirical evidence of such a de novo new species appearing? Modern evolutionary theory predicts tiny changes over long periods of time.


Is it the case that the de novo appearance of a completely new species from a different species is predicted by your front loading hypothesis? If so, this is an excellent discriminator between your hypothesis and modern evolutionary theory (which, of course, predicts that such an event will never occur, even in a punctuated equilibrium model). If this is a prediction of your hypothesis, it raises some interesting questions, including:

Is there any evidence for such an appearance? If so, which species in particular?
What exactly would one expect to find in a genome to support such an event?
What mechanism would allow such an event to take place in an entire population simultaneously, so the new species has sufficient breeding numbers?

This is a good opportunity for ID proponents to answer the criticisms that there is no science underlying ID. Let’s see how your predictions fare when tested!


What obnoxious presentation.  I can see why he was banned.   :p

Date: 2008/01/05 18:42:41, Link
Author: Maya
While we're on the LolCats, the classic:


My favorite:


And my own creation:


LolDembski!

Date: 2008/01/05 20:00:02, Link
Author: Maya
Quote
Hi Maya,

Enjoy.

A whole thread of 'em, some of them a riot.


I feel so 2007.   :p

Who's the balding younger guy?

Date: 2008/01/06 09:51:55, Link
Author: Maya
Quote
That would be Slimy Sal.

(Check out the "Young Cosmos" thread for more details)


Darn, I thought I could look forward to Dembski and crew being retired or more permanently out of the picture in my lifetime.  I guess I'll have to settle for their movement being completely irrelevant.

Hey, my wait is over!

Date: 2008/01/11 17:26:45, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Jan. 11 2008,13:34)
Annyday:
 
Quote
Searle's Chinese room demonstrates the first point fairly persuasively

It does no such thing. It uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand to misdirect one's attention from what is at issue.

The question is does the system as a whole, the Turing machine, understand Chinese?

It is stipulated in the thought experiment that any utterance in Chinese can be the input and that the system makes coherent replies in Chinese.

What other operational definition for "understands Chinese" is there?

Quote
It is stipulated in the thought experiment that any utterance in Chinese can be the input and that the system makes coherent replies in Chinese.

What other operational definition for "understands Chinese" is there?


How about "'Understanding Chinese' means that one entity forms a model corresponding to the concepts specified in the utterance that is at least somewhat analogous to the model being used by the other entity when forming the utterance.  The receiving entity responds to that utterance by creating a new model based on the entity's previous state and the model from the utterance."

Okay, it's ugly and requires intrusive brain (or software) probes -- does that disqualify it from being operational?

Date: 2008/01/28 11:26:05, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (PTET @ Jan. 28 2008,10:43)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 28 2008,09:47)
I'm picturing the statue looking more like the Army of Darkness poster, with Bill standing there with his shirt torn, and Denyse clutching his leg.



Ahem.

Don't you hate that feeling of vomit rising just to the top of your throat and having to swallow it back down?

Date: 2008/01/28 16:07:50, Link
Author: Maya
[quote=Richardthughes,Jan. 28 2008,15:46]
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 28 2008,15:26)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 28 2008,18:42)
 
I am terribly sorry, Louis, that British cuisine is so poor.  I am really quite sad that wrapping it in newsprint actually improves the flavor.  I am truly disconsolate that Jamie Oliver got his mockney arse whooped by American Mario Batali on Iron Chef.

Better?

Jamie Oliver is a thick-tounged twat.

Gordon Ramsey, on the other hand, twats your Merrycan burger flippers all over the shop.

Very true, but Gordon is Scottish.  That's closer to American than English.  It also explains why he looks yummy.

Date: 2008/01/28 16:10:08, Link
Author: Maya
Sorry about the misquoting and generally poor format.  I don't know what came over me....

Date: 2008/01/28 16:47:27, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 28 2008,16:12)
Quote (Maya @ Jan. 28 2008,16:07)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2008,15:46)
Gordon Ramsey, on the other hand, twats your Merrycan burger flippers all over the shop.

Very true, but Gordon is Scottish.  That's closer to American than English.  It also explains why he looks yummy.

*Peaks out from behind Maya's skirt*

Ha ha!!!! Take that, Richard Hughes!!!

This skirt ain't big enough for the both of us.

Date: 2008/02/03 13:40:44, Link
Author: Maya
StephenB writes (on UD):
Quote
My experience has been that ID critics are given a lot of room to criticize on this blog.

Wow.  Just . . . wow.

Date: 2008/02/12 09:21:25, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 12 2008,09:04)
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 12 2008,09:47)
Not content with being a mere Isaac Newton of information theory, Bill Dembski photoshops himself onto the picture of the 1927 Solvay Congress alongside Einstein, Bohr, Planck and the like.  No farting noises this time.


The wish-fulfillment in this pic is both touching and pathetic. Mostly pathetic.

That's only touching in the sense of "Point to the doll to show where the bad man touched you."

Date: 2008/02/12 10:01:53, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 12 2008,09:27)
Quote (Maya @ Feb. 12 2008,09:21)
That's only touching in the sense of "Point to the doll to show where the bad man touched you."

Maya - That was beautiful.  I have tears in my eyes, and lust in my heart for you now.

You guys have that lust center located very close to the humor center in your brains.   :p

Date: 2008/02/12 11:07:32, Link
Author: Maya
Leaving aside J-Dog's low hanging humor center, isn't this a copyright violation?  Or is the picture in the public domain?

Date: 2008/02/12 11:18:28, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 12 2008,11:10)
Quote (Maya @ Feb. 12 2008,11:07)
Leaving aside J-Dog's low hanging humor center, isn't this a copyright violation?  Or is the picture in the public domain?

Like much of William Dembski's output, I think this would fall under the category of "parody" and thus be fair use.

Does the definition of parody include grossly insulting the real scientists in the original picture?  If any of those were my relatives, I would be irked.  Actually, I am irked!

Date: 2008/03/06 15:42:00, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Mar. 06 2008,14:53)
Quote
Sal: “Peter was admonishing believing wives that the best way to convert an unbelieving husband was to keep quiet and refrain from their natural tendency to preach and lecture others on how to run their lives.”


Quote
Rzeppa: "Of course he was. Because it’s not the wife’s job to “lecture her husband on how to run his life”. The place of a wife in the God-given hierarchy of human relations in helpful submission to her husband."


No comment necessary.

If and when I marry, I'll be glad to help my husband learn submission.  And to think I considered all those nice ID boys to be misogynists....

Date: 2008/03/23 08:24:41, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 22 2008,20:04)
Oh, I am certain that the "Expelled" producers do *not* want to wind up in court somehow about these things, where the discovery process comes with subpoena power. Remember how much embarrassing stuff about IDC advocates came out at the Dover trial? That would be picayune compared to the motherlode of humiliation that could happen in the (very unlikely, I think) event that somehow the "Expelled" producers manage to leave themselves open for a lawsuit.

Wait, there is that issue of copyright infringement... I might have to update the odds.

Does anyone have an update about the copyright issue?  Does Expelled actually contain footage from Inner Life?  Does Harvard know?  Did Mathis, Stein, and buddies have permission to do so?

It's probably moot anyway.  What are the odds that Harvard would have enough lawyers to successfully shutdown a blockbuster like Expelled?

Date: 2008/04/03 07:01:33, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 02 2008,16:52)
Has anybody ever not unseen god?

Is any science complete?

Why wont scientists accept "no evidence"?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/culture....-amazon

The whole thread is a rich vein of Tard, including 6k Sal calling someone else a Tard.

The Young Cosmos website requires you to login to post comments, but provides no way to register for an account.  It's almost as if none of the ID proponents want open discussion of their ideas.

Date: 2008/04/03 10:58:57, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 03 2008,10:16)
When Young Cosmos opened myself and a few other regulars here registered and started pointing out the battleship sized holes in his claims and asking Sal tough questions he couldn't answer.  His response was to delete those posts, ban the posters, and change YC into a registration by invitation only board.  

Can anyone say "Expelled"?    ;)

I'm starting to see why so many of you spend so much time mocking these people.  Not only are they a political threat to quality education, they're infuriatingly dishonest and hypocritical.

Must study.  Mellow.  Mellow.  Find my quiet place.

Date: 2008/04/10 12:24:02, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 10 2008,11:02)
jstanely01 is A Ladies Man


 
Quote
I double checked, and the “intention” proofreader error is also on the sourced website, ERV. It’s a site run by the same grad-student hack who got her panties in a bunch back in November over Dr. Dembski’s use of the Harvard video.


My bolding of course.  I wonder if he typed that one handed.  And these are the folks we are supposed to be f**ming for?

Hey, I use that phrase.  Two-handed, even.

What's scarily interesting to me is that the conversation on that thread is now about whether or not Allen MacNeil believes in a "transcendent" moral code.  I must have missed the part where TRoutMac explained why it's okay to steal from non-believers.

Oh, wait, it's because we're not human.  I forget that sometimes.

Date: 2008/04/10 17:35:10, Link
Author: Maya
Quote

82
poachy
04/10/2008
4:19 pm
Were you this offended when Judge Jones was caught plagiarizing some 90% of his science “opinion” straight from an ACLU brief?

Well, if this goes to court, maybe this time we’ll get a solidly conservative judge appointed by President Bush, rather than some ACLU loving liberal.


 
Quote
90
poachy
04/10/2008
5:02 pm
I wrote before that I thought this was an example of people with marketing degrees baiting people with science degrees into making big PR blunders.

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


Poachy, sweetie, you've gone OTT.

Date: 2008/04/10 17:39:51, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Maya @ April 10 2008,17:35)
Quote

82
poachy
04/10/2008
4:19 pm
Were you this offended when Judge Jones was caught plagiarizing some 90% of his science “opinion” straight from an ACLU brief?

Well, if this goes to court, maybe this time we’ll get a solidly conservative judge appointed by President Bush, rather than some ACLU loving liberal.


 
Quote
90
poachy
04/10/2008
5:02 pm
I wrote before that I thought this was an example of people with marketing degrees baiting people with science degrees into making big PR blunders.

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


Poachy, sweetie, you've gone OTT.

Darn it, these two were already pointed out on the UD thread.

I'll take the short bus home.

Date: 2008/04/11 06:23:05, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (dogdidit @ April 10 2008,21:32)
Quote (Maya @ April 10 2008,17:39)

I'll take the short bus home.

Man that is soooo sig block material.  :D

Meh, later. Don't know each other, really. First date kinda thing. Save it for later maybe.

That's cool.  I don't want to be your rebound sig.  I can see you're still not over your last one.

Date: 2008/04/11 10:19:35, Link
Author: Maya
Quote
59
Frost122585
04/11/2008
12:27 am
Someone needs to explain to me how they get video of Meyers, Dawkins and all the Darwinian materialists saying all this stuff. I mean did Ben just go right up to them and say “hi were doing a movie called Expelled (no intelligence allowed) and its about exposing your side for the psychopaths that you are. Just for the movie’s sake can you please give us your side of the argument as blatantly and as vile as you can possibly say it?

And then they set up the HD cameras?

From what I have seen that they have captured on tape, this movie is gold.

Hmm.  Maybe they lied?

Date: 2008/04/13 10:47:52, Link
Author: Maya
Quote
DaveScot:
This is why Harvard won’t ever take Premise to court over it. For one Premise can fight back and because Premise hired an independent artist to develop a replica there’s little chance of winning a copyright infringement suit. Second, even if Harvard did win a suit they couldn’t show any damages because they don’t sell the video and let many others use it freely without permission or protest.

DaveScot's poor understanding of copyright law aside, after the spectacular success of his last prediction:

Quote
Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies.

it seems that we can look forward to seeing Harvard crush Premise in court.

I'll start the popcorn.

Date: 2008/04/14 21:37:40, Link
Author: Maya
Here's mine, in case it gets censored (not an issue on any non-creationist blogs, oddly enough):

Quote
There was a screenwriter named Miller,
who thought he'd create the next thriller,
with Nazis and theft,
his claims were bereft
of honesty.  He's just a libeler.

Date: 2008/04/14 21:51:32, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Maya @ April 14 2008,21:37)
Here's mine, in case it gets censored (not an issue on any non-creationist blogs, oddly enough):

 
Quote
There was a screenwriter named Miller,
who thought he'd create the next thriller,
with Nazis and theft,
his claims were bereft
of honesty.  He's just a libeler.

Yes, yes, the last line doesn't scan well.  It beats my original version of "He's just another ignorant, lying creationist."

Date: 2008/04/15 07:07:27, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 15 2008,00:33)
riff on Maya,

There was a screenwriter named Miller,
who thought he'd create the next thriller,
with Nazis and fraud
he is a lying sod
who traded Darwin for Hitler

Evolve it, baby!   :D

Date: 2008/04/15 13:05:37, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ April 15 2008,11:58)
ERV, I LOVE it when you talk dirty :-)

ERV should, of course, express herself as she wishes, but there is still latent bias against women in most industries, so she does us a disservice.  We have to live up to the same standards as men.  How often do we hear that kind of language from our generally larger, hairier colleagues?

Oh.  Wait.  Never fucking mind.

Date: 2008/04/20 16:01:51, Link
Author: Maya
And the pair keeps growing:
Quote
Comparing the wholesale slaughter of many millions of people to perhaps hundreds of people losing their jobs trivializes the former in a lame to attempt to elevate the latter.

How does someone with so little respect for free speech that he happily plays censor to protect an ideology that can't stand any criticism end up sounding like a decent human being?

The sock is wearing thin, are we about to see the hand up DaveScot's butt?

Date: 2008/04/24 17:12:55, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 24 2008,17:06)
Quote (dogdidit @ April 24 2008,16:39)
The moderator war between Creobot DLH and Double Secret Agent DaveScot is the "self-licking ice cream cone".

Thanks ever so much for the image of DaveScot licking himself.  I think I shall now be sick.

"I just threw up in my mouth a little bit."

Yes, I watched Dodgeball.  I wanted to.  Really.  The cuteness of the guy I watched it with had nothing to do with it.  Honest.

Date: 2008/04/26 11:55:02, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (blipey @ April 26 2008,11:04)
Paul Nelson offers to answer all comers; makes me wish I could come:

Ask a Tard a Question

Nelson:
 
Quote
Yup — we’re answering questions about Expelled in a chapel. With a big cross on it.


That should clear things up.

The whole thing deserves to be reproduced:
Quote
I went down to the demonstration
to get my fair share of abuse

– The Rolling Stones, “You Can’t Always Get Want You Want”

"Fair use" of classic British rock seems to be the new meme in the IDC community.
Quote
But you might just get what you need, if you’ve got a burning question or two about the Expelled controversies. Darwin-to-Hitler, doesn’t Sternberg still have his Smithsonian position, the Pepperdine students were extras, the cell animation is plagiarized, Dawkins and P.Z. Myers and all the rest were tricked into granting interviews, Darwin’s Descent of Man was quote-mined, why didn’t Ben Stein just use Google Maps to find the Discovery Institute, ID is religious ’cause Expelled admits it, Yoko Ono is suing…whatevah.

This summary is the most honesty I've seen displayed by anyone associated with Expelled.  What more is there for them to say but "Well, yes."?
Quote
Bring Your Questions for Profs. John Bloom, Mike Keas and Paul Nelson
Monday, April 28
7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Calvary Chapel
Biola University
FREE

Yup — we’re answering questions about Expelled in a chapel. With a big cross on it.

I'm looking forward to the trip report from anyone in the area.

Date: 2008/04/26 12:32:18, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (blipey @ April 26 2008,12:04)
Well, in all, ahem, honesty, I don't think they were being honest.  I believe that is the list of accusations they're saying they will address.

Really?  *gazes round-eyed at blipey*

Date: 2008/04/27 10:56:27, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 27 2008,10:44)
It's gone quiet here, all of a sudden.  Was it something I said?

It's that inscrutable British humor.  I certainly don't understand your last blipey comment.

(Okay, so British humor isn't really inscrutable to anyone who has ever used a toilet, but I'm being nice.)

Date: 2008/04/27 19:11:52, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (k.e.. @ April 27 2008,11:01)
Quote (Bob O'H @ April 27 2008,18:44)
It's gone quiet here, all of a sudden.  Was it something I said?

Louis farted

k.e. is English?

Date: 2008/05/12 16:51:54, Link
Author: Maya
I felt guilty for all of you risking your minds while I sat here partaking of safely filtered tard, so I braved UD myself and returned with this coprolite:
Quote
Vladimir Krondan
Quote
JDH
I have always considered the best question to ask an evolutionist is… “Given what we know NOW - NOT what might become known in the future - does your observations of the world favor design or chance as the reason for what we see.”

Questions involving observations of the present are fatal to Darwinism. Along this theme, we can ask, “given what we know NOW about the population of dogs in my neighbourhood, what is the most fit dog?” There’s no way to answer that.

Now I'm wracking my brain to figure out what transformation yields "Sock Puppet" from "Vladimir Krondan".

Date: 2008/05/14 07:49:56, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Quidam @ May 13 2008,20:09)
As distinct from the Noctilio steinoramus, which emits a repetitive monotone whine until his prey collapses from brain atrophy.


Clearly you pinned that bat to a tree it wouldn't normally rest on, you sneaky evilutionist!

Date: 2008/05/14 15:21:32, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Quidam @ May 14 2008,09:57)
Quote (Maya @ May 14 2008,06:49)
Clearly you pinned that bat to a tree it wouldn't normally rest on, you sneaky evilutionist!

Noctilio steinoramus would have to be . . . screwed to stay there.

Eeewww.
Quote
These pass largely unchanged through its digestive system and are subsequently consumed by Caenorhabditis cdesignproponentists.

Double eeewww.

;-)

Date: 2008/05/25 10:16:36, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 24 2008,18:17)
Here's the deal regarding neutral venues. Whenever I've shown up, Dave has retreated tactically withdrawn. It must be a Marine thing. He's too yellow to show up at Alan's place.

I challenged DaveScot to debate me in a neutral venue after being banned from Uncommon Descent last December:  http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/47a6ab72f0dc0bf1?dmode=source

The big bad marine is afraid of a little first year grad student.  Completely intellectually gutless.

Date: 2008/06/07 09:16:54, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 07 2008,08:32)
I've taken a break from monitoring the tard.  (Travel, projects, etc.)  I'm not missing it.

I can quit whenever I want.

Date: 2008/06/09 08:41:44, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (k.e.. @ June 09 2008,08:03)
Quote (CeilingCat @ June 09 2008,11:53)
"I suppose this is one of the reasons ID is despised — it rips to shreds evolution’s religious pretensions," says leading ID intellectual William A. Dembski, from his office at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Or that mater spanked him within an inch of her white frilly tight garters and over the top lace and iron bustier for him spying on her and hisself's atheist professor/swami hairy competitor.

Uncle Billy's Freudian nightmares continue to haunt his re-entry into mother Gia.

Next he will be melting into some sort of DaveTard induced chain sawing of Greenland's new age Inuit mushroom ranches.

I'm notifying the media that Thomas Pynchon has surfaced....

Date: 2008/06/09 08:54:57, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (k.e.. @ June 09 2008,08:47)
Quote (Maya @ June 09 2008,16:41)
Quote (k.e.. @ June 09 2008,08:03)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ June 09 2008,11:53)
"I suppose this is one of the reasons ID is despised — it rips to shreds evolution’s religious pretensions," says leading ID intellectual William A. Dembski, from his office at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Or that mater spanked him within an inch of her white frilly tight garters and over the top lace and iron bustier for him spying on her and hisself's atheist professor/swami hairy competitor.

Uncle Billy's Freudian nightmares continue to haunt his re-entry into mother Gia.

Next he will be melting into some sort of DaveTard induced chain sawing of Greenland's new age Inuit mushroom ranches.

I'm notifying the media that Thomas Pynchon has surfaced....

I love a good pinching.

How long can you go before surfacing?

Date: 2008/06/15 19:34:48, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (olegt @ June 15 2008,14:09)
Deep thoughts from gpuccio:
 
Quote
Unfortunately, we have not a quantitative model for beauty, [bold]as we have for CSI.[/bold] In a sense, beauty could be considered a special kind of functional specification, a special kind of meaning and of conscious recognition. The simplest quantitative aspect of beauty in art and nature of which I am aware is the widespread presence of the golden ratio both in works of art and in biological beings.

There's a quantitative model of CSI?  Has anyone seen this?

Date: 2008/06/17 07:55:18, Link
Author: Maya
I love Poachy:
 
Quote
 
Quote
Will anyone who knows anything about ID ever be given a chance to cross examine Barbara Forrest in a public forum.

Well, somebody other than those yahoos from the Thomas More Law Center. Why they didn’t consult with an ID thinker, in order to devise a strategy to back her into a tight spot and then turn the screws, is beyond comprehension.Will anyone who knows anything about ID ever be given a chance to cross examine Barbara Forrest in a public forum.

Well, somebody other than those yahoos from the Thomas More Law Center. Why they didn’t consult with an ID thinker, in order to devise a strategy to back her into a tight spot and then turn the screws, is beyond comprehension.

Charlie, on the other hand, nearly made my brain melt:
 
Quote
Hi Poachy,
Cute vise reference.
Try it with a little honesty next time.

So few words, so much hypocrisy.

Date: 2008/06/17 07:56:59, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Maya @ June 17 2008,07:55)

Yes, I messed up the quote text, but I haz no editz.

Date: 2008/06/17 10:34:45, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (dogdidit @ June 17 2008,09:53)
Whoops! Bad news for the fan club: poachy joins the honor roll:  
Quote
3
DaveScot
06/17/2008
9:22 am

By popular demand poachy is no longer with us.

Date: 2008/06/17 13:58:13, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (J-Dog @ June 17 2008,10:54)
It's a miracle!


Do I have to change my name to Cassandra?

Date: 2008/06/17 20:20:26, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (carlsonjok @ June 17 2008,17:37)
Oh, and about Poachy?

*raises hand sheepishly*

And here I was thinking I was getting all hot and bothered about J-Dog or k.e...

Date: 2008/06/19 07:17:20, Link
Author: Maya
DaveScot:
Quote
I CAN prove that the genetic code is structured almost exactly like Morse code. There is nothing in the natural world except for DNA that is like Morse code. Why? Because both were designed by intelligent agents. Only intelligent agents create abstraction layers (symbols or tokens which represent something else).

Only semi-intelligent agents create circular arguments.  (And I'd love to see the proof that DNA is isomorphic to Morse code.)

Date: 2008/06/19 15:04:34, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (JohnW @ June 19 2008,12:02)
-..  .-  ...-  .  ...  -.-.  ---  -    ..  ...    .-    .-.  .-  ...-  ..  -.  --.    ..-.  ..-  -.-.  -.-  .--  ..  -

- .... .- - .. ... .- -. .. -. ... ..- .-.. - - --- ..-. ..- -.-. -.- .-- .. - ... . ...- . .-. -.-- .-- .... . .-. .

Date: 2008/06/20 14:53:01, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 20 2008,09:49)
Behe displays foresight.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....ntified

From the original article:
Quote
To test this idea, the researchers exposed a population of E. coli to different temperatures and oxygen changes, and measured the gene responses in each case. The results were striking: An increase in temperature had nearly the same effect on the bacterium's genes as a decrease in oxygen level. Indeed, upon transition to a higher temperature, many of the genes essential for aerobic respiration were practically turned off.

To prove that this is not just genetic coincidence, the researchers then grew the bacteria in a biologically flipped environment where oxygen levels rose following an increase in temperature. Remarkably, within a few hundred generations the bugs partially adapted to this new regime, and no longer turned off the genes for aerobic respiration when the temperature rose.

"This reprogramming clearly indicates that shutting down aerobic respiration following a temperature increase is not essential to E. coli's survival," said Tavazoie. "On the contrary, it appears that the bacterium has "learned" this response by associating specific temperatures with specific oxygen levels over the course of its evolution."

Lacking a brain or even a primitive nervous system, how is a single-celled bacterium able to pull off this feat? While higher animals can learn new behavior within a single lifetime, bacterial learning takes place over many generations and on an evolutionary time scale, Tavazoie explained.

(Emphasis mine.)  So basically Dembski's sycophants are drawing unwarranted conclusions from the loose language of an associate professor attempting to present his findings to a lay audience.  It just goes to show that you can't dumb down the concepts enough for the UD crowd.

If anyone can still post there, it might be worth pointing out that what the research really shows is that bacteria have evolved optimizations that make them more more fit in their existing environment and that those optimizations are selected against in different environments.  I'd do it, but they don't want my help.

*sniff*  It's hard to be a giving person.

Date: 2008/06/27 07:41:22, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 27 2008,06:45)
Quote (stevestory @ June 27 2008,05:48)
But there will be trade-offs, just like with steroids. Maybe you'll get a hyper IQ, but you'll ... become friends with nonexistent people, ...

Watch it, buster.  There are a few friends of the girls on this board that might be a little put off by that statement.

I thought you were a figment of my imagination, Lou.

Date: 2008/06/29 18:03:51, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (stevestory @ June 29 2008,17:32)
I wonder if there's an easy way to do a word count on this thread. Seems like you'd have to turn off display of sigs, download the whole thing, then somehow clip anything between quote tags. I'm just curious how many words are contained in these 29,470 comments.

After applying the appropriate compression algorithm (text speak), there are two words:

OMFG!  LOL!

Date: 2008/07/05 18:17:06, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (stevestory @ July 05 2008,16:31)
Betta said (on the wrong thread):

 
Quote
You know, the thing is that I tried to E - Mail many of the moderators before (including Dembski among others) and my E - Mails never got through. I tried to E - Mail the uncommondescent legal services (or whatever that is) and it never got through either (they get bounced back). It could be the case that their E - Mail boxes are full.


I've gone to UD before in search of emails and not found a way to contact anybody there. It's weird. Anyone have an explanation for this?

I found william.dembski@iscid.org and wdembski@sbts.edu pretty easily, and I'm just a grad student in the biology department (send him my love when you write).  Surely some of you computer studs could do better.

I've got an ex-Marine friend who would love to, um, lecture DaveScot on the principles of the Corps.

Date: 2008/07/06 10:44:11, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 06 2008,02:21)
David Springer dropped a comment into the queue on my blog wishing me a fatal disease. That sort of thing is why I use a moderation queue for everything on my personal weblog.

Springer apparently thinks that wishing a fatal disease on me has some sort of parity with my comment that Jerry Pournelle should get well, and in doing so may find his otherwise inexplicable fondness for IDC to have been a side effect of his illness.

Was Dave really a Marine?  I've got to stop sharing comments from here with other people.  There's a just-under-six-foot, well-muscled guy pacing around muttering things like "Dirtbag" and "Disgrace."

It's sign of good health to be able to see the vein pulsing in his temple, right?

Date: 2008/07/09 09:12:41, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Ptaylor @ July 08 2008,19:10)
Quote
15 DaveScot

07/08/2008 6:17 pm

[font='Comic Sans MS']austin_english

Quote
We have gross models of gravity that permit us to predict trajectories of projectiles with considerable accuracy. Similarly, we have gross models of evoluton.


You really lost the plot there. NDE predicts nothing.

Um, tiktaalik?

Date: 2008/07/10 13:37:42, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 10 2008,13:25)
Dave has advocated violence against 'Darwinists' before:

   
Quote
I hope someone keeps track of the 11 parents and their children. Everyone in Dover knows damn well that no children were forced to listen to the 60 second announcement regarding evolution and intelligent design. So what you have is 11 parents whose religious hostility extended to such a trivial matter they were willing to make the tiny school district pay a million dollars.

I grew up in a small town and when a few people pull crap like that that hurts everyone there will be payback. I won't be at all surprised if the children of these parents are so badly ostracized and abused by other students that they're forced to find another school and the parents will be snubbed and insulted and their cars keyed and their coworkers and supervisors making their lives miserable that they'll all end up moving away.

I hope that's all tracked so that the next group of parents that gets their panties in a bunch and volunteers to the be the designated shitheads know what it's going to cost them.

Wow.  That takes "blame the victim" to a whole new level.

How about ostracizing and abusing the school board members who were really responsible for the costs to the district?  How about slapping* some sense into Dave, since he seems to think that violence is a good solution?

* No, I'm not so girly that I'd slap him.  I'm more the biting, scratching, eye-gouging, groin-kicking type.

Date: 2008/07/10 14:07:00, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 10 2008,13:40)
Quote (Maya @ July 10 2008,13:37)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 10 2008,13:25)
Dave has advocated violence against 'Darwinists' before:

     
Quote
I hope someone keeps track of the 11 parents and their children. Everyone in Dover knows damn well that no children were forced to listen to the 60 second announcement regarding evolution and intelligent design. So what you have is 11 parents whose religious hostility extended to such a trivial matter they were willing to make the tiny school district pay a million dollars.

I grew up in a small town and when a few people pull crap like that that hurts everyone there will be payback. I won't be at all surprised if the children of these parents are so badly ostracized and abused by other students that they're forced to find another school and the parents will be snubbed and insulted and their cars keyed and their coworkers and supervisors making their lives miserable that they'll all end up moving away.

I hope that's all tracked so that the next group of parents that gets their panties in a bunch and volunteers to the be the designated shitheads know what it's going to cost them.

Wow.  That takes "blame the victim" to a whole new level.

How about ostracizing and abusing the school board members who were really responsible for the costs to the district?  How about slapping* some sense into Dave, since he seems to think that violence is a good solution?

* No, I'm not so girly that I'd slap him.  I'm more the biting, scratching, eye-gouging, groin-kicking type.

Just threaten him with this:






He'll shit has pants (again)

The big, bad censor is afraid of clowns?

Date: 2008/07/10 16:24:09, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Ftk @ July 10 2008,15:36)
I think if you folks met them in a bar somewhere, you'd all have a great time together.  You need to cut them both some slack.

Does the gutless censor DaveScot actually go to places where he can't silence everyone who refutes his ridiculous nonsense?

If he takes me up on my offer to debate in a neutral on-line venue (I suggested talk.origins), I'll cut him some slack.  Until then he's proven himself to be gutless and unprincipled and deserves only derision.

Date: 2008/07/10 16:25:28, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (k.e.. @ July 10 2008,15:37)
Quote (Maya @ July 10 2008,22:07)
* No, I'm not so girly that I'd slap him.  I'm more the biting, scratching, eye-gouging, groin-kicking type.

My kinda girl...

...get your ass down to Mapouto Mozambique next week and I'l take you to Dar es Salaam Tanzania and Zanzibar for a decent spanking.

I knew when I was typing that PS that someone would enjoy it too much.  I was betting on J-Dog.

Date: 2008/07/10 16:39:04, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 10 2008,16:28)
Quote (Maya @ July 10 2008,16:24)
Quote (Ftk @ July 10 2008,15:36)
I think if you folks met them in a bar somewhere, you'd all have a great time together.  You need to cut them both some slack.

Does the gutless censor DaveScot actually go to places where he can't silence everyone who refutes his ridiculous nonsense?

If he takes me up on my offer to debate in a neutral on-line venue (I suggested talk.origins), I'll cut him some slack.  Until then he's proven himself to be gutless and unprincipled and deserves only derision.

Sadly, I have scared him away from many venues. I bait him and reel him in every time. It's easy, because I'm smarter than him.

Is it that easy?  If he shows up on this thread with that little baiting I'll have to revise my estimate of his intelligence down to the point where I'm forced to believe that his dog is using him as a sock puppet.

Date: 2008/07/10 19:08:49, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 10 2008,18:55)
Quote
The big, bad censor is afraid of clowns?

Dave may actually have a point here:


Are those clowns or drag queens gone bad?

Date: 2008/07/10 19:14:33, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 10 2008,17:01)
Dembski - first with yesterday's news!:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....ecrator

The first comment tied my brain in a knot:
Quote
Myers’ typical vitriol does not by definition equate Darwinism with atheism, but one will find no atheist taking the ID point of view.

Toc seems to be saying that since both religious and non-religious people accept the theory of evolution but only religious people support ID that means that the theory of evolution is an atheist conspiracy?

Date: 2008/07/11 20:05:45, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Benny H @ July 11 2008,15:14)
I'm curious about DaveScot's religious beliefs. It was my understanding that he was an agnostic, but his recent posts seem to me the words of a theist. Has he converted? Or perhaps he mistakenly believes non-denom theist and agnostic are the same thing.

He worships Our Lady of Gutlessness and Censorship.

Date: 2008/07/27 08:58:37, Link
Author: Maya
F2XL says that there is no censorship at UD:
Quote
Quote
I’m removing your feed from my newsreader since you censor postings. There is no free discourse.

Gee, wonder how your comment showed up in the first place, and why Bob’Oh still has posting privileges if that was really true.

Except when there is:
Quote
Quote
That’s why you censor readers postings, because you believe you always have the best answer.

No, postings are censored so people who are sympathetic of ID can have an oasis for free discussion that isn’t polluted by random trolls.

But really there isn't:
Quote
Quote
I suppose I could extrapolate that to the ID movement not being able to stand up to critical examination.

No you can’t since it was false to begin with, and even if it were true cannot automatically apply to every last person in the ID movement in such a different context.

F2XL, if you are reading this, here is the post that got me banned from UD.  Please point out the random trolling.

By the way, my challenge to DaveScot stands.  He's too much of an intellectual coward to take me up on it, though.

Date: 2008/07/27 15:12:40, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 27 2008,09:44)
Quote (Maya @ July 27 2008,09:58)
F2XL, if you are reading this, here is the post that got me banned from UD.  Please point out the random trolling.

Maya, your demise was sorely in need of memorialificationating. But that's been remedied.

ETA: link to entire thread,

Maya's first comment, and

Maya's boinking.

*blush*  Thanks!

PS:  As a rule I don't boink in public.

Date: 2008/07/28 07:46:04, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 28 2008,01:08)
Quote (Maya @ July 27 2008,13:12)
*blush*  Thanks!

PS:  As a rule I don't boink in public.

Hey! Public boinking will either make you rich, satisfied, or arrested. Or some combination of all three.

Satisfied and arrested I can see.  Rich?  Well, someone has a high opinion of himself....

Date: 2008/07/28 08:18:20, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 28 2008,07:49)
Maya, if you wish to talk to FFXL; http://patriotprodigy.blogspot.com/

Thanks, I sent him an email inviting him to respond to my post.

Date: 2008/07/28 13:09:11, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 28 2008,10:50)
Quote (dheddle @ July 28 2008,11:46)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 28 2008,10:03)
Are there any scientists left at UD?

I am reminded of a hilarious (I think by accident, not design) quote from JAD after a round of DaveScot banninations. He wrote something along the lines of "Is anyone still here?" It was just perfect. (I can't find it--Recip Bill?)

It happened here, coincidently following my one and only bannination from UD. That thread was a classic. And a banbath.

I'm glad to see I'm in such good company.  You, Karl, and Tom were also clearly vulgar trolls with nothing to contribute to the discussion.  Good riddance to the lot of you . . . er, us!

Date: 2008/07/28 14:10:54, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 28 2008,14:00)
if you feel like mining a thick seam of tard, the comments here will satisfy.  +2 points if you can figure out who I am.

I guess none of the above.  You're just pretending to have a sock puppet because you know the gutless wonder DaveScot reads every word here (since mere mention of his name gives him the same funny feelings as those National Geographic pictures) and you hope to send him on a banning binge.

I'm in that thread too, Dave.  Really.

Date: 2008/07/28 14:12:49, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Maya @ July 28 2008,14:10)

Darn, should've checked the link first.  Who here every links anywhere but UD?

Date: 2008/07/29 09:13:53, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (lcd @ July 29 2008,07:21)
Quote (Chayanov @ July 28 2008,23:49)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 28 2008,23:06)
 
Quote
What is at issue is telling kids, mine especially, tales that are "just so".


I've asked many Creationists this, and never gotten a coherent answer: how is saying "the Biblical account of creation is true because the Bible says so" not a 'just-so story'?

Because their pastor told them so.

Hehe, good one.

Actually, I can read.  I read what the Bible says on the subject.  As I trust in God, I trust in His Word.  That is the reason why I believe.

Modern evolutionary theory is based on empirical evidence.  It is no more appropriate to talk about "believing" in it than there is to talk about believing in gravity.

The fact that you can read your just-so stories yourself doesn't make them anything other than just-so stories.
Quote
I feel sorry for you if you don't or can't understand what a great feeling it is to know that God's love is with you when you follow His Word.

When you provide some empirical evidence for this "God" you speak of, then we can discuss its other attributes.

Date: 2008/07/30 08:22:02, Link
Author: Maya
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (lcd @ July 30 2008,07:53)
Here's something my first boss told me.  I really didn't like the man but he had a few pearls of wisdom.  "When your reality clashes with another's perception, don't think your reality means squat to that person."

In your reality, Gish and others are the liars.

In other people's perception, their reality, Evolutionists are.

For those of you who "want to teach", you certainly haven't been doing a very good job of that would be my perception.

Perception is not reality.  Investigate the statements of people like Gish and Dembski for yourself.  If you are honest and objective you will see that they are, in fact, liars.  Then learn some science and you'll see what dedication to eliminating error, real brutal truth, looks like.

Date: 2008/07/30 10:05:22, Link
Author: Maya
[quote=lcd,July 30 2008,09:04][/quote]
Quote
Again, the perception by many in the church is exactly what I have said.

Two sentences later:
Quote
Again, I am learning and I'm being completely honest in what many believe is going on in the "Ivory Towers, where reality is a curious thing to be ignored."

You're in a church claiming that reality is ignored elsewhere?

Doesn't it hurt to rip your brain in half like that?

Date: 2008/08/01 11:29:15, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 01 2008,10:01)
I don't understand what bfast wants to tell me:  
Quote
sparc, you are putting words into gpuccio’s mouth. You suggested that his claim that antibody generation is “engineered” is equivelant to saying that random variation is an intelligent process. This is a poor inference. If one can show that engineers use random processes than one can demonstrate that random processes are used by engineers. I would suggest that the random orbital sander is an excellent example of exactly that. As engineers clearly implement randomness as a component of their processes, when we see a “turn on random generator” phenomenon in nature, we can conclude that there is no inconsistency between nature and the metaphore of human-engineered technology.

bfast is just showing off that degree in Tautology he/she got on the six year plan.

Date: 2008/08/04 12:15:06, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 04 2008,08:03)
DaveScot responds:
   
Quote
Rita, please read this ID Defined

If you understand what ID is then you can answer these questions easily enough for yourself. I’m placing you in moderation for a while due to the rapidity of your comments. All your comments will require the approval of an admin before being posted. As long as they’re thoughtful and civil there won’t be any that aren’t posted. If they remain thoughtful and civil for a period of time I’ll lift the requirement for moderation.

and utterly fails to commit to a position or answer Rita's question in any way.

That's probably because he's a gutless insult to the Marine Corps he claims to have served.

I'm still waiting for him to respond to my challenge on talk.origins.  Too bad he's afraid of girls.  Maybe it would help if I dressed up like Blipey.

Date: 2008/08/04 15:06:50, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 04 2008,13:30)
Under his user name at UD, Cheesy Poof Boy hasn't ventured out of his yard for quite a while. He does seem to have a sadistic streak towards females and tried threatening Kristine not all that long ago.

I didn't know about that or I wouldn't have joked about him being scared of girls.

I'm not joking about him being gutless, though.

Date: 2008/08/05 12:24:18, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Aug. 05 2008,12:08)
Quote (Marion Delgado @ Aug. 05 2008,01:15)
If it weren't for banned luck, they'd have no luck at all.

gloom despair and agony on me!


how stupid am I if I don't even slightly get this?

You must be suffering from deep, dark depression and excessive misery.

Date: 2008/08/07 08:50:22, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 07 2008,07:02)
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 07 2008,00:35)
Text questions at Second Baptist Houston

According to a quick TagCrowd counting the christian god in its (his, her?) different forms appears 89 times in the questions (god (70) jesus (12) christ (7)) although ID doesn't say anything about the nature of the designer.

Quote
QUESTION: Is there anything we as a church could do to change text books being taught in public schools?


Bottom line.

No answers.  Typical of ID.

If the megachurch is so high tech, are there recordings of this available?

Date: 2008/08/07 13:47:45, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 07 2008,11:40)
I often wonder where the female contributions are to this batshit idiocy.

You've answered your own question.

Date: 2008/08/07 14:35:33, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 07 2008,14:03)
It seems to me that at 1st approximation, there is no reason why an avowed cultural movement should not have more or less equal sex ratios.

I was thinking more along the lines of psychological explanations.  I know there are tons of female bloggers.  I know (good point Steve, always worth emphasizing in this sort of discussion) that there are many more women involved (at least on this site) in blogging than what you might infer from a scan of the web handles of frequent commenters at this site.

But it seems the meme of victim of oppression probably says a lot for the UD crowd.  Could it be that they really are the eunuchs in mommies basement that we crack jokes about?

i think they might be.  i can't imagine any self respecting woman tolerating that sort of stupidity as is displayed at UD, given the assumption that it spills over into the private life of commenters.

I think you have two assumptions I question.  The first is that women behave rationally when it comes to their love life.  I have friends who substitute wishful thinking and hormones for rational thought in that one area of their lives.  (Being raised with all brothers vaccinated me against the idea that "All they need is a good woman.")

The second is that women in the fundamentalist culture are self respecting.  Who with any self respect puts up with that patriarchal bull. . . er, rich organic matter?

I will agree with you that DaveScot is a wimpy momma's boy, though.

Date: 2008/08/07 15:21:42, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 07 2008,14:48)
i don't buy the popular idea that within fundamental groups that women are relegated to the back burner.  it's contrary to my experiences with both sides of my family and many other families i know.

very often women run the house and family and do all the work inside, and for other reasons they find this satisfying.  this mostly occurs at a level that is invisible to outsiders....  example my mother had five sisters and two brothers.  those women still run the show.  always have.  but they pay lip service to my two uncles about family matters, propping up the 'patriarchy' that is a patriarchy in name only.

again, I'd argue that they are holding the reins.  in these families men 'make' the big decisions, but the spectrum of options is not of their own making, it is carefully crafted by the females in their lives (and external imperatives).  it's rather easy for me to understand how one can maintain 'self-respect' and participate in this sort of system.

I'll buy that, even if I couldn't put up with it myself.  That would still keep the women less publicly visible, though.  Maybe that contributes to the demographics of UD.

Then again, maybe we are smarter.   :D

Date: 2008/08/07 16:01:28, Link
Author: Maya
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 07 2008,15:37)
I make it sound nice, but it was a total pain in the arse and caused me to miss an infinitely more pleasant dinner date in Scotland.

*Looks at foie gras in one hand, haggis in the other, and Louis very strangely.*

Date: 2008/08/07 16:12:03, Link
Author: Maya
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 07 2008,16:04)
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 07 2008,14:01)
 
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 07 2008,15:37)
I make it sound nice, but it was a total pain in the arse and caused me to miss an infinitely more pleasant dinner date in Scotland.

*Looks at foie gras in one hand, haggis in the other, and Louis very strangely.*

Haggis. You wish.


I thought those were a joke.  Must gag now.

Date: 2008/08/08 08:06:48, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (lcd @ Aug. 08 2008,07:02)
I just want to share with you a few things.
. . .

Okay, who let an actually human being in here to mess with our stereotypes?

Seriously, that was well-written and appears genuine.  Please take my response in the courteous vein I intend it.
Quote
1:  I have noted with considerable distress that the science is mostly from non creationist sources.

With respect, the science is entirely from non-creationist sources.  There is no scientific theory of creationism, including the Intelligent Design variation.  This is one of the major issues I have with ID proponents -- they are lying when they claim to be doing science.

Please note that I don't include everyone who supports ID in that statement, only those with the background to know better.  That definitely includes the "leading lights" like Dembski and Wells.
Quote
2:  ID is a big tent that I fear has many issues, notably keeping many different faiths tied in under the guise of, "We don't need to know (wink, wink) who the designer is".

That's an insightful observation and even more evidence that ID is a religious, not scientific, pursuit.
Quote
1:  I've told more than a few friends who are also YEC or YEC leaning about this site.  A few have taken a look.  None really want to expose themselves here.

That's too bad.  I hear some of the boys here like that sort of thing. :D
Quote
A few of you are nice, thanks for the support Jeff, and many are very informative.  Still even some of you who have the good info come at others like a ton of bricks.  It is hard to listen to someone when they are being rude.

That's a fair point.  From my point of view, it's hard to listen to someone when they clearly don't understand the science they claim supports their view and are really grasping at any straw to support their pre-conceived, immutable beliefs.  After explaining the flaws in every single argument used by creationists, often repeatedly to the same person, frustration does set in.

Intelligent Design is not science.  It is just the new face of creationism.  If the people pushing it get their way, they will destroy science education in this country.  That must be prevented.

Date: 2008/08/08 16:24:27, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Gunthernacus @ Aug. 08 2008,15:24)
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 07 2008,09:50)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 07 2008,07:02)
 
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 07 2008,00:35)
Text questions at Second Baptist Houston

According to a quick TagCrowd counting the christian god in its (his, her?) different forms appears 89 times in the questions (god (70) jesus (12) christ (7)) although ID doesn't say anything about the nature of the designer.

   
Quote
QUESTION: Is there anything we as a church could do to change text books being taught in public schools?


Bottom line.

No answers.  Typical of ID.

If the megachurch is so high tech, are there recordings of this available?

Still no answers posted, or curiosity about the answers.  Crandaddy is curious as to how Dr.Dr. could answer all of the questions - but not curious as to the actual answers.

Here is a page with links to the audio and video (with audio) of the Q & A.  Maybe the good Dr.Dr. will add these links to his blog?

I really appreciate you sharing this, but you should really put up warning signs.  "CAUTION:  Pure, uncut tard, straight from the source!"  I've downloaded the files, but I'm a little scared to open them.

Hopefully there's something ring-tone worthy in there.

Date: 2008/08/09 12:02:52, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 09 2008,10:49)
POTW!

In this case meaning Pwn Of The Week!

Date: 2008/08/09 23:17:29, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 09 2008,05:58)
Quote
DaveScot is in is almost-reasonable mode


My theory is that one of those parasitic wasps that take over the nervous system of its prey species, has crawled up Dave's hinder parts and periodically assumes control of his brain, thus short circuiting - temporarily - the flow of Tard and making Dave appear reasonable. I could be wrong though ;)

I suspect you're close, but what makes you think it crawled there of its own volition?

Humpty Dumpty was pushed . . . .

Date: 2008/08/11 07:00:47, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (lcd @ Aug. 10 2008,19:41)
From here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....omments

I hope that it clears soon.

From the first post in that thread:
Quote
I’ve had some pretty serious thoughts lately on what it would be like if I chose to write a series of books on ID. I’m thinking along the lines of (1) an intro and history to the movement, (2) then one that details the evidence in physics, astronomy, and properties of matter, (3) after that one on biological evidences, (4) then one on ethics and philosophy, (5) and finally a complete day by day word by word analysis of the Dover/Kitzmiller case, one that’s a bit more elaborate then Traipsing Into Evolution.

Book 1 is Creationism's Trojan Horse by Barbara Forrest.  Books 2 and 3 are already available at most chain book and stationary stores in a variety of bindings enclosing blank pages.  Books 4 and 5 remind me of the phrase repeated here so often:  "All science so far!"

Date: 2008/08/11 09:49:10, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (lcd @ Aug. 11 2008,09:45)
Quote (ERV @ Aug. 11 2008,09:11)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 11 2008,07:05)
No need to wait, lcd.  They've already got one.

That's the one with the transitional fossil in it, and that fossil succinctly, eloquently, and unequivocally should tell you all you need to know about the "science" of Intelligent Design.

No, they have two textbooks.  Dont forget Dembski @ Co. are bumbling thieves, as well as lying sacks of shit.

And of course you have evidence to back that up or is that your belief?

I ask as if one is going to actually claim something, one should have the evidence.

Did you follow the link?

Date: 2008/08/11 12:43:48, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 11 2008,12:35)
And here's Abbie's post where she busted his ass.

Wow.  I want to introduce ERV to my brothers.  All they need is a good woman....

Date: 2008/08/11 13:51:22, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 11 2008,13:32)
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 11 2008,13:13)
lcd  
Quote
To any UD proponent.  Is this true?  Did Dr. Dembski actually misuse someone else's work for his own profit?

You better don't ask this question at UD.

Good luck with that!  :p

The gutless censor DaveScot tries to pre-empt such a question with some clever (for him, not for your average three-year-old) misdirection:
Quote
P.S. I’m banned on AfterTheBarCloses so I can’t respond there but I read the accusations about stolen materials. Ask them where a court found a violation of “fair use” in any of it. There won’t be any affirmative answers forthcoming. They made a huge stink about it but in all cases where a court was asked to decide the matter the court found that “fair use” had not been violated. Be prepared to be verbally assaulted by them for asking pointed questions instead of uncritically accepting everything they say.

lcd, what DaveScot is referring to is the use of part of Inner Life in Expelled.  It was replaced with a poorly done, clear imitation.

This is unrelated to the incidents covered by ERV where Dembski clearly and unambiguously lied about his knowledge of the source of the video.  You don't need a court decision to see the level of his ethical standards.

And since Davey has admitted to reading this site, I reiterate my challenge to debate in an open, online venue.  I suggest talk.origins, but any place where he and his fellow intellectual cowards can't censor people for asking questions he can't answer is acceptable.

Date: 2008/08/11 14:09:08, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 11 2008,13:59)
careful maya he might threaten to disable your blog.  

cause, uh, he's done that before.  hence his bannination.

You know, on the whole you guys come across as a bright bunch, but taking a hacking threat from Davey seriously?  That's a big compliment to someone who shows dull normal intelligence on a good day.

Date: 2008/08/11 21:28:37, Link
Author: Maya
Davey is hanging on our every word here:
Quote
Message for “Maya”: Yeah, that’s a pretty weak excuse for banning me but the incident is true. I was madder than a wet hen over having my comments “disemvoweled” and had enough beer in me to put Steve Story under the table and I made a veiled threat to disrupt the commentary. Even I didn’t believe it the next day. I had in mind using an anonymizer to get my comments through under a plethora of handles which is something even a person of dull normal intelligence on a good day can do. So sue me. In regard to your demand that I debate you in a neutral forum I’ll do that right after Barbara Forrest agrees to debate Bill Dembski in a neutral forum. Be a sweetheart and see what you can do to encourage her.

Be a sweetheart and grow a pair.  You censored me and lied about the reason.  Now you're showing yourself to be to scared to discuss the topic in a venue you don't control.  Are you that afraid of being proven wrong?  You should be.

You can continue to be a coward, pretending to be part of a "movement" while in reality hiding from anyone who might actually prove your position wrong, or you can start earning some respect by engaging in real debate with real people.  It's your choice, but don't lie to yourself.  You know you're acting gutless.
Quote
And as far as how I feel about women watch this video and listen at 45 seconds into it.

Are you referring to the farting noise, that reminds you of the object of your sycophancy, or the predilection for prostitutes?

Face it, Davey, you've proven yourself to be a beta male, willing to do anything to ingratiate yourself with those you see as alpha like Dembski and O'Leary.  You don't have the minimal courage and self-confidence it takes to participate in an open debate.  All you can do is mock women and censor people who's arguments you cannot possibly address.

You are worthless and weak -- a disgrace to the Marine Corps.





Date: 2008/08/11 21:38:03, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 11 2008,21:28)

Sorry, forgot the link.

Date: 2008/08/12 08:49:48, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 11 2008,23:37)
Message for Maya:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-top....-293935

 
Quote
8

DaveScot

08/11/2008

11:23 pm
Message for Maya.

Ok, let’s talk about guts. We’ll do a one on one via email. You must use your real verifiable name as will I. I want what you say to be endorsed by you under your actual name for all posterity. I of course will do the same. Everyone knows my real name anyhow so that’s no skin off my nose. Are you brave enough to put a real name behind your noise? I doubt it but surprise me. So no one bothers us we’ll conduct it in email and agree that we may each publish the full exchange when either or both of us deem it ended and not before. We each agree that there will be no blind copies and one each CC’d who remain silent chaperones (Bill Dembski and Wesley Elsberry should work out and be agreeable should we agree).

Take or leave it, braveheart.

Does anyone else think Davey is acting like a pre-teen girl, reading here but posting in his own area where I'm not allowed?  "You tell Maya I'm not her friend anymore."

Maya is my real name, Davey, but you're not getting a last name and personal email address that easily.  Try flowers first.  There are some real freaks on the internet who think that women should be dealt with via flatulence and discussions of prostitution.  A girl's gotta take measures.

Your email suggestion just proves your cowardice again.  What the heck are you scared of?  If you think you have real arguments, put them up in public.  They'll stand or fail on their own.

For the record, here's the frightening response to you that got me banned from UD (your words in the appropriate font):

 
Quote
 
Quote
ID predicts that no evolution of complex structures will occur by chance & necessity within the temporal and geographical constraints imposed by the earth due to the statistical improbabilities involved.

What is the ID theory that predicts this?  The reason I ask is the following statement from a senior member of the Discovery Institute, Paul Nelson:
"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a problem."
 
Quote
ID can be falsified by the observation of a single complex structure built by mechanisms of chance & necessity.

What, exactly, constitutes a "complex structure"?  Michael Behe has admitted that a new viral protein-viral protein binding site has evolved in HIV.  This resulted in new function (an ion channel), a form of complexity that Behe claimed was beyond the "Edge of Evolution".  That falsifies your prediction.
 
Quote
This prediction appears to have been confirmed by the observation of P.falciparum over the last 50 years during which time it replicated billions of trillions of times, which represents more opportunities for mutation than the entire sequence of reptile-to-mammal evolution, and nothing beyond trivial changes were observed.

Could you please provide a cite with more details?  For example, how was this experiment performed?  By whom?  What selection pressures were the populations subjected to?  What calculations support the claim of "more opportunities for mutation than the entire sequence of reptile-to-mammal evolution"?

I'm waiting for you on talk.origins.  Take too long and I'll borrow Blipey's suit.

In all seriousness, let's have this out in a public, neutral venue.  Surely a former Marine would like to get back the self-respect he's given up by being Dembski's lap dog and O'Leary's pool boy.

Date: 2008/08/12 09:26:29, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (jeffox @ Aug. 12 2008,09:01)
Maya did write above:

Quote
O'Leary's pool boy.


Gadzooks you're mean!

(Nice slam, btw.)

:)

I was going to use a word from ERV's dictionary, but she has the panache to pull those off.  I just get leers from J-Dog when I talk dirty.

Date: 2008/08/12 16:09:08, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 12 2008,14:24)
Davescot peaks out and blusters:
Quote
Maya: Abbie Smith doesn’t seem to have a problem putting her name behind her convictions. IMO she has more courage in her little finger than you do in your whole body. Send her. You can go pound anonymous sand.

Davey, dear, I too enjoy ERV's blog, and agree that Behe is out of her league.  She is far and away more intelligent than he is.  Even as a grad student she'd mop the floor with his Ph.D.

That's all distracting from the core issue (in typical UD / ID style).  You are a gutless censoring sycophant without the intelligence or taste to suck up to people who are worthy of respect.  You talk tough in your little corner of the web where you have control over who participates, but deep down you know you can't hack it in an open forum.

Your arguments are nonsensical, your positions are unfounded, and your refusal to correct either is pathetic.

Crawl out of your hole or be seen for the coward you are.

Date: 2008/08/12 16:25:08, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (huwp @ Aug. 12 2008,16:15)
Excuse me, I mostly lurk so I'm not quite sure of the etiquette.  If there's going to be a fight, is it OK if I bring a deck chair and some sandwiches?  

Also, if there's any betting, I'd like a tenner on Maya...

Thanks, but I suspect that Davey isn't going to leave the padded room of UD anytime soon.  If he's afraid to post in talk.origins, which doesn't take bravery or even sanity, then there's nowhere he'll feel safe.

Date: 2008/08/14 08:15:13, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Aug. 13 2008,17:44)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 13 2008,17:00)
Old DaveTard excahnge..

http://alanfox.blogspot.com/2006....20.html

 
Quote
DaveScot said...
Dick Hughes,

You know that secret listserv you've been talking about on ATBC that Heddle got kicked off of? I'm on that list and write to it a couple times every day. You'd be amazed by all the scientists and engineers all over the world who are are on it. Of course if I told you any of those names, many you'd recognize, I'd have to kill you. I was added to it shortly after Heddle was removed. It really sucks that well respected working scientists have to go underground to talk about ID lest they be Sternberged for their heresies against evolutionary dogma.

Who's your grandaddy! HAHAHAHA


Ahh the underground ID scientists argument!

Wasn't davetard booted off the same secret listserv recently?

Davey seems to be in conspiracy mode today:
Quote
I know scores of scientists from many disciplines, many of them biologists, who only dare voice their support for ID in secret amongst trusted colleagues.

Um, Davey?  You don't know "scores" of scientists (40 or more) period.  You certainly don't know that many who support ID, even in secret.  You are a liar as well as a coward.

Oh, wait, you define "scientist" as "anyone who's wife buys them Scientific American."  Sorry, you don't get to redefine words like that.

Now stop hiding behind Dembski's sweater while licking O'Leary's boots and join me in a discussion on talk.origins.  Your ridiculous attempts at evasion just make you look even more gutless and pathetic, if that's possible.  Either your arguments can stand scrutiny or they cannot.  The fact that you continue to cower at UD shows that even you realize, in some vague, animal instinct sense, that you're talking nonsense.

Date: 2008/08/14 09:05:07, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (themartu @ Aug. 14 2008,08:35)
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 14 2008,08:15)
The fact that you continue to cower at UD shows that even you realize, in some vague, animal instinct sense, that you're talking nonsense.

I'm not sure it's vague for him at all, I think he is very aware that his ideas do not stand up to scutiny. He's gone too far to admit that now though.

This is why I'm in the biology department, as far as I can get from the psychology students.  What is going on in his tiny little mind that would make that seem like a good idea?  I can only quote the greatest psychologist of our age, Dr. Phil:  "How's that working for you, Davey?"

Davey, if you're scared the UD crowd won't love you anymore if you admit that you've been wrong (grossly, painfully, outrageously, blatantly wrong), just imagine the ticker tape parade you'll get here and in other venues of the reality-based community if you fess up, tell the UD bottom feeders just what you think of them, and delete the ban list on your way out the door.

Date: 2008/08/14 14:35:47, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 14 2008,13:11)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 14 2008,12:11)
Do we get to assigne weather to pixies because there is no theory or law of weather?

Dave might want to distinguish between the study of elementary forces and particles, and the study of complex processes. Even gravity gets dicey when you have more than two bodies interacting.

Are you bringing up again that drunken fling he and Bill and/or Denyse once had?

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.*

* Yes, I saw Dodgeball.

Date: 2008/08/14 18:19:24, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 14 2008,15:38)
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 14 2008,14:35)
I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.*

* Yes, I saw Dodgeball.

But did you like it?

added in edit:  Dodgeball I mean!

It had its tardy moments, but it can't compare to UD.

Date: 2008/08/15 11:53:05, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 15 2008,09:06)
Quote
DaveScot: Jack Krebs

I noticed your email address on the blacklist barring commenters. Since I could not find a reason given anywhere for why your name was added I removed it.

Given the years you’ve been a member here I think you’ve earned at least a public explanation of why you were banned and who did it.

I'd like to see that list.  Reason for banning:

Asks questions we can't answer.
Has a degree in biology.
Can do math.
Attended clown college (a real one, not Southern Baptist).
Has a clue.

Date: 2008/08/20 06:16:35, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 19 2008,22:07)
I didn't include active links, so that must be the key, he said, using his keen powers of deduction design inference.

Fixed that for you.

Date: 2008/08/20 07:58:31, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 20 2008,07:41)
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 20 2008,06:16)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 19 2008,22:07)
I didn't include active links, so that must be the key, he said, using his keen powers of deduction design inference.

Fixed that for you.

Maya, Maya, Maya. I have seen evil! I have seen horror! I have seen the the unholy maggots which feast in the recesses of the human heart.

But you, Maya, you who were once innocent and carefree -- now you have crossed over to the dark forces from which there is no rescue.

You've given yourself to the allure of the cruel remark, backbiting satire, acidic sarcasm and the hideous strength of the hellish crusade.

I admire that.

I blame Arden.  He seduced me into a thread that got sent to The Bathroom Wall.  I'm a ruined woman now, my
innocence has been abused.

Date: 2008/08/20 11:12:12, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 20 2008,09:59)
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 20 2008,07:58)
I blame Arden.  He seduced me into a thread that got sent to The Bathroom Wall.  I'm a ruined woman now, my
innocence has been abused.

You know, if you don't want Arden seducing you, you should just stop dressing like a drag queen.  It really is that simple, just ask Louis.

Drag queen is a little harsh.  My legs may not match Wesley's, but I don't have razor stubble.

Date: 2008/08/20 13:47:37, Link
Author: Maya
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (dvunkannon @ Aug. 20 2008,13:42)
If Wesley shaved his ass and walked backwards, would he look like Denyse?

I don't know.  Would you happen to have a picture of Wesley's backside?

I'm just asking....

Date: 2008/08/22 09:34:08, Link
Author: Maya
Another banning:
Quote
CECO09 - You can go act like an asshat elsewhere. Goodbye. -ds

Whereas you, Davey, can stay right where you are and continue to be an asshat.

My challenge still stands.  Debate me on talk.origins or keep proving that you're a gutless censor without any ability to support your ridiculous points.  Heck, I'll even support CECO09's arguments as well as the ones I was banned for.

Show you're more than a worthless wimp.

Date: 2008/08/23 15:22:35, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 23 2008,14:16)
David Springer writes  
Quote
5

DaveScot

08/23/2008

11:40 am

Tard Alert!

In order to make this thread a little easier to manage any critics of Fuller’s must use their real name to post a comment. Check the anonymous bravado at the door. I ought to make that a policy for the whole damn blog not just this one thread.

Come on, Mr. Springer.  You'll have to try harder if you want to do any damage to our irony-meters.

Oh, and please make it a policy for the whole blog.  We'd love to know the real names of your fellow posters Sal Cordova, Patrick, DLH, PAV, Crandaddy, Scott, idnet.com.au and the rest.

(OK, OK, I know DLH=David L. Hagan)

You are a creepy little worm, Davey.  Anyone who agrees with you can be pseudonymous but anyone who disagrees has to be traceable?  Put your home address up first, you gutless stalker.

I'm still waiting for you over on talk.origins.  My arguments stand on their own merits, unlike yours.

Date: 2008/08/23 15:25:28, Link
Author: Maya
Davey writes:
Quote
Sorry if I’m offending anyone but these people disgust me. They’re all like “I believe in rational inquiry, science, and bearded thunderers who live in the sky and worry about my immortal soul”. Please. Choose one or the other but not both.

I didn't watch the video.  It's about ID supporters?

Date: 2008/08/23 15:34:12, Link
Author: Maya
bFast:
Quote
To me, the schtick is in the data. The big bang looks like a God act to me. Life looks like a God act to me. I note the fact that the hunt for first life has produced no genuine fruit.

Unlike that hunt for gods?

Date: 2008/08/23 19:32:23, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 23 2008,18:13)
Davescot isn't Dave Springer's proper name..

True.  His proper name is "Maya's bitch."

Date: 2008/08/27 06:28:09, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 26 2008,17:47)
I have extensively read feminist literature and I think you'll find that women have boobs for their own edification and not ours.

Apparently they also wear make up and perfume because they are ugly and they smell.

I wear them because it's easier than carrying on a sensible conversation with most college age males.  It keeps them in a malleable state of pheromone shock.

Date: 2008/08/27 08:16:25, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 27 2008,06:39)
Quote
31:
physicist
03/07/2006
11:30 am
Davescot

If you can give me a clear and precisely worded example of an `intelligent’ agency causing a violation of the second law, please do.

Me writing this sentence. -ds

Davey*, take a look at the definition of the second law of thermodynamics.  I couldn't find my undergrad books on line, but here's a reasonable explanation:  Introduction To Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics

Just ignore the math, it's way over your head.  What you need to focus on is that the second law is statistical and applies to closed systems.  If you measure the energy inputs** and outputs of the system consisting of you, your computer, and all the machines on the Internet that transmit your pearls of wisdom to the drooling masses of Uncommon Descent, you'll find that you have caused an increase in the entropy of the universe.  One step closer to heat death, and for what?

* I may switch to Scooter, as suggested by Deadman.  Which do you find more demeaning?

** Remember that Cheesy Poofs count as an input.

Date: 2008/08/27 08:17:10, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 27 2008,06:44)
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 27 2008,12:28)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 26 2008,17:47)
I have extensively read feminist literature and I think you'll find that women have boobs for their own edification and not ours.

Apparently they also wear make up and perfume because they are ugly and they smell.

I wear them because it's easier than carrying on a sensible conversation with most college age males.  It keeps them in a malleable state of pheromone shock.

I have long suspected this tactic was being employed. Thanks for confirming it.

The best part is, it works even when we tell you we're doing it.

Date: 2008/08/27 09:03:15, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 27 2008,08:47)
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 27 2008,14:17)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 27 2008,06:44)
 
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 27 2008,12:28)
 
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 26 2008,17:47)
I have extensively read feminist literature and I think you'll find that women have boobs for their own edification and not ours.

Apparently they also wear make up and perfume because they are ugly and they smell.

I wear them because it's easier than carrying on a sensible conversation with most college age males.  It keeps them in a malleable state of pheromone shock.

I have long suspected this tactic was being employed. Thanks for confirming it.

The best part is, it works even when we tell you we're doing it.

Tell us? Bah!

It works even when you hang out neon signs with flashing arrows pointing to a detailed explanation and organise a team of sherpas with maps and bright torches to lead us to the explanation whilst simultaneously kicking us repeatedly in the backside screaming "IT'S OBVIOUS".

I'll file that under "It only feels kinky the first time?"

Date: 2008/08/27 15:16:11, Link
Author: Maya
Note to self:  Don't use the word "kinky" at ATBC.  It seems to trigger the natives into Tourette's-like free association related to mothers and sheep.

Date: 2008/08/27 15:46:57, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 27 2008,15:25)
Those guys are a real bunch of knuckedraggers, aren't they?  But, don't worry, Maya, not all of us are like that. Some of us are modern men who eschew vulgarities and like nothing more than to talk with an intelligent woman about our feelings.

I'm from a military family and only have brothers.  You can keep those feelings all bottled up like a normal guy, sweetie.  I don't mind.  Really.

Date: 2008/08/27 16:38:12, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 27 2008,16:30)
You should be aware that we're not serious.

Next you're going to tell me you don't actually look like your picture.

Date: 2008/08/27 17:29:24, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 27 2008,17:09)
*whispers aside*

I think she is Teh Lesbo.

This is definitely the anti-UD -- conversations here generate actual thought.  I considered and rejected:
1. ERV is lovely, but no.
2. Isn't that what men think about all women?
3. I wish, imagine what I'd save on clothes/make-up/contraception.
4. I just prefer J-Dog's rugged looks.

but I'll stick with You two thought you were flirting?

PS:  Sorry to use a whole thread's worth of punch lines in one post.

Date: 2008/08/29 06:11:24, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 28 2008,23:16)
Brace for REAL SCIENCE in 3...2...1....

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-294927

 
Quote
18

DaveScot

08/28/2008

7:16 pm
My trusty windows calculator in scientific mode says that 4 x^y 8 equals 65536. I’d guess your Excel is still working.


are you getting this, HOMOs?

"scientific mode"
"windows calculator"
"4 x^y 8" <--- this one is a bit shit. he means 4^8.

But I'd email Bill Gates to tell him excel is A-Okay and tell him Micheal Dell says "hi", just in case.

So Davey claims to have been a Marine, despite being a proven coward and claims to have written software, despite having to use a calculator to find out that 4^8 (2^16) is 65536 -- a number every software geek has memorized?

Stick with licking O'Leary's boots, Davey, it's what you're best suited for.

Date: 2008/08/29 07:50:34, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 29 2008,06:58)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 29 2008,06:45)
Is it possible that DS can be wrong every time? If so, he should copy George Costanza and go "opposite" and he'll be on a winner!

This guy seems to understand where Dave is coming from.
 
Quote

5
terry fillups
08/29/2008
3:32 am

You really need to wonder about a man who sycophantically links himself to a more accomplished individual in hopes of having some of the glory and adulation for themselves. They are pathetic individuals and deserve nothing but our scorn.

PZ must really be smarting from that rebuke. Of course, I am assuming this comment was directed at PZ.

C'mon, even Davey can't be stupid enough to miss that one.  Can he?

My hypothesis (which is mine):  Davey has just enough low cunning to use this forum to help him detect sock puppets.  After he looks up 'sycophant' in the dictionary (plus the other big words in that definition) and looks in the mirror (if he can see himself around Dembski's butt to which his lips are affixed), I predict a banning for poor Terry.

Date: 2008/09/01 20:16:28, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 29 2008,14:56)
Q: What do you call 32 NASCAR fans standing in a circle?
A: A full set of teeth.

I spend the weekend moving back to school and check in here to find NASCAR bashing.  I thought all y'all had some culture.

(My apologies to the moderators for not being able to let this pass.  I promise a proper fisking of Davey for my next post.  I'll educate Carson on the finer points of motorsports by email.)

Date: 2008/09/04 15:41:33, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Well Endowed Stud Muffin @ Sep. 04 2008,14:25)
Dave is a very fair man. He gives people a chance to express their opinions on anything posted at U.D. What he doesn't tolerate is ignorance and trolling behavior, two attributes you'll find in 99.836% of all Darwinists. I think he's made U.D. the most well-informed, educational blog on the net, and for that he has my utmost respect.

Davey is an intellectual coward and with the low self-esteem required to be a sycophant and the lack of intelligence to select William Dembski as the object of his not terribly manly lusts.

Here's the post that got me banned from UD:
Quote
DaveScot wrote:
"ID predicts that no evolution of complex structures will occur by chance & necessity within the temporal and geographical constraints imposed by the earth due to the statistical improbabilities involved."

What is the ID theory that predicts this?  The reason I ask is the following statement from a senior member of the Discovery Institute, Paul Nelson:
"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a problem."

DaveScot continues:
"ID can be falsified by the observation of a single complex structure built by mechanisms of chance & necessity."

What, exactly, constitutes a "complex structure"?  Michael Behe has admitted that a new viral protein-viral protein binding site has evolved in HIV.  This resulted in new function (an ion channel), a form of complexity that Behe claimed was beyond the "Edge of Evolution".  That falsifies your prediction.

DaveScot continues again:
"This prediction appears to have been confirmed by the observation of P.falciparum over the last 50 years during which time it replicated billions of trillions of times, which represents more opportunities for mutation than the entire sequence of reptile-to-mammal evolution, and nothing beyond trivial changes were observed."

Could you please provide a cite with more details?  For example, how was this experiment performed?  By whom?  what selection pressures were the populations subjected to?  What calculations support the claim of "more opportunities for mutation than the entire sequence of reptile-to-mammal evolution"?

Tell me again how fair Davey and the other censors of UD are.



Date: 2008/09/04 15:46:20, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 04 2008,15:41)

Darn, I need one of those mythical edit buttons.  I'm giving Davey credit for saying something sensible, when it was me, ALL ME!

Date: 2008/09/13 20:12:26, Link
Author: Maya
Quote
Fantomarks are information carriers that cannot be sensed or detected or recorded by human beings, and/or other living things or systems, and/or instruments, devices, or systems made by human beings.


*blink*

So, what is he talking about, then?

(Edited to fix my tags.  Thanks for the button!)

Date: 2008/10/28 12:24:43, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 28 2008,00:42)
This book is Hard Tard.  Authors: William Dembski and Jonathan Wells.  You can't get much lower than that.

School has kept me from giving Davey the fisking he so richly deserves, but this comment raises a question I've been wondering about for a while.  Is Dembski one of the con men or one of the suckers?  From what I've read of Wells, he's looney but probably knows that he's lying.  Dembski should know that he's "talking bollocks" (to steal a phrase from my foreigner roomie, excuse me, flatmate) but he seems so darn sincere.  Has he brainwashed himself?

 
Quote
I claim to be good looking and wealthy.

In that case, I claim to be very attracted to floor-eschewing felines.

Date: 2008/10/31 09:02:57, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (bystander @ Oct. 31 2008,02:17)
If the mind is separate, does he explain why we get drunk? or sleep?

Oooh!  Oooh!  I know this one!

"A brain is like an iPod but the soul is the song.  You can't play a song on a broken iPod."

Yeah, it didn't make sense the first time I heard it, either.  The reason I get drunk has nothing to do with my brain, it's a defense mechanism when the stupid burns too hotly.

Date: 2008/11/01 12:21:30, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 01 2008,11:39)
Quote (Jkrebs @ Nov. 01 2008,09:33)
Quote
Please contact me (I’m easily tracked down on the web).

–WmAD

That part has always been weird to me. There's very little contact info on UD. Last time I looked I could only find email for Denyse.

I managed to find Davey's email and signed him up for "Let Me Lick Your Boots and Call You Bill" magazine, but it bounced back as "Already a subscriber."

Date: 2008/11/05 10:35:43, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 05 2008,09:28)
I don't see it playing that way. UD is Dembski's self-promotion wagon. The DI has diverged considerably from playing up Dembski as a leader of the movement, since the "intelligent design" label is now considered a loser at the thin end of The Wedge. So UD may fall off in comments and popularity, but I don't see it "folding" so long as Dembski is looking to position himself as an antievolution guru. I don't see him heading off in a new career direction.

Well, he went from poor mathematician to worse theologian.  Extrapolating that line downward puts him into politician territory.  GovernorDogCatcher Dembski?

Billy, if you really want to make some cash, have a public falling out with the Discovery Institute and re-invent yourself as a skeptic.  You can just reverse all the unsubstantiated "I used to be an atheist" testimonials and sell tell-all books to the rational community.

Date: 2008/11/07 10:26:10, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 07 2008,09:54)
Davetard is back.

In Memory of Michael Crichton

That explains the six days he was missing.  He had to look up all the polysyllabic words he used and figure out why his word processor flagged all his grammar as "WTF, are you six?"

Date: 2008/11/07 12:19:20, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (dvunkannon @ Nov. 07 2008,12:00)
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 07 2008,11:26)
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 07 2008,09:54)
Davetard is back.

In Memory of Michael Crichton

That explains the six days he was missing.  He had to look up all the polysyllabic words he used and figure out why his word processor flagged all his grammar as "WTF, are you six?"

Nah, Scooter is just quoting Chrichton, we still haven't seen him defy the Second Law by putting his own ideas on the screen.

I thought that sounded surprisingly articulate for Davey.

Date: 2008/11/14 08:55:59, Link
Author: Maya
Dembski writes:
 
Quote
Robert Marks and I continue to crank away at papers and have finally cracked the peer-review barrier in the information sciences with a paper on conservation of information

"Cracked the peer-review barrier."  Does this mean they finally wrote something that has nothing to do with ID or have they changed the definition of "peer-review" and "paper"?

Gazing into my crystal ball I see much ado about nothing.  The crowd at UD crowing about ID being real grown up science now with the rational community pointing out one or more of a) the paper does not support ID, b) the journal isn't peer-reviewed, or c) the content of the paper is easily refuted by any six-year-old of average intelligence.

Date: 2008/11/14 12:02:20, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 14 2008,10:24)
Together with Bob Marks he's currently measuring the cost of success.

I just skimmed that paper.  I have real schoolwork to do, but isn't he just saying that feedback from the search space helps evolutionary algorithms converge on a solution?  And isn't natural selection feedback from the search space of potentially viable organisms?  So he's basically supporting the idea that random mutation plus natural selection can transmit information from the environment to a population of organisms?

That was a very convoluted way to say "Hey, this evolution stuff seems to work."

Date: 2008/11/14 12:58:16, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 14 2008,12:51)
 
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 14 2008,12:02)
 
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 14 2008,10:24)
Together with Bob Marks he's currently measuring the cost of success.

I just skimmed that paper.  I have real schoolwork to do, but isn't he just saying that feedback from the search space helps evolutionary algorithms converge on a solution?  And isn't natural selection feedback from the search space of potentially viable organisms?  So he's basically supporting the idea that random mutation plus natural selection can transmit information from the environment to a population of organisms?

That was a very convoluted way to say "Hey, this evolution stuff seems to work."

Dr. Dr. D makes his living being convoluted.

But, but, but, isn't he trying to show that evolution doesn't work?

 
Quote
I think the words pompous twit fit him perfectly.

Better than that famous sweater?  Come on.

Date: 2008/11/14 17:41:49, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 14 2008,13:07)
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 14 2008,10:58)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 14 2008,12:51)
   
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 14 2008,12:02)
     
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 14 2008,10:24)
Together with Bob Marks he's currently measuring the cost of success.

I just skimmed that paper.  I have real schoolwork to do, but isn't he just saying that feedback from the search space helps evolutionary algorithms converge on a solution?  And isn't natural selection feedback from the search space of potentially viable organisms?  So he's basically supporting the idea that random mutation plus natural selection can transmit information from the environment to a population of organisms?

That was a very convoluted way to say "Hey, this evolution stuff seems to work."

Dr. Dr. D makes his living being convoluted.

But, but, but, isn't he trying to show that evolution doesn't work?

No.  This is all about the silly straw-man version of evolution beloved of creationists.  (It's nothing but chance - we know not this "selection" of which you speak.)  He's trying to show that that doesn't work.

Remember who this is aimed at.  At this point, ID doesn't care what scientists think - it's in the business of providing sciency apologetics for fundies.  The more obscure and technical it sounds, the better.

I thought the paper, or something similar, was going to be published in a peer reviewed journal.  Is this just the pablum for the masses and they've upped their game for the educated reviewers?

Since the paper didn't actually demonstrate "conservation of information" or give any reason for calling one particular measurement "active information", I suspect we'll see some equivocation gymnastics if and when it does get published.  "See, we got the term 'active information' published and only living things are active, so all information requires a living cause."

Edited to add:  Do they have a game to up?

Date: 2008/11/14 18:56:39, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 14 2008,17:59)
In my opinion, the aim of the exercise isn't to convince scientists that they have a case.  It's to give them a chance to say "See?  We can has pier revue!" when they write their next press release.

Exactly, claiming that ID is science while carefully omitting to mention that nothing in their peer reviewed paper has anything to do with ID.

Davey will be happy because he can barely make it through an abstract anyway.

You know, if I thought these people had any impact outside of a few mouth breathers on UD and the people here who have such a poor excuse for a sense of humor that we find them amusing, I would be cynical and bitter beyond my years.

Date: 2008/11/14 20:10:23, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 14 2008,19:37)
MAYA IS NO LONGER WITH US dt

And I don't take Davey and his all male revue at UD seriously enough to be against them, either.

What is the sound of one nostril snickering?

Date: 2008/11/15 07:41:27, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 15 2008,03:20)
Anyway I was still interested to see what snorting a little Columbian would be like.

Sordid tale deleted.

That was supposed to be a private moment!

All men are bragging bastards.

Date: 2008/11/16 09:11:07, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Jkrebs @ Nov. 16 2008,08:30)
Quote
No atheist/theist slugfests here
DaveScot

I deleted a recent post by Bill Dembski . . .

Davey evidently never heard that old bit of advice about not shooting at the king -- and missing?

Date: 2008/11/16 11:52:46, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Jkrebs @ Nov. 16 2008,11:30)
So now Barry has stepped in and corrected Dave about whether atheism/theism discussions are OK:

Dave

 
Quote
Theism and atheism are bound to come up in discussion here but the science (or art if you don’t believe it’s science) of design detection is not informed by theistic or atheistic belief so these should come up infrequently


Barry

 
Quote
As long as the discussion is intellectual and not a personal “slugfest,” an analysis of the implications of ID and materialist Darwinism for theism/atheism will not only be allowed but encouraged.


And on the other hand, we (and Dave) are informed that global warming is off limits as a topic:

 
Quote
But we have decided that global warming discussions are not within our mission, and we will no longer post on that topic.


Looks like two strikes against Dave this morning.

Three strikes and Davey is my bitch.  The timing is nearly perfect -- I was thrown off UD almost exactly a year ago and Davey still hasn't mustered up the intellectual guts to respond to my public challenge.

It looks like he could soon have some extra time on his hands.

Date: 2008/11/17 13:37:11, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Jkrebs @ Nov. 17 2008,13:12)
For the record:

   
Quote
9

DaveScot

11/17/2008

1:56 pm

This was essentially a decision on my part that it would take up too much of my time to continue effective moderationcensorship of the site under relaxed rules.

The “crisis” I warned about by mimicing Joe Biden’s infamous “test the mettle of the new guy” gaffe was anticipation of a rush by gratuitous religion bashers and design deniers to see what disruptionintelligent and inflammatoryinformed comments they could get away with. Keeping the current polite dialogcesspool of ignorance and sycophancy going in such an environment is more work than I’m prepared to take on. Under the previous rules it was only taking a few minutes of targeted interventiongutless and ignorant censorship each day. That’s solely, IMO, a result of the ruthless moderationterrified censorship policy established by Bill Dembski in the first months of UD and carried on by me in the subsequent few years with his almost constant approval, support, and trust in my judgementsix-inch stiletto heel thrust deeply into my backside.

Bill is an extraordinary personlover who has earned my utmost respect and loyaltydrooling submission over the years and with me respect and loyaltyvirgin man love like that isn’t given easily.

Fixed that for you, Davey.

Now that you have some extra time, I look forward to seeing you answer the challenge I posed almost a year ago on talk.origins.  Of course, you can't censor the discussion there, so you'll prove yet again that you lack the intellectual testicles to face off against a girl.

A disgrace to the Corps, indeed.

Edited to add:  Hello, Bathroom Wall.  Yes, I did expect to see you.

Date: 2008/11/19 13:09:40, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 19 2008,12:37)
Anyone NOT a puppet would write "Denyse you stupid trollop, " or "Denyse you ignoramus", something like that.

I believe the phrase you are looking for is ignorant slut.

ETA: Don't blame me, J-Dog was thinking it!

Date: 2008/11/21 18:40:59, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Skullboy @ Nov. 21 2008,18:11)
Quote (JLT @ Nov. 21 2008,17:44)
 
StephenB = pure TARD


That whole thread is extremely dangerous to TARD addicts. That TARD is so pure that the same dosage you've been mainlining daily for weeks could kill you if it comes from that thread.

Really?  It just makes me want to raise the Jolly Roger (in sequins, on a tasteful and elegant stylized DNA helix) and start slitting some throats before these sanctimonious morons finish destroying the U.S. education system.

Or, I could have another tequila....

Date: 2008/11/21 23:04:17, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 21 2008,21:22)
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 22 2008,02:40)
 
Quote (Skullboy @ Nov. 21 2008,18:11)
 
Quote (JLT @ Nov. 21 2008,17:44)
 
StephenB = pure TARD


That whole thread is extremely dangerous to TARD addicts. That TARD is so pure that the same dosage you've been mainlining daily for weeks could kill you if it comes from that thread.

Really?  It just makes me want to raise the Jolly Roger (in sequins, on a tasteful and elegant stylized DNA helix) and start slitting some throats before these sanctimonious morons finish destroying the U.S. education system.

Or, I could have another tequila....



HAR HAR THIS IS YOU.

I can't see your pic, but I generally start out like this:

but unfortunately end up like this:


None of which changes the fact that these ignorant wankers (I love my roomie's slang) need a good swift kick in the . . . head.

Date: 2008/11/24 19:10:09, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 24 2008,19:01)
Quote (bfish @ Nov. 24 2008,15:32)
Ugh.

Any idea who Baylor Bear is? New poster? Marks? Dembski?

Marks. Gotta be.

So Davey isn't the only IDiot with violent fantasies?  Lovely group of people.

Date: 2008/11/26 08:24:18, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 25 2008,21:44)
Quote
Jehu: Matzke resorted to the claim that malaria causing parasites had never evolved the ability to reproduce below 68ºF because all of the mosquitoes freeze below that temperature.

No, he didn't say that. He said that freezing temperatures kill mosquitoes, not that they freeze at 68ºF. Long periods of cool weather slow the spread of malaria. The minimum temperature for most mosquitoes to successfully breed is about 50ºF, but at that temperature, they breed very slowly. Mosquitoes proliferate when the temperature reaches 70ºF - 80ºF.

Quote
bFast: Oooh, belly laugh! I live in the sub-arctic — somewhere north of the 60th parallel. In these parts we celebrate summer days that get above 68ºF. However, we’ve got mosquitoes, believe me.

Fairbanks is inland at the 65th parallel, and the average July high is 72ºF, with 80's or even 90's being quite common. However, the mosquito season is relatively short, and the population density of suitable hosts for malaria is too low to sustain the spread of the disease.

Okay, I wasted the time to read the original exchange.  Is there any way to interpret Jehu's statement as anything other than a bald-faced lie?  Matzke simply did not say what Jehu claims he said.  And instead of calling him on it, the UDiots praise him for finding such good material?

Opinion of humanity today:  A new low.

Date: 2008/12/02 21:10:17, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (bystander @ Dec. 02 2008,20:53)
Reading that thread it is obvious that Barry is going to have to start booting people. Whoever ribczynki is, he/she is a very clear writer and is doing well against the tards, and the IDiots can't maintain the paranoia that the science establishment has nothing better to do than to prop up an ailing theory.

Although the paper that Barry links to is very strange. OOL has nothing to do with a Cosmological model. The physicists could be wrong about string theory and the multiverse but it doesn't change the fact that life started around 4 billion (?) years ago.

Hmm.  "Rybczynki" and "Bystander" have exactly the same number of letters.  Coincidence?  I think not.

Date: 2008/12/04 15:17:52, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 04 2008,14:45)
Quote (dnmlthr @ Dec. 04 2008,19:51)
   
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 04 2008,19:21)
Sometimes I get the feeling that in reality there're two parallel universes, one in which people like StephenB live, and ours. It's only by some glitch in the fabric of the universe that we can read UD.

Do you suggest some sort of tardum tunneling phenomenon? That given enough energy, tard may tunnel through a rationality potential barrier instead of bouncing back into the UD echo chamber.

Maybe if the tard is sufficently denyse it disturbs the spacetime continuum and tardwholes open up.

So does that make Davey the tardhole or the mentally slow janitor lazily sweeping up the anti-tard particles to prevent them from accumulating and blocking it?

Date: 2008/12/07 09:29:58, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 07 2008,04:49)
Clive asks a question
Quote


7

Clive Hayden

12/07/2008

4:58 am

Your comment had a condescending tone. I don’t mind one bit that you present your arguments, just keep them properly respectful. I apologize on behalf of anyone who has treated you unduly disrespectful that’s associated with UD. That’s no reason to act that way yourself. Let’s just stick to civil and respectful arguments and discussions. Otherwise, I will ban you. There’s no double standard in that.

I have to ask, why do people record our comments and post them on that website you linked?

Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?

Do they really not understand that they are so profoundly ignorant about science and so patently flailing about intellectually (for lack of a better word), grasping at straws to preserve their unfounded, cherished beliefs that those not infected with their peculiar memetic virus find them funny?  (Yes, Davey, we're laughing at you.)

Sorry, I'll take that first sentence out behind the barn and give it a good hiding now.

Date: 2008/12/07 14:50:48, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 07 2008,13:23)
*Waves at Clive Hayden*
   
Quote
I don’t mind arguments Mark, I really don’t. But I won’t tolerate certain things that are inappropriate. My moderation policy regarding inappropriateness will be like one determining what is obscene, I will know it when I see it. That’s the best general outline I can give you.

Clive,

I'd like to add that I'd be very interested to understand what you mean by "inappropriate."  In the past, the moderators censors at UD have been extremely heavy handed, to the point where it is clear that they are removing content because they disagree with it and are unable to counter the arguments, not because of any offensiveness on the part of the person posting.

I was banned for the comments  described here.  I consider them to have been polite and on topic.  Do you disagree and, if so, why?

(Thanks for the piggyback, Bob.)

Date: 2008/12/07 15:05:14, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 07 2008,15:00)
Quote
(Thanks for the piggyback, Bob.)

Always a pleasure.  But would you mind going on a diet before next time?

I never expected to be able to say this, but you could take flirting lessons from J-Dog.

ETA: And if I remember correctly, he called me a lesbian.

Date: 2008/12/07 17:51:24, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 07 2008,15:33)
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 07 2008,15:05)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 07 2008,15:00)
   
Quote
(Thanks for the piggyback, Bob.)

Always a pleasure.  But would you mind going on a diet before next time?

I never expected to be able to say this, but you could take flirting lessons from J-Dog.

ETA: And if I remember correctly, he called me a lesbian.

Bob, here is how it is done.


Oooh, Carlson!

Date: 2008/12/07 18:16:47, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 07 2008,18:12)
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 07 2008,15:51)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 07 2008,15:33)
 
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 07 2008,15:05)
   
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 07 2008,15:00)
     
Quote
(Thanks for the piggyback, Bob.)

Always a pleasure.  But would you mind going on a diet before next time?

I never expected to be able to say this, but you could take flirting lessons from J-Dog.

ETA: And if I remember correctly, he called me a lesbian.

Bob, here is how it is done.


Oooh, Carlson!

Actually, he was directing that at Louis.

Gay, married, and living with his mother, I presume?

I can pick 'em.

Date: 2008/12/09 12:05:05, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 09 2008,08:29)
DaveScot sighting
 
Quote
DaveScot: IDSkeptic

Move along to another thread please. You’re not contributing in a constructive manner to this one.

Davey, you do realize that threatening and banning polite, on-topic posters just shows that you're utterly incapable of refuting their points, don't you?  I guess not, if you were intelligent enough to realize that, you wouldn't be supporting ID.

Gutless disgrace to the Corps....

Date: 2008/12/09 19:11:50, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 09 2008,12:53)
HERE'S MY PICTURE, SHOPWIN' HOW I WUS ALWAYS IMPRTANT AND THEY ALWAYS CAME TO ME FOR THE TOUGH JOBS.  HERE I AM SHARING MY KNOWLEDGE OF ID WITH THE HIGHER UPS.


I suspect that the closest Davey has gotten to being a Marine is stroking his belly with a surplus K-bar:



Members of my family and some of my friends are Marines.  They respect the ideals of this country, including the first amendment, they respect others enough not to censor them, and they respect themselves enough not to be censors.

Date: 2008/12/12 14:38:18, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 12 2008,14:18)
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 12 2008,11:49)
So, either GilDodgen didn't read the replies to his comment, or forgot already.

There is a third possibility...

You mean that Gil is attempting to prove himself to be as big a lying, willfully ignorant, intellectually cowardly scumbag as Davey is?

Oh, wait, that was another one of those rhetorical things, wasn't it?  Sorry.

Date: 2008/12/13 10:07:29, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 13 2008,00:07)
OK, I've pretty much given up on those new UD assholes.  I registered there last week and was allowed to post freely for a few days.  Then my posts were all subject to moderation.

Now their game is to let one of my posts through, have three or four IDiots answer me with some stupid easily refutable claims, and delete all my subsequent posts so it looks like I can't answer their nonsense.

What a bunch of spineless pricks.  :angry:

I'm sure that Clive is still reading here and will fix that problem right away since it's so clearly inappropriate.  Right, Clive?  Clive?  Hello?

Date: 2008/12/14 11:22:29, Link
Author: Maya
No new material in hours?  How about something new -- honesty from UD:

Jerry writes:
Quote
I am certainly no expert and know nothing about what is called information theory.

Of course, he then goes on to make very strong claims about a topic he admittedly knows nothing about:
Quote
No where in nature except in life is there what we call FCSI.

To be fair, no one seems to know how to define FCSI rigorously.  That would allow it to be measured, and no ID proponent wants that!

Date: 2008/12/14 17:17:42, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 14 2008,16:34)
Wow. That's just a straight up fabrication. I don't even think Salvador has been that dishonest.

I did an experiment.  I only know about Sal Cordova from this board.  My hypothesis was that being a creationist and an ID proponent, he was likely to be dishonest.  I googled for 10 minutes and got these links:

Sal Cordova's Rank Dishonesty
ERV Eats Sal's Soul
Sal Cordova:  Quotemining Liar

Hypothesis confirmed!

Date: 2008/12/15 07:28:51, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 14 2008,21:20)
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 14 2008,18:17)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 14 2008,16:34)
Wow. That's just a straight up fabrication. I don't even think Salvador has been that dishonest.

I did an experiment.  I only know about Sal Cordova from this board.  My hypothesis was that being a creationist and an ID proponent, he was likely to be dishonest.  I googled for 10 minutes and got these links:

Sal Cordova's Rank Dishonesty
ERV Eats Sal's Soul
Sal Cordova:  Quotemining Liar

Hypothesis confirmed!

Allow me:

Salvador Cordova, Asshole of the Year

After seeing me laughing while trying not to throw up after reading ERV's "cottage cheese" comment and catching me viewing Janie Belle, my roommate seems to have decided that the radius of her personal space is now double what it was before.  The sidling around on the walls is bad enough, but the jumping out of her skin every time I speak is getting to me.

Then again, it's probably just the stress of finals.

Date: 2008/12/16 15:49:24, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 16 2008,15:32)
Ixnay on the odGay!

Don't most creationists want to ixnay all the gays, not just the odd ones?

Date: 2008/12/17 11:57:55, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 17 2008,11:19)
JackInhofe wants parenting advice from WmAD:

Borne writes:
Quote
JackInhofe: Totally understand where you’re coming from.

Is there a Michael Hunt here?  Has anyone seen Mike . . . .

Best nym ever.

Date: 2008/12/17 12:05:02, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 17 2008,12:01)

Something about understanding where Jack Inhofe was coming from tickled my inner pervert.

Date: 2008/12/19 13:20:52, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 19 2008,12:26)
Quote
19 December 2008

Arrington, O’Leary on KRKS

Barry Arrington

Today beginning at 4:00 PM Mountain Time.

The show streams live at KRKS.com.

Posted in Intelligent Design | No Comments »

I wonder if it's a call-in show.

The 4:00 show is Crosswalk with Gino Geraci and the contact number is 303-873-1935.  There is a Listen Live link at: http://www.947krks.com/

This could be fun.

Edited to fix URL -- thanks, keiths.

Date: 2008/12/19 14:23:14, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 19 2008,13:48)
P.S.  Maya, your link is broken (at least using Internet Explorer) because there is an extra '.' at the end.

No it's not.  It's perfectly fine.  Always has been.

Hides edit button behind her back.

Sorry, trying to get inside the UDer mindset.

Date: 2008/12/19 15:03:05, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 19 2008,14:40)
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 19 2008,12:23)
   
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 19 2008,13:48)
P.S.  Maya, your link is broken (at least using Internet Explorer) because there is an extra '.' at the end.

No it's not.  It's perfectly fine.  Always has been.

Hides edit button behind her back.

Sorry, trying to get inside the UDer mindset.

That's a good start, but you also need to say something about how I'm a nitpicking Darwinist, and that you can't be bothered to match my pathetic level of detail in constructing URLs.

I apologize for your inability to recognize that that criticism, and many more, were implicit in my original comment.

Date: 2008/12/20 10:16:47, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Missing Shade of Blue @ Dec. 20 2008,04:34)
Something constrained the evolution of inductive preferences to ones that have worked fairly consistently.

Yes, something resulted in reproductive success based on feedback from the environment.
Quote
It couldn't have been natural selection

That's exactly what it was, by definition.
Quote
, because given he environment up to time t, there is a literally infinite choice among predicates that agree up to t, but disagree later.

There is only one set of predicates that actually happened, though.  If the life forms currently extant hadn't been well adapted to those predicates, they wouldn't be here.
Quote
Somehow the predicates chosen for us at t have worked all the way up to t + 5*10^6 yrs.

And if those predicates change significantly enough, existing life will either adapt or die.  It has happened in the past and will no doubt happen in the future.
Quote
This is mysterious to me.

Your sense of mystery seems influenced by the implicit assumption that humans are the pinnacle of evolution.  We're just another lucky chimp.

Date: 2008/12/20 10:28:09, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 19 2008,20:21)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 19 2008,17:12)
I do agree with Barry that "Keith," whoever he is, did a fine job representing a non-dualist position, and correcting Denyse's and Barry's ridiculous misrepresentations.

Thanks, Bill.  I was 'Keith'.  Still am, actually.

Keith,

Did anyone touch on why UD prohibits open discussion, no matter how politely disagreements are worded?  I'd love to hear the same people who complain about being "expelled" defending their own censorship.

Maya

Date: 2008/12/22 05:53:23, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 22 2008,01:03)
Quote


12/21/2008

7:30 pm

I just read Clive Hayden’s point about “Rib” getting the boot. Does anybody here think we’re being a little strict by banning so many people? I mean,maybe we aren’t, but I’d like to keep the discussions fair. I just don’t want this sweet blog to come across as a place that is intolerant of other’s views.

That is so delusional it's hard to read.  The words keep sliding around on the screen.

Domoman, if you can't see that UD is utterly intolerant of any criticism, see the list of Arguments UD Can Never Refute So Refuses To Discuss in the sidebar.

I see that gpuccio and kf are already defending Clive, without ever addressing any of rib's points.

Date: 2008/12/24 14:05:12, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (dochocson @ Dec. 24 2008,10:40)
HAHA! I would high five the Davester, but I don't want to get Cheezy Poof debris all over my hands.

Do you think if I accidently slipped while high fiving Davey that a jury of my peers would award me damages for his broken nose spewing blood all over my hand?

I'm just asking....

Date: 2008/12/24 19:48:14, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 24 2008,17:22)
Happy Holidays, Kwanza, Hanukkah, Festivus and any other .

You left out the pagan solstice festival, you bigot!  No dancing naked around the yule log for you!

What the heck is in these?  "Brandy Alexander" sounds so tame.

Date: 2008/12/26 19:26:14, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (sledgehammer @ Dec. 26 2008,13:27)
Remember, what is said here is the same as if it was posted on UD, 'cause UNCLE CLIVE IS LISTENING!

It's not quite the same, because posts here don't get censored.

Clive, since we know you're listening, show the intellectual integrity to ponder that point, just for a moment.  Why is it that UD cannot tolerate even the mildest dissent?  Could it be because there is no scientific theory of intelligent design, it explains no empirical observations, and makes no predictions that can distinguish it from modern evolutionary theory in any way?  No, no, it must be an evil conspiracy.

By banning Rib without addressing any of his points, you've shown that you know, deep down in that same dark part of your mind where you keep those racy visions of Ann Coulter bottled up for when you can't get back to sleep at 3:00 in the morning, that ID is, hmm, what's a good description . . . oh yeah, scientifically vacuous.

Want to prove otherwise?  Take your arguments to a forum where you can't silence your critics when they make you uncomfortable.  Davey lacks the balls to do so and I suspect you are equally intellectually impotent.

Damn but your willful ignorance combined with unfounded arrogance is annoying.  Don't mistake that annoyance at your behavior for anything other than the natural inclination to want to give a bitch a well deserved slap.  You've got nothing.

Edited to add:  "Bitch" here is used in the colloquial sense of Davey's relationship to Dembski, not as a validation of the term as used by males like Davey who lack the self-confidence to deal with women as equals.

Date: 2008/12/28 14:50:43, Link
Author: Maya
Platonist asks for the impossible:
Quote
Can someone please dumb this down so that I can understand it?

Platonist, no one else at UD understands it.  Your honesty is likely to get you banned.

Date: 2008/12/29 11:07:22, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (mitschlag @ Dec. 29 2008,06:40)
Tucked behind the Christmas tree:

Steve Fuller joins the Tardfest!

:D

And it starts strong with sallyann
Quote
Stripped of its current scientific scaffolding does intelligent design become a 21st century social theory?


Stripped of its current scientific scaffolding, ID is unchanged in any measurable way.  Rather like stripping Davey of his intellectual integrity.

Date: 2008/12/29 11:20:05, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 29 2008,11:07)
Quote (mitschlag @ Dec. 29 2008,06:40)
Tucked behind the Christmas tree:

Steve Fuller joins the Tardfest!

:D

And it starts strong with sallyann
Quote
Stripped of its current scientific scaffolding does intelligent design become a 21st century social theory?


Stripped of its current scientific scaffolding, ID is unchanged in any measurable way.  Rather like stripping Davey of his intellectual integrity.

Reality is optional for pmobl
Quote
Darwinism prospered prior to presentation of compelling scientific evidence. Clearly other things propelled it early on, e.g., the rise of secularism and Modern naturalism. Similarly, I think Design will prevail now, not because it enjoys scientific confirmation but because it fits nicely into new paradigms that happen to be ascendant, in part for other than scientific reasons.

Date: 2009/01/06 06:45:03, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Bebbo @ Jan. 06 2009,05:47)
Turn off your irony meters. Davey on why he turned down a debate invitation:

"I declined the invitation because I thought it would simply be a rehash of all the old arguments and nobody ever really wins.

Actually, Davey, the ID side loses the debate every single time.  It's what happens when you bring a rubber chicken to a gun fight.

Date: 2009/01/13 13:49:08, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (dmso74 @ Jan. 13 2009,11:45)
laff riot of the week, courtesy of StephenB

 
Quote
This is not something that can be summoned at will. We will have to wait until fate provides us with another genius–a genius capable of standing of Behe’s and Dembski’s shoulders, building on their contributions,and maybe even correcting an error or two.

I'd stand on their shoulders, but it still wouldn't give me enough height to see out of the pit of active ignorance they've dug for themselves.  Plus, they'd probably try to look up my skirt.  Those fundamentalists have some freaky kinks.

ETA:  Um . . . so I've heard.

Date: 2009/01/13 15:41:27, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 13 2009,14:49)
Maybe wear pants instead of a skirt on that day? ;)

Well, given an opportunity like that, I wear boots at least as dirty as these:



and I wouldn't want to get my jeans dirty.

Edited because I found better boots.

Date: 2009/01/13 15:42:44, Link
Author: Maya
And, yes, I was silly enough to enter "dirty boots" in Google image search to find that picture.  I need to scrub my eyeballs now.

Date: 2009/01/14 10:11:33, Link
Author: Maya
Dr. Time makes an entrance:
Quote
As part of schizophrenia`s dilusional and reality,I can`t tell what is real and real thoughts in my world.The way this cite is set up all questions are posted on side bar on all pages.I am a slow reader and have a bad back to sit very long at a screen.I don`t know anyone personally on these sites for sure,atleast talked to them face to face that I know of.Just trying to find out if any one under stands.No,no one in particular.Don`t know what sites they might suit if any.Felt editorial was doing this.Apologies.Suggestions if I am still welcome to site and if not ask editoritorial to ask me to leave.I have no problem with that either.

And is made welcome by Clive:
Quote
No one is asking you to leave Dr. Time. Comment as you would like.

You can't out-crazy the UD regulars, Dr.!

Date: 2009/01/16 10:52:30, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Laminar_ @ Jan. 16 2009,10:13)
Quote

23

DaveScot

01/15/2009

11:47 pm

Laminar

I’ve been working with computer automated equipment all my life. What Barry was trying to say is that nanobots can only respond as they’re instructed. If the programmer doesn’t anticipate any specific contingency the robot won’t be able to invent an appropriate response to it.

Davey clearly never heard of Rodney Brooks.  Then again, Davey clearly never heard of a lot of things.

Date: 2009/01/20 14:09:56, Link
Author: Maya
With regard to Dembski's peer-reviewed papers:

I admit to only having an undergrad background in math, and to not working through the equations in Dembski's papers myself, but don't the No Free Lunch theorems only apply in a problem space that is random?  Has any IDer tried to show that that assumption is applicable in genome space?  I'd love to hear them explain the incredible unlikelihood that a high percentage of zygotes are viable, even though their genes differ from both parents.

Date: 2009/01/20 14:11:07, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (bystander @ Jan. 20 2009,14:05)
The problem is that it is a fundamental error that all IDists make. The environment provides the assisted search by organisms that are more fit reproducing more often.

All Dembski is doing is saying that if the environment is totally random, that is, one moment an organism is on land, the next it is a hundred metres under water and the next moment in a volcano then evolution would probably not work. Which is pretty much well DUH.

Stop posting my thoughts before I think them, psychic fiend!

Date: 2009/01/25 20:58:13, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 25 2009,18:16)

Lou,

Just in case you haven't been receiving admiring private email, I love the new avatar.

All the boys (except Arden) here are no doubt too jealous and homophobic (except Arden) to note it.

Maya

Date: 2009/01/27 10:29:37, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 27 2009,10:14)
Quote (damitall @ Jan. 27 2009,07:58)
I'm relatively new to the UD tard-watching game.

I'd like to thank all contributors to this board for confirming that the UD - ites over there haven't a clue what they are talking about - I thought  for a while it was me who'd lost the marbles. The words are English, but they are strung together (at inordinate length) in a way that contains little if any meaning (or "information")

Very odd indeed.

Even odder that they think their particular delusion will change the face of science-as-we-know-it.

(Proud to have had a polite post to UD about heterology in norovirus proteins deleted - I gather one is a complete nobody until either that or a complete ban)

Howdy.

I was actually "pre-banned" at UD. As I recall, Dave De'Tard e-mailed me something like, "You have got to be kidding" when I tried to register. Only I think he used a lot of profanity.

Davey is such a charmer.  When I challenged him to debate me in a fair forum like talk.origins, he posted a link to a misogynistic clip of William Shatner (clearly not realizing that it was intended to be humor rather than a training video for how to treat women), demanded my real last name, and ran away with his tail between his legs (which is a neat trick given that Dembski's stiletto heel is permanently wedged up there).

The challenge still stands Davey, you gutless disgrace to the Corps.

Date: 2009/01/29 16:59:31, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 29 2009,16:18)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 29 2009,12:22)
By the way, our new member has disappeared.  Did you kidnap AmandaHuginKiss, Louis?

None of us can find AmandaHuginKiss. Maybe our standards are too high.

I keep lowering mine, but your gender manages to keep ahead of me.

Date: 2009/01/31 11:06:06, Link
Author: Maya
DaveScot does physics:
Quote
...the fine tuning of the universe, which if it was different by one part in 10^60 the universe would not be gravitationally stable (if the universe was heavier or lighter by as much one grain of sand it would not be stable)....

Now I might be just an aspiring biologist, but I really doubt my fellow students over in the physics department would agree with that.

Davey, stick to what you know.  If the topic is anything other than unhealthy snack foods, you should not interrupt the grownups when they're talking.

Date: 2009/01/31 11:50:50, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 31 2009,11:33)
Quote (Maya @ Jan. 31 2009,11:06)
DaveScot does physics:  
Quote
...the fine tuning of the universe, which if it was different by one part in 10^60 the universe would not be gravitationally stable (if the universe was heavier or lighter by as much one grain of sand it would not be stable)....

Now I might be just an aspiring biologist, but I really doubt my fellow students over in the physics department would agree with that.

Davey, stick to what you know.  If the topic is anything other than unhealthy snack foods, you should not interrupt the grownups when they're talking.

I have no idea where Dave got this from.

S'okay, I wasn't blaming you.

Date: 2009/01/31 12:36:01, Link
Author: Maya
New UD FAQ Coming Soon
Quote
I especially invite our opponents to participate in this process. I assure you that if you raise any fair objection, it will be treated with respect, and you could very well prompt us to modify the FAQ.

My scientific prediction is that this will result in the need to open "Uncommonly Dense Thread 3" far sooner than anticipated.

Date: 2009/02/01 08:40:46, Link
Author: Maya
Davey really, really means it!  
Quote
If the universe began with an amount of mass energy different that what it was by a single grain of sand then it would have either collapsed under its own weight without forming stars & galaxies or it would have inflated too fast for stars & galaxies to form. There’s enough mass in the universe for approximately 10^60 grains of sand. If one more or less we wouldn’t be here to number them.

And blithely continues wading in the intellectual kiddie pool of the anthropic principle:  
Quote
Unless and until a law is discovered that limits a universe to some range of particle numbers we have a very, very low probability of having just the right number for us to be here talking about it.

Davey, let me make this simple enough that even you can understand.  If the universe didn't allow us to exist, we wouldn't be here to discuss it, so you can't draw any conclusions . . . nah, that one is far too sophisticated for you.  How about, you're like a puddle amazed at how well its hole fits it . . . darn, even that one requires some basic logic to grasp.

I apologize, it appears that dragging your enormous backside out of the pseudo-philosophical pigsty in which you're wallowing is beyond my teaching abilities.

Date: 2009/02/04 12:33:49, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 04 2009,12:28)
I'm not sufficiently expert to give a short answer!

Perhaps you could ask kairosfocus over on UD for some composition pointers.

PS:  It is a great question.

Date: 2009/02/09 11:45:46, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 09 2009,10:58)
BTW, what's with the "Babs"?

Davey is scared of women.

Date: 2009/02/10 07:15:09, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 10 2009,03:48)
Dave Tard also has an answer regarding why Kirk ran away
   
Quote


Sounds like the work of one of Canada’s biggest academic assholes -Larry Moran

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2....._desi.html
 

Um, from reading the link I can see Larrys name mentioned and a quote from him
 
Quote
I admire Kirk for his willingness to subject his scientific evidence for intelligent design to a group of experts on protein folding. It's very courageous of him since he's putting his scientific reputation on the line.

Nowhere does it say "And that's how Larry got Kirk to stop posting at UD".

Dave Tard, explain yourself. Or is this the sort of rigour you use in when explaining how things happen in ID?

Elsewhere on UD (please don't make me go back and find it), Davey accuses Barbara Forrest of perjuring herself while on the stand in Dover.  He provides just as much evidence for that as he does for Larry Moran scaring off Kirk.

Libel is conduct unbecoming, Davey you dirtbag.

Date: 2009/02/10 14:40:51, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Bebbo @ Feb. 10 2009,14:09)
Quote (Maya @ Feb. 09 2009,11:45)
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 09 2009,10:58)
BTW, what's with the "Babs"?

Davey is scared of women.

Yes, they have more balls than him.

BEGIN old-joke

With one of these I can get all of those I want.

END old-joke

Date: 2009/02/19 19:58:41, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 19 2009,18:34)
Honestly, it's political correctness gone mad. Women don't want equality they just want to have babies and do cooking.

You know that whole baby delivery mechanism?  NOT intelligent design.

Date: 2009/02/20 15:37:22, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 20 2009,04:23)
Yes, 'tis the first. Yes 'tis cool (plus scary).

Why do waterbirths result in less testicular pain? Is it because my wife won't be able to get out of the bath quick enough to catch me an rip them off?

Wait...don't answer. This is derailerisation, and I've done enough of that already. We'll take it as read that you replied and it was funny.

Soooooo how about that UD hey? Aren't they a bunch of muppets.

Louis

Congratulations!  This link and picture are for the future mother of your child.  Get her now.  Don't peek, you'll spoil the surprise.


Date: 2009/02/21 19:06:59, Link
Author: Maya
I looked at one of kairosfocus' comments on UD (it was an accident, I won't do it again, and I used the lab eye wash for more than the minimum recommended 20 minutes afterward) and noticed him pushing this paper that supposedly computes some variant of CSI.

He's been challenged on how applicable this is to biological systems.  A quick read through makes me very suspicious of equation 3.  The paper itself says that the null state represents "no constraints at all, resulting in the equi-probability of all possible sequences or options", which suggests that this is just a complex way of determining how unlikely it is that a particular protein came together all at once.  There's some additional blather about ground states vs. null states, but nothing that changes this core problem.

There also seems to be an assumption that the set of proteins measured have a single function and that any mutations can only be measured against that one function.

My understanding, with only undergrad math supporting it, is that this paper can be summarized as "Even if a few thousand different sequences can generate the same functionality, it's still really, really unlikely that any of them came together all at once.  Therefore the intelligent designer did it."

Has any real mathematician reviewed this paper?  How far off am I?

Date: 2009/02/22 16:03:32, Link
Author: Maya
Good news regarding the ID movement!

This topic just hit 200 pages, taking approximately 31 weeks to do so.  Extrapolating linearly, that means Uncommonly Dense Thread 3 will start about 155 weeks from when this one started.

The original Uncommonly Dense Thread took approximately 130 weeks to fill 999 pages.  If we assume that the number of posts here varies proportionally to the activity of the IDiots at UD, it seems that they're slowing down!

At this rate, the tard veins will be mined out in a matter of just a few centuries.

Yeah, I really should be studying.

Date: 2009/02/23 09:36:44, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 23 2009,08:15)
Has anyone asked what it takes to get a true open debate where the evidence is hashed out, verified and such at UD?

I know from lurking for about, oh, two years on this board, which is why I know who's who around here, they won't come over but still can't they be shamed at all?

Or is shame, guilt and having a conscious all jettisoned to be a "regular" over there?

I have an open challenge to DaveScot (aka, "Davey", "Scooter", "Dembski's Man Bitch", "Disgrace to the Corps", "Flaming Pustule on the Buttocks of Science", etc.).  So far neither he nor any of the other regular IDiots at UD have chosen to stray from their nice safe venue.

Yes, Davey, you may consider this another slap in the face with my dueling glove.

I understand that Clive, chief censor and bottlewasher at UD, reads our discussions here.  Perhaps he can arrange a discussion at a neutral venue (or guarantee no "moderation" on a thread at UD).  How about it, Clive?  Take the minimal step to show you're more of a man than Davey.

Date: 2009/02/23 17:56:51, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Reg @ Feb. 23 2009,17:28)
Has there been some censoring and banning going on?
         
Quote
Rob

In order to be scientifically useful, measures must give the same results when different people apply them independently to the same objects.

Actually to be scientifically useful lots of measure only need to be accurate to a factor of 10.
Get out of my thread, Rob. You’re either uninformed or a troll or both. Either way your welcome is worn out.

I interpreted it differently (and I can still see Rob's posts).  I think Davey misses his banning button and keeps forgetting that Billy D didn't love him enough to let him keep it.

Edited to add:  Sorry, you are correct.  I just reloaded the page and all of R0b's comments disappeared.  Almost like that gutless piece of garbage Dave Springer has intellectual balls the same infinitesimal size as his physical ones.

Date: 2009/02/23 18:00:46, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Rob @ Feb. 23 2009,17:58)
Maya, can you save that page?  Thanks.

Aaaaarrrrrrggggghhhh!

Let me see what's in my browser cache.

Date: 2009/02/23 18:15:07, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Maya @ Feb. 23 2009,18:00)
Quote (Rob @ Feb. 23 2009,17:58)
Maya, can you save that page?  Thanks.

Aaaaarrrrrrggggghhhh!

Let me see what's in my browser cache.

I am so sorry, R0b, I should have thought to save the page before reloading.  I didn't see your comment until too late.

Davey, you really are a worthless disgrace to the Corps.  I have relatives who are Marines and they value integrity, honesty, and courage, whether physical or intellectual.  You're not fit to shine their boots and I doubt you'd do a proper job of it anyway.  Maybe I will send you my real contact details and invite my brother and a couple of cousins over, too.

I'm heading to the gym before I make this post even more worthy of the Bathroom Wall.

Date: 2009/02/24 13:53:45, Link
Author: Maya
Not all UD denizens share DaveScot's intellectual cowardice.  KairosFocus has promised to open up a discussion of DaveScot's censorship of R0b.

Credit where credit is due.

Date: 2009/02/24 18:57:41, Link
Author: Maya
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (khan @ Feb. 24 2009,18:15)
I'm female, 58, spent ~20 years programming computers.

I am definitely not a stereotype: didn't like dolls, never wanted children, BS in math.

My mother did keep the books for the family business.

Women can also hunt.

I love Lou's red dress.

Mom?

Date: 2009/02/25 09:56:38, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Maya @ Feb. 24 2009,13:53)
Not all UD denizens share DaveScot's intellectual cowardice.  KairosFocus has promised to open up a discussion of DaveScot's censorship of R0b.

Credit where credit is due.

KairosFocus did raise the issue, albeit not in a particularly prominent manner.  I've asked him on his blog to open it up as a separate topic on UD.

In the meantime, could anyone who isn't banned at UD (Is there anyone here not banned at UD?) respond to KF's post to see if they'll actually discuss it?

Date: 2009/02/25 16:45:27, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Mark Frank @ Feb. 25 2009,14:29)
Quote
(Maya @ Feb. 24 2009,13:53)
Not all UD denizens share DaveScot's intellectual cowardice.  KairosFocus has promised to open up a discussion of DaveScot's censorship of R0b.

Credit where credit is due.

KairosFocus did raise the issue, albeit not in a particularly prominent manner.  I've asked him on his blog to open it up as a separate topic on UD.

In the meantime, could anyone who isn't banned at UD (Is there anyone here not banned at UD?) respond to KF's post to see if they'll actually discuss it?


I will - despite my reservations about reading KF's comments.

I swoon in thanks to the brain you risk.

No, seriously.

Okay, not seriously seriously, but not snidely.

To heck with it, where's the blow-a-kiss emoticon?

Date: 2009/02/26 18:08:11, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Skullboy @ Feb. 26 2009,17:37)
bFast attempts a mathematical refutation.

   
Quote
Humans and chimps have a ten to twenty year generation rate. If we consider that they separated six million years ago, they each have at most 6,000 generations to develop their separation.


I'm no mathematician, but I think that makes for 600,000 generations.

6,000 doesn't even pass the giggle test.  Some of my older relatives remember back that far.  At least, that's what the stories they tell on holidays make it seem like.

Date: 2009/02/28 11:27:39, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (raguel @ Feb. 28 2009,09:20)
DaveScot
Quote
For the purposes of this debate, if you wish to continue it here, when we say macroevolution we are talking about the creation of novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. Write that down.


Does anyone else get the impression that Davey must not get out much?  If he tried that pompous windbag "Write that down" nonsense in real life, he'd be trying to find his teeth in the blood pooling from his nose.

And before anyone asks:



I'm just tired, cranky, and fully sick of the willful ignorance demonstrated at UD.  I need a break from the uncut stuff.

Date: 2009/03/01 11:01:06, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 01 2009,10:03)
DaveTard plays dumb

Davey isn't playing.

Date: 2009/03/01 19:22:10, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 01 2009,18:34)
Quote (Maya @ Mar. 01 2009,19:01)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 01 2009,10:03)
DaveTard plays dumb

Davey isn't playing.

UR RITE HOMOETTE! THIS AIN'T A GAME.

I'M FORMING A CRACK SKWAD OF EBER CULTURE NINJAS.

k.e.,

I love your stuff, but please don't use Davey's name and the word "crack" in the same post.  I sometimes read AtBC while eating.

Date: 2009/03/01 22:50:32, Link
Author: Maya
I <3 Allen MacNeill
 
Quote
ID supporters are arguing against a version of evolutionary that was almost fifty years out of date by the turn of the millennium, which they would know if they actually had any training in the science of evolutionary biology.

He's taking off the gloves, baby!

Date: 2009/03/01 22:57:39, Link
Author: Maya
And now the other glove is off:
Quote
This is easily seen in the detailed structure of the vertebrate genome. It’s a lot like viewing the html code for a long post or template, and seeing where the writer copied, pasted, and modified the pasted copies, rather than write all new code from scratch. And, before you jump and say “that’s proof that it was coded by an ‘intelligent coder’”, consider that much of the duplicated code is pure, non-adaptive nonsense; not transcribed, not translated, and in many cases clearly composed of degenerate copies of genes that no longer have any detectable function. In other words, the “coder” could copy and paste, but had no way to delete code that wasn’t necessary, and made many mistakes besides.

Kind of like copying and pasting “cdesign proponentsists”…

Gloves off and brass knuckles on!

Date: 2009/03/02 08:14:49, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 02 2009,03:14)
Quote (JLT @ Mar. 01 2009,15:27)
The mantra I'm repeating is Unskilled and Unaware of it (*.pdf).

A profound lack of self-awareness -- particularly with regard to their own intellectual capacities and knowledge -- is what unites IDers, climate change skeptics, HIV denialists, etc.  It is the sine qua non of good tard.  Stupidity without arrogance is just stupidity.  Add a heap of unwarranted arrogance and condescension, though, and you have a fresh steaming pile of tard.  

I think you've got the basic recipe here, but the real flavor in the dish comes from chunks of unquestioned religious conviction rolled in a breaded argument from incredulity and a heavy sprinkle of projection.

Have I beaten the metaphor to death yet?

Date: 2009/03/02 18:34:48, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 02 2009,16:56)
There has been some stuff done with spatially distributed GA's where individuals have a location on a grid and they have a decreasing probability of reproducing with individuals that are more distant.  This helps prevent convergence where the population clusters and can, with large populations and complex fitness functions, lead to speciation where one part of the population ends up climbing a different hill than the other.

Does this work better than simply running the same GA multiple times?  I can see that it might encourage the exploration of tricky regions of the solution space, but that might also be accomplished by starting from a different spot.

Are there particular problems where this works well?

Darn it, you've let out my inner math geek.

Date: 2009/03/03 06:03:24, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 03 2009,01:52)
Quote (Maya @ Mar. 03 2009,02:34)
 
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 02 2009,16:56)
There has been some stuff done with spatially distributed GA's where individuals have a location on a grid and they have a decreasing probability of reproducing with individuals that are more distant.  This helps prevent convergence where the population clusters and can, with large populations and complex fitness functions, lead to speciation where one part of the population ends up climbing a different hill than the other.

Does this work better than simply running the same GA multiple times?  I can see that it might encourage the exploration of tricky regions of the solution space, but that might also be accomplished by starting from a different spot.

Are there particular problems where this works well?

Darn it, you've let out my inner math geek.

hehehe <snikker>... <giggle>  er....hrmmm

I cant resist this ....do you mean

...exploration of tricky cracks?

ETA clearer image of the solution space :P

Shush, honey, the grownups are talking.

Date: 2009/03/03 16:38:30, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 03 2009,16:10)
Is O'Leary really that stupid? Did she really just write that?

Why yes. Yes she did.

Quote
This is the transcript of the interview I did with Alex Tsakiris at Skeptiko. It got a bit testy at times. Here’s a snatch on the subject of reincarnation.


uh, ...

yeah.

Clearly you've been spending too much time with k.e.

Date: 2009/03/03 21:30:47, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 03 2009,20:43)
Quote (Maya @ Mar. 04 2009,00:38)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 03 2009,16:10)
Is O'Leary really that stupid? Did she really just write that?

Why yes. Yes she did.

 
Quote
This is the transcript of the interview I did with Alex Tsakiris at Skeptiko. It got a bit testy at times. Here’s a snatch on the subject of reincarnation.


uh, ...

yeah.

Clearly you've been spending too much time with k.e.

Hey whoa there a minute! He's the one who wears the dress.

I don't even have a pair of high heels.

Anyway we don't call 'em that down under.

Next you're going to tell me that you didn't use the term "down under" deliberately.  ;-)

Date: 2009/03/09 21:28:14, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 09 2009,19:20)
I have a new sig line:

 
Quote
I am not currently proving that objective morality is true.I did that a long time ago and you missed it. -- StephenB
 

O yeah.

Jerry is one of the major reasons I had to stop reading UD directly and switch to the filtered version here.  He likes to claim to be able to support his arguments, then claim to have done so, but leaves out that little bit in the middle.

At least he's a rude, condescending, arrogant bloviating little pimple while doing it.

Edited for word choice.  One can be condescending and arrogant while also being correct.  Jerry is in no danger of falling into that category, however.

Date: 2009/03/09 21:35:25, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Maya @ Mar. 09 2009,21:28)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 09 2009,19:20)
I have a new sig line:

 
Quote
I am not currently proving that objective morality is true.I did that a long time ago and you missed it. -- StephenB
 

O yeah.

Jerry is one of the major reasons I had to stop reading UD directly and switch to the filtered version here.  He likes to claim to be able to support his arguments, then claim to have done so, but leaves out that little bit in the middle.

At least he's a rude, condescending, arrogant bloviating little pimple while doing it.

Edited for word choice.  One can be condescending and arrogant while also being correct.  Jerry is in no danger of falling into that category, however.

Jerry . . . StephenB . . . six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Date: 2009/03/11 07:04:36, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2009,06:33)
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Mar. 11 2009,05:54)
Have they broken their banning fingers?

I suspect they have discovered that pageviews have gone up a considerable amount, and so the $$ they earn from the google ads on the pages also goes up.

It's all about the $$$....

No, no, I'm sure that Clive has been carefully reading AtBC and has come to realize that not only is censorship destructive to the integrity of those who practice it, it also demonstrates a complete lack of confidence in the ability of the censors to address the real issues being raised.  No doubt the next step in Clive's moral evolution will be to eliminate all "moderation" (what a nice, 1984-ish word for what they really do) from UD and "follow the evidence."

Right, Clive?  Clive?  Is this thing on?

Date: 2009/03/12 07:48:19, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 12 2009,01:09)
I think we can look forward to more disappearing comments, and eventually - banninations!

I've been watching the fun at UD for the past week and getting the same feeling as in a freshman chemistry experiment in supercritical fluids.  One little jiggle and the whole thing is going to blow.

Could this be one of the Friday Meltdowns you old timers are always on about?

Date: 2009/03/12 11:37:54, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 12 2009,11:20)
Quote (Maya @ Mar. 12 2009,15:48)
 
Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 12 2009,01:09)
I think we can look forward to more disappearing comments, and eventually - banninations!

I've been watching the fun at UD for the past week and getting the same feeling as in a freshman chemistry experiment in supercritical fluids.  One little jiggle and the whole thing is going to blow.

Could this be one of the Friday Meltdowns you old timers are always on about?

I don't know. Are you ethnically challenged?

Because I sure am.

I can't figure out if I should be guilty or grateful that I'm half celt and half sartyr.

When you have all the bottom feeders from hicksville show up at the same time on UD feasting on each other each trying to out do their betters on the root cause for  OJ's aquittal then incarceration.

One does wonder.

Well done!  You managed to completely ignore the "jiggle" I put in that post just for you!

We'll work on the making sense thing next time.

Date: 2009/03/12 13:11:49, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 12 2009,13:01)
Breaking News! Apparently Weasel is not realistic!

Davescot has the scoop!

 
Quote
More to the point however is it’s not even to a realistic simulation of how evolution by mutation and selection really works. In the real world random mutations are largely deleterious. To add a bit of realism to the algorithm when a mutation occurs that doesn’t move the string closer to the goal one of the correct letters should be randomized as a penalty. Obviously the target would then never be reached even in trillions of generations as the penalties would quite reliably overwhelm the successes.

So because my eyesight isn't better than my mother's, I should also be deaf?

Davey seems to have trouble with that "simulating observed mechanisms" thing.  Not to mention any other endeavor involving abstract thought.

Date: 2009/03/12 14:39:24, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Chayanov @ Mar. 12 2009,13:25)
 
Quote
In the real world random mutations are largely deleterious.

You just can't educate people who are so willfully and stubbornly ignorant, much less engage them in any sort of meaningful dialogue (although I suppose you could spend time mocking them). How many times has this error been pointed out and corrected over the years?

Darn it, you made me look at UD unfiltered.  Look what burned my retinas this time:

Davey burbles:
 
Quote
If most mutations are neutral why does it take billions of trillions of tries for the malaria parasite to find the three sequence changes that confer resistance to chloroquine?

I’m open to other explanations but the only one that fits is that most mutations in the malaria parasite are deleterious. This would manifest itself as being easy to find useful single base substitutions but greater than one base would be multiplicative in number of tries required. If most mutations were neutral the number of tries required would be additive instead of multiplicative.


So we can add math to the long list of subjects about which Davey has delusions of minimal understanding.

ETA:  And of course the presumption that malaria is "trying" to evolve a particular feature deserves notice (well, derisive laughter).

Date: 2009/03/12 15:20:18, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 12 2009,14:49)
 
Quote (Maya @ Mar. 12 2009,14:39)
Davey burbles:
     
Quote
If most mutations are neutral why does it take billions of trillions of tries for the malaria parasite to find the three sequence changes that confer resistance to chloroquine?

I’m open to other explanations but the only one that fits is that most mutations in the malaria parasite are deleterious. This would manifest itself as being easy to find useful single base substitutions but greater than one base would be multiplicative in number of tries required. If most mutations were neutral the number of tries required would be additive instead of multiplicative.


So we can add math to the long list of subjects about which Davey has delusions of minimal understanding.

Now, now, Maya.  Neutral *is* negative for sufficiently large values of not-positive.  

Thanks for the clear explanation.  I certainly wouldn't have come up with that on my own.

Quote
Or something like that.

You wouldn't understand because your IQ isn't somewhere north of 150 and you can't comprehend how fast Dave's mind works.  That, and you are a girl.  But, I repeat myself.

Too bad k.e. is off his feed.  You deserve to have him pointed in your general direction for that one.   ;)

Date: 2009/03/14 10:39:26, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 14 2009,10:24)
Quote
I have a confession to make. It is a dark secret I have been hiding forever, but Louis has set an example and I have to confess. I have never been banned from UD. I have never had an account there. I am very ashamed and will hold my manhood cheap whilst those who were banned on St. Crispin's day speak of their legendary bannations...

Huh?  So you're not PaV, then?

I honestly thought he was jerry.  No one could be as profoundly ignorant, pompous, and dishonest as jerry is for real.  Right?  Right?  Please don't feed my mid-semester cynicism and bitterness to all mankind....

Date: 2009/03/14 10:54:32, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 14 2009,09:08)
If a civilian stumbles in unawares, they may find themselves sinking in quagmire, because words in ID are slippery and facts are optional. This includes scientists who are not properly trained and equipped for the The Argument Regarding Design™. Even the most highly educated and intelligent people often assume others have a genuine desire to communicate and to learn—a very dangerous assumption when entering the Mines.

When I grow up I want to write like Zachriel.  His prose perfectly combines expressiveness and economy, every word pulling its own weight.

It's very clear that the censors at UD are never going to allow open discussion.  The appropriate response is for those who value intellectual honesty and integrity to refuse to participate there, but the siren lure of On-line Statements Requiring Correction is too great for most mere mortals.

I've been thinking of periodically posting the most egregious examples of UDiocy to talk.origins.  The regulars there have way too much time on their hands and well-honed weapons for eviscerating ridiculous claims.  At the very least that would ensure that a Google search for UD topics would cough up some rational responses.

Date: 2009/03/14 11:20:18, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 14 2009,11:13)
ETA clarity

I'm glad I didn't see it before, then.

(I joke because I care.)

Date: 2009/03/14 15:06:14, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 14 2009,14:23)
David Kellogg closes the deal:  
Quote

I found a video of Dawkins running the program, taken in 1987 here.

If you watch the video, starting at about 5 minutes 30 seconds, Dawkins shows the screen with the morphing phrase as it reaches the target. If you watch the video . . .

Very clearly, and more than once, a correct letter becomes incorrect. Therefore, Dawkins’s “Weasel” program does not keep letters once they are correct. QED.

Of course, maybe Dawkins anticipated this objection and fudged the run in 1987. Or maybe Dawkins, like Darwin in the racism thread, has access to a time machine.

"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

Date: 2009/03/14 18:17:29, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 14 2009,18:12)
There has certainly been some classic TARD lately over there, which really sux because I'M TRYING TO WRITE TWO DAMNED PAPERS HERE AND YOU BASTARDS ARE DISTRACTING ME WITH THE TARD!!!!!

I am so addicted.

I tried:
Quote

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Wes is trying to get some work done.  Could all of you please refrain from publicly advertising your ignorance and inability to think logically for the next few hours?

Stuck in the moderation queue even though I said "please."  Some people have no manners.

Date: 2009/03/14 23:07:53, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 14 2009,21:58)
 
Quote (Maya @ Mar. 15 2009,02:17)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 14 2009,18:12)
There has certainly been some classic TARD lately over there, which really sux because I'M TRYING TO WRITE TWO DAMNED PAPERS HERE AND YOU BASTARDS ARE DISTRACTING ME WITH THE TARD!!!!!

I am so addicted.

I tried:
   
Quote

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Wes is trying to get some work done.  Could all of you please refrain from publicly advertising your ignorance and inability to think logically for the next few hours?

Stuck in the moderation queue even though I said "please."  Some people have no manners.

So Lou evolved into Wes?

THAT'S NOT INTELLIGENT DESIGN THAT'S IMANGINARY CONCONCEPTION.

Lou, Wes, none of them are you, k.e., darlin'.

When all else fails, suck up.
ETA:  More sucking up.

Date: 2009/03/15 14:57:32, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 15 2009,14:50)
a dedicated miner could impugn most of the protestant american denominations.

Isn't the guy who funds the Discovery Institute somehow associated with the Christian Identity Movement?  Dominionist, maybe?

If no one enlightens me I'll look it up when my real work is done.

Date: 2009/03/15 19:46:26, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 15 2009,18:11)
Dave, if you're reading this - think about how you feel. Now think about all those you banned, and how they might have felt.

Actually, if you're reading this, Davey, think about what this makes you think of Barry.  That's what people think of you for being an intellectually cowardly censor.

Does it make you feel bad that Billy D. liked Barry's man love more than yours?  I hope so.

Date: 2009/03/18 15:53:14, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Mar. 18 2009,15:33)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 19 2009,08:10)
Anyone else notice we get sexy chicks commenting here. They don't get that at UD!

**blush**

Remember that Maya, Abbey and I have been banned.

Thanks, Amanda, but I think he was referring to Louis.  They usually do, here.

Date: 2009/03/20 12:13:26, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 20 2009,08:16)
"joseph":
 
Quote

I will be picking up a copy of “The Blind Watchmaker” today.

However as I have already stated the program does indeed latch -input to output- via probabilities.

That is given a target, a small enough mutation rate and and large enough sample size, the output will NEVER be farther away from mthe target than the parent.

IOW latching, given the proper conditions, is inevitable.

So why do David and George ignore that fact?

. . .

Yes, adaptive information is retained in populations meeting those two biologically-relevant criteria (reasonable population size and non-zero small mutation rate), but it is precisely the point at issue that "latching" is not done in order to achieve that. We have no evidence of a generic "latching" capability in biology, but we do have plenty of evidence concerning biological population sizes and mutation rates. So no one is ignoring the fact that "weasel" works; it is precisely to the point that argument ensues when certain people persistently misrepresent the mechanism by which it works. I wonder why they ignore that fact?

It's almost physically painful to watch them get so close to understanding, then run away in fear.  Gotta keep those beliefs inviolate, otherwise they'll end up like those scientists who are always changing their theories to match the evidence.

Date: 2009/03/20 18:59:01, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 20 2009,17:29)
My last post at UD has been gifted with a complimentary header:
   
Quote
304
Reciprocating_Bill
03/20/2009
5:04 pm

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

   
Quote
So when you said drift and deterioration, it was a flag that you did not understand the debate.


But now you know I was responding to Joseph’s misleading use of “accumulation,” and his twice repeated demand for a prediction. Given my (mis)understanding of what he intended by “accumulation” (eg., something other than accumulation), my response is correct. I don’t hear you disputing that.

The balance of your post again describes your justification for rejecting the assertion that current evolutionary theory accounts for the origins of macroevolutionary changes and complex biochemical systems.

However, the (putative) failure of an entailment of evolutionary theory does not convert to support for ID. That is because such a finding does not permit the distinction between “ID is also wrong” and “ID is correct.”

Why don’t you speak to that, just for variety.

What is required is an entailment that arises uniquely from ID, and an empirical test of that entailment such that ID, or a major tenet of ID, is put at risk of disconfirmation.

None of the above is responsive to that. Why not give it a whirl.

This on a thread concerning UD's new, "open" moderation policy. Therein the standard was enunciated: no vicious personal attacks, no comments that are defamatory or profane.

Anyone reading that thread will see that I have utterly refrained from ad hominem, defamatory or profane remarks. This despite a steady drizzle of low key (and generally irrational) insults from Jerry, Joseph and, earlier, Unpleasant Biped.

Rather, I have pressed a single, well taken query regarding the evidentiary basis of ID theory, a query that remains unanswered. However, in addition to my interest in their responses to this question, there has always been a meta-purpose to these queries.

That purpose is now served.

(Now let's wait for congratulations all around because I have "run away.")

This is what bothers me second most[1] about UD.  The blatant lack of respect for free and open discussion and the hypocritical claims to have that respect really trigger my violent disgust mental triggers.  I have a lot of respect for you long term followers of UD who can keep your sense of humor when watching these offensive nitwits.  I keep trying to attain the same sense of enlightenment, but then Jerry or Upright Dickhead post something even more egregious.

Aside to Clive (I know you're watching):  You realize your "moderation" is really a desperate attempt to avoid criticism, right?  You realize that everyone can see that you're afraid of really examining you claims?  You also realize that, scarily enough, Davey leaving actually lowered the average understanding of science at UD?  Good, as long as everything is clear.

I would love to see a site that shadows the topics on UD, but actually supports open discussion (without the AtBC mocking that would scare off the IDiots).  I wonder if the Allen MacNeills, Reciprocating Bills, David Kelloggs, Zachriels, and all the rest of the sock puppet army stopped toying with the intellectual mice at UD[2] and would only contribute where they aren't subject to arbitrary censorship, would that pull some of the rodents out into the light?

Thoughtfully,

Maya

[1] The thing that bothers me most is that these people vote.
[2] You may now take this metaphor behind the barn and put it out of its misery.  I'm done with it.

Date: 2009/03/22 16:36:48, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Mar. 22 2009,16:21)
Khan made a suggestion a few pages back (I couldn't find it) about making a parallel UD blog. Each post would link to a post at UD. The point is that this blog would not replicate the tard fun of this board but just have uncensored discussions on the posts and the comments. The non-banned could link back the the blog for comments, my other half is a SEO and the parallel UD could end up higher in google than the original.


If enough people think it is a good idea, I'd be happy to set it up and maintain the main posts (as I live in Australia you will have to wait for the afternoon until the days posts will appear).

It was me!

To be fair, Khan and I do get mistaken for each other a lot.  { Insert Carlson / Louis / Arden joke here. }

Date: 2009/03/22 16:38:41, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 22 2009,16:31)
I don't know what the law is in Australia concerning copyright claimed in the USA, but Barry Arrington threatened to sue me over a public non-deleting mirror of UD some time back.

As long as you reference the original and you're not making money off it, isn't that legal?  (Yes, there is a difference between legal and inexpensive, I know.)

Date: 2009/03/23 15:02:19, Link
Author: Maya
iconofid lays down a banana peel:
Quote
Upright Biped asks:
Quote
You asked for context. Can you name a non-designed object that carries data (in a digital and conventional code, no less) that is used to create function in a separate object.

My brain.

And Upright Dickhead leaps up to slip on it:
Quote
iconofld, you’re assuming your conclusions.

Does anyone want to let him know he's hanging upside down and hasn't figured out that gravity is about to claim his sorry ass?

Nah, me either.

Date: 2009/03/24 07:27:31, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 24 2009,07:04)
Is BarryA really this passive?

Barry Arrington enunciated a clear and unambiguous standard vis moderation: anyone is welcome on UD, regardless of history elsewhere, so long as they comport themselves appropriately. No profane or defamatory language, no vicious personal attacks. PZ is presented as an example.

I submitted myself as a test case.

Clive, in relatively short order, banned me and others for "discourtesy" on other sites (namely here). He flouted BarryA's stated intentions for moderation and undeniably banned me for pressing a question no one at UD can answer. So much for open discourse, and so much for UD's moratorium on censorship. I do believe I lasted longer under DaveScot's regime than Clive's.

Having articulated a new principle in direct contradiction to BarryA's intentions ("discourteous language on boards outside UD is grounds for banning"), Clive applied his own standard in a patently contradictory and self-serving manner: Joe G., who has elsewhere repeatedly insulted persons with profane language, and arguably credibly threatened at least one person who posts both at AtBC and UD with physical violence, continues to post at UD without limitations.

BarryA: Why articulate principles if it is your intention to ignore patent violations of those principles? How can you stand silent and permit Clive's obviously biased misapplication of his own ad hoc standards?

Why assume the role of principal at UD, then let others run the circus?

You could email and ask him directly.  I just Googled for "Barry Arrington" and "Uncommon Descent" and got his introduction to UD.  I replaced the "Uncommon Descent" with the geographical and professional information from that post and was rewarded with a picture of the man himself and an email address.

This is dangerously close to tard stalker behavior, so I'm not going to provide links.  The information is out there if you really want to contact him.

Date: 2009/03/24 08:05:00, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 24 2009,07:58)
Wow I nominate Maya for Tard Miner of the month ...and all I got was
Quote
I think Barry Arrington is a pretty cool guy, eh banhammers DaveScot and doesn’t afraid of anything....

...Arrington is like a frog lording over his own tiny lily-pad.



You've got to wean yourself away from that "I'm Feeling Lucky"[1] button and really look through the results, sweetie.

[1] Yes, it does say "feeling", not "wanting to get".

Date: 2009/03/24 09:05:17, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 24 2009,08:16)
Quote (Maya @ Mar. 24 2009,08:27)
You could email and ask him directly.

I'm probably not his favorite person.

Go here.

It's bad enough these IDiots vote, but they get elected, too?

Date: 2009/03/25 08:14:26, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Mar. 25 2009,07:45)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 25 2009,07:22)
New UD post.  ReMine on "message theory" Part 2. Because Part 1 wasn't stupid enough.

please explain what's so "stupid" about his post.

Actually, where his post focused on testability, and the fact that ID isn't a testable theory, it wasn't bad.  In fact, it sounded more like Reciprocating Bill than most of the IDiots at UD will like.

What's stupid are the claims in his book.  See the talk.origins archives for details.

Date: 2009/03/25 14:27:25, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 25 2009,13:12)
It would seem I was under a rock.

I've never seen that before.

How do you ever expect to make it to the UD show with that kind of graciousness?

You get right back in that editor and explain how what Wes referenced has nothing, NOTHING, to do with what you were saying and that clearly your concept of measurement is far superior to the barely recognizable, poor imitation that was clearly planted after the fact to make you look bad, mister.

Date: 2009/03/26 07:43:13, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 25 2009,20:51)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 25 2009,13:01)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 25 2009,12:57)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 25 2009,11:53)
How many Dembskis of error does this provide? can we tell?
I think we have a winner here.

Just as we have units of various forces and such in Webers, Telsas, Guass and more, I hereby nominate "Units of Error" to be known as Dembskis.

Bravo sir!
Uh, where have you been?
Quote

Error in dembskis

That error might be measured in a unit called "dembskis" that scaled things in terms of orders of magnitude came up in discussion of errors in an essay by Marks and Dembski. The reference unit of error for the measure is taken from the case mentioned above in the M/N ratio calculation note, where Dembski had an error of about 65 orders of magnitude. "Dave W." formalized the notion with an equation, and W. Kevin Vicklund suggested using a rounded-off value of 150 as the constant in the denominator, based upon Dembski's figure of 10^150 as a universal small probability. Thus, the final form of quantifying error in dembskis (Reed Cartwright proposed the symbol ?) is

? = | ln(erroneous measure) - ln(correct measure) | / 150

There is not yet a consensus on what to term the unit, but two proposals being considered are "Dmb" and "duns".

For Maya:


What the hell are you blabbering about?

Of course you'll bring up a "just so" story to cover your tracks.

Is this another way to bring out that "peer review" nonsense that you seem to worship almost as much as Darwin?

Answer me these questions and lets see if you can actually answer or are you going to slink away and snivel victory?

1:  Are you still beating seal pups for beer money?

2:  Are you still stealing money from primary school kids for beer money?

3:  What is the air speed of an unladen swallow?

Let's see if you can answer them.


Is that better Maya?  Am I ready for UD yet?   :D

Great effort, but you included humor.  Monty Python humor, no less.  That's too close to being an ivory tower Darwinist intellectual for UD.

ID is not funny.

Date: 2009/03/27 13:14:57, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 27 2009,12:46)
   
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 27 2009,20:35)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 27 2009,12:29)
     
Quote
[font="Sexy_Hawt"]i bet his kids are like "Daddy why are leaves green"

KF "Jesus said <snip 5000 lines> sadly evo-mat selective hyperskepticism oil soaked ad hominem ranting contrariwise"

Kid  "Fuck Dad I just asked you a simple question.  Why can't you just say because photosynthesis is generally optimized at around 780 whatever units that shit is?"

KF  "Get the fuck out of my house before your mother and I stone you to death like the Good Book says to do.  I've got blathering to do on UD."


PoTW

You know, I read that stuff about kf watching the dancers get all sexy on the television.  I really think he should give up writing erotica.  I wasn't remotely aroused.

Me and my GF tried erotic dancing on TV and the damn thing collapsed.

Perhaps she needed a larger pole?

To support her?

Dancing, that is?


Yeah, yeah, I know, back to the bathroom wall.

Date: 2009/03/27 15:08:01, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 27 2009,13:23)
Quote (Maya @ Mar. 27 2009,21:14)
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 27 2009,12:46)
     
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 27 2009,20:35)
       
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 27 2009,12:29)
       
Quote
[font="Sexy_Hawt"]i bet his kids are like "Daddy why are leaves green"

KF "Jesus said <snip 5000 lines> sadly evo-mat selective hyperskepticism oil soaked ad hominem ranting contrariwise"

Kid  "Fuck Dad I just asked you a simple question.  Why can't you just say because photosynthesis is generally optimized at around 780 whatever units that shit is?"

KF  "Get the fuck out of my house before your mother and I stone you to death like the Good Book says to do.  I've got blathering to do on UD."


PoTW

You know, I read that stuff about kf watching the dancers get all sexy on the television.  I really think he should give up writing erotica.  I wasn't remotely aroused.

Me and my GF tried erotic dancing on TV and the damn thing collapsed.

Perhaps she needed a larger pole?

To support her?

Dancing, that is?


Yeah, yeah, I know, back to the bathroom wall.

It's all in the move.

At least that is what I keep telling myself.

And as long as I believe.


Kind of like UD.

Without ID.

I'm satisfied and she is kind.

Memorize the Greek alphabet and she'll be very kind.

(This has been Maya's tip for the day.  Call back next week for more relationship help.)

Date: 2009/03/27 20:15:26, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Mar. 27 2009,19:25)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 28 2009,09:30)
 
Quote (Maya @ Mar. 27 2009,21:08)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 27 2009,13:23)
   
Quote (Maya @ Mar. 27 2009,21:14)
   
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 27 2009,12:46)
         
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 27 2009,20:35)
           
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 27 2009,12:29)
           
Quote
[font="Sexy_Hawt"]i bet his kids are like "Daddy why are leaves green"

KF "Jesus said <snip 5000 lines> sadly evo-mat selective hyperskepticism oil soaked ad hominem ranting contrariwise"

Kid  "Fuck Dad I just asked you a simple question.  Why can't you just say because photosynthesis is generally optimized at around 780 whatever units that shit is?"

KF  "Get the fuck out of my house before your mother and I stone you to death like the Good Book says to do.  I've got blathering to do on UD."


PoTW

You know, I read that stuff about kf watching the dancers get all sexy on the television.  I really think he should give up writing erotica.  I wasn't remotely aroused.

Me and my GF tried erotic dancing on TV and the damn thing collapsed.

Perhaps she needed a larger pole?

To support her?

Dancing, that is?


Yeah, yeah, I know, back to the bathroom wall.

It's all in the move.

At least that is what I keep telling myself.

And as long as I believe.


Kind of like UD.

Without ID.

I'm satisfied and she is kind.

Memorize the Greek alphabet and she'll be very kind.

(This has been Maya's tip for the day.  Call back next week for more relationship help.)

I find hear the thirteen times table is good.

Allegedly.

Louis

What ever you do, just don't think of Denise in a gold bikini!

(I've done it now, Luckily Louis's wife is already pregnant)

Edit to fix grammar like (and I now haz edit button)

Do you think that will affect them worse than imagining her without the bikini?

Date: 2009/03/28 09:38:02, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 28 2009,02:16)
....erm thanks no problem there, I could recite War and Peace and still have time left over but I was talking about the nice new zimmer frame she got me and her friends ankles I hit in night clubs....

I had to Google Zimmer frame.  Sitting in a corner so no one could see my laptop screen turned out to be unnecessary.  Most disappointing.

Date: 2009/03/30 11:16:08, Link
Author: Maya
JayM answers Gil's question!  
Quote

I find the demands to eliminate pseudonymity in this thread to be hypocritical and, frankly, creepy.

ID opponents have just as much reason to desire pseudonymity as do ID proponents. Consider the case of Paul Mirecki who was physically beaten for statements made online.

Consider also UD’s own Joseph, who has arguably threatened David Kellogg on his blog. I note in particular the lines “I am being very generous by saying that on this blog as opposed to driving a few miles to say it to your face.” and “And yes I will do whatever it takes to stop it.” which indicate that Joe G knows where David Kellogg lives and that suggest that Joe G is not restricting his reaction to David Kellogg’s postings to online responses.

People have a right to protect themselves. The ideas are what matter.


By the way, is John Davison for real?  I thought I k.e. had a high opinion of myself himself, but that guy is ridiculous.

Date: 2009/04/01 18:38:38, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (tsig @ April 01 2009,18:13)
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 30 2009,03:12)
As of now, kairosfocus has 'contributed' 8,220 words to the Simulation Wars thread.

4,755 of them follow this statement:
   
Quote
There is actually very little point in onward extension of the issues over minutiae of Weasel and/or the latest neo-Weasel, the real matters on the merits having long been settled.

KF, seek professional help immediately.

It looked to me like the Weasel won the war.

And now, stage 2:

Date: 2009/04/02 20:09:54, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 02 2009,18:56)
Does anybody have an email for BarryA or another UD moderator?  PM me if you do.  This mod pile shit has got to stop.

If they don't censor people with opposing views, the drivel that passes for arguments from the ID supporters won't get to stand unrefuted for more than milliseconds.

Clive, I know you're listening, you gutless bitch.  You should be ashamed of yourself, but that would require some minimal intellectual integrity, just as understanding that what you're doing shows how little confidence you have in your own position would require some minimal intellect.

As Barry's tool you, of course, have the legal right to run UD however you like.  Morally, censoring opposing views is reprehensible.  Censoring by putting posts in "moderation" for hours or days is dishonest.  Don't your sacred texts have something to say about such behavior?

Date: 2009/04/03 11:58:12, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (k.e.. @ April 03 2009,11:08)
just ask my mom.

I can't believe you left that straight line just hanging out there undefended in this crowd.

Date: 2009/04/04 12:20:36, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Zachriel @ April 04 2009,11:11)
Quote
Joseph: Only a fool thinks that evolution would expect a nested hierarchy!

Fools like

The University of California Museum of Paleontology with support provided by the National Science Foundation: Common ancestry is conspicuous.


Hah!  Your diagram clearly shows that birds and whales are closely related!  Those points are even closer than humans and chimpanzees.  Where's your evolutionary theory now, huh?

Channeling UD for fun and profit.

Date: 2009/04/04 14:30:18, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 04 2009,14:03)
Quote (Jkrebs @ April 04 2009,14:00)
Sal tells Davison to go away, and once again offers to build a website for "qualified" people such as Allen macNeil and David Kellogg so they can discuss away from the confines of UD.

Sal - the gift that keeps on giving.

Yeah.  Thanks but no.

He just invited you to co-moderate a discussion elsewhere.  Perhaps you should suggest talk.origins.

Date: 2009/04/06 09:50:15, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Jkrebs @ April 06 2009,09:26)
Incredible.

Joseph writes,

 
Quote
eintown,

Shermer holds a mischaracterization of ID.

Therefor anyone agreeing with him also holds that mischaracterization.

Now you understand the moderation policy.

It is close to impossible to have a discussion with people who choose willfull mischaracterization of the alternative PoV.


This is even more explicit than Clive.  They have an open forum, dedicated to discussing the issues (ala Barry), except that if you don't agree with their characterization of ID, then it is impossible to have a conversation with you, so you will be subject to delay by moderation, which effectively closes discussion.

Short version: we have an open forum as long as you agree with us.

What drives me nuts is that these are no doubt the same people who, politically, wrap themselves in the flag and claim to support the U.S. Constitution.  At least, for Christians like themselves.

Hypocrites.

It's a lovely morning and life is good, otherwise I'd be tempted to put on a tight shirt and short skirt, sashay[1] over to the Comp. Sci. building, and bat my eyelashes[2] at a random geek.  "You understand computers?" *giggle*[3] "I bet you're smart enough to take control of a whole website!  How about this one...."

But that would be wrong.

[1] I'm not entirely sure how to sashay, actually.
[2] Batting eyelashes isn't my strong suit, either.
[3] Okay, three strikes, I'm out.

Date: 2009/04/06 11:06:23, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Louis @ April 06 2009,10:04)
Oh no Maya, it would be oh so right!

Careful and responsible exercise of power is always appropriate. Using your Jedi powers to gain control of a website is fine, as long as it generates Teh Funneh.

Louis

Will you teach me to sashay?

Date: 2009/04/06 14:12:03, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (k.e.. @ April 06 2009,11:31)
Quote (dnmlthr @ April 06 2009,19:20)
Quote (Maya @ April 06 2009,17:06)
 
Quote (Louis @ April 06 2009,10:04)
Oh no Maya, it would be oh so right!

Careful and responsible exercise of power is always appropriate. Using your Jedi powers to gain control of a website is fine, as long as it generates Teh Funneh.

Louis

Will you teach me to sashay?

Short skirt and batting your eye lashes won't work on CS geeks. You might have more luck with spock ears though.

Who was that female that sat at the console with the ...erm....tight top?

Was that you Maya?

I'm not sure that being mean to UD is worth watching enough Star Trek to keep up with this conversation.

Date: 2009/04/06 18:53:13, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 06 2009,18:31)
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ April 06 2009,16:55)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 06 2009,15:49)
     
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 06 2009,11:14)
As a CS geek, I always pay attention to women wearing nothing but spock ears.

Well, that perked up my ears.


Only ears?


Star Trek sure has changed since Kirk.

If you can sashay with that much cachet, you don't need to worry about holding a conversation, Maya!

You just made me sprain my neck checking to see how my dimples compare!

ETA:  You boys are welcome for me finding an excuse to copy the picture again.

Date: 2009/04/06 20:51:47, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 06 2009,20:34)
Don't hurt yourself, I volunteer to check for you.



(Begins looking for robe and wizard hat...)

Wow, you found something less sexy than Spock ears!

Date: 2009/04/07 17:39:48, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 07 2009,16:44)
NetNanny and reality interdictor Clive:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-311849

 
Quote
150

Clive Hayden

04/07/2009

4:30 pm
hazel,

“Very good way of putting this. There is no argument for the first cause being personal that doesn’t apply equally to the first cause being impersonal.”

Well, that’s actually not true. If the universe’s first cause was impersonal–just a mere relation between impersonal entities–then the relationship between the impersonal force and the universe would necessitate that the universe would have been around for as long as the relationship between them has been around. This would mean that an impersonal force and the universe’s existence would be infinite into the past, and of course we know that the universe is not infinitely old. And neither will an oscillating universe assuage the difficulty, for that is only pushing the question back, and we also know that in a closed system there is not enough energy to account for an infinitely oscillating universe. And I Am that I Am is obviously different than It Is That It Is–namely, personality.



and we also know that in a closed system there is not enough energy to account for an infinitely oscillating universe - Heddle, Oleg, other n3rdlingers, is this true. Where does the energy dissipate to? I didn't think you could destroy it, just change its state.

Some editationalisms

I'm impressed you got past the first couple of lines to even find something rational enough to critique.  I got hung up on "If the universe’s first cause was impersonal–just a mere relation between impersonal entities–then the relationship between the impersonal force and the universe would necessitate that the universe would have been around for as long as the relationship between them has been around. This would mean that an impersonal force and the universe’s existence would be infinite into the past...."

I'm not sure I can call Clive a dishonest hypocrite anymore for his petty censorship at UD.  No one with so little command of basic logic can really be held accountable for their actions.

Date: 2009/04/09 13:36:27, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ April 09 2009,12:36)
Quote (Zachriel @ April 09 2009,11:08)
Quote
Atom: This one bases fitness on the distance between the target’s ASCII sum and the string’s ASCII sum, providing indirect information about the target. This differs from CRC32 in that the ASCII sum will always be similar for similar strings (as far as I know), so it should be a smooth function without surprises.

It will quickly find strings with the same ASCII sum.

 
Quote
Atom: Please relay anything useful and relevant here.


Rather odd not to look over here.

Atom is afraid he will catch teh "A".  :O

Maybe he'll risk it if someone tells him that more people post pictures of women's nekkid butts here than on UD.

Unless he prefers men's butts.  I could do some research for him.

Date: 2009/04/09 15:18:44, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 09 2009,13:46)
Quote (Maya @ April 09 2009,13:36)
 
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ April 09 2009,12:36)

Atom is afraid he will catch teh "A".  :O

Maybe he'll risk it if someone tells him that more people post pictures of women's nekkid butts here than on UD.

Says you.


More green skin.  What is it with you Trekkies?

Date: 2009/04/11 13:17:38, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 11 2009,11:33)
The blog post this all comes from seems simply to be a dig at "book lernin":
Quote

One of the dumbest things I hear “new atheists” say is that faith means “belief without evidence.”

Ah, you beat me to it.  I found it interesting that O'Leary complained about this claim and then . . . provided no evidence for her faith.

Date: 2009/04/12 09:20:10, Link
Author: Maya
After The Bar Closes and The Fermi Paradox
Or, Mom's Easter Mimosas Inspire Insight

Several science fiction authors have considered the question of how extra-terrestrial intelligences might judge humanity and why ETIs may have avoided interacting with us.  Most answers are related to how we treat each other, how we treat other species, or how much we've grown past the need for primitive beliefs.

The real answer, arriving as an epiphany somewhere in the midst of mimosa number three, is how focused we can be.  A truly advanced species will not necessarily be uniformly rational.  Even demi-god societies will have individuals standing on cloud corners waving sacred texts and screaming that the end is near.  The difference between such a species and humanity is that they won't interact with the nutter.

Uncommon Descent is a test (whether of extra-terrestrial origin or not is up for debate).  The proper response is to watch from a distance, perhaps chuckling indulgently, but to never, ever directly engage.  Without the constraining influence of rational participants, the UD community would rapidly spiral out of control until it reached the intellectual equivalent of the heat death of the universe.  Nothing but free floating nonsense, unable to form even the simplest syllogisms.

After the Bar Closes needs to fill its true role, and stop preventing UD from reaching its unavoidable climax (steady on, k.e.).  We must prove ourselves worthy of joining the galactic community, by showing that we are not a species that prefers to live in rhetorical ratholes.

Submitted for your consideration.

Date: 2009/04/15 16:57:32, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ April 15 2009,14:36)
Quote (zagnik @ April 15 2009,01:17)
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 14 2009,22:24)
Ms. Tuchman describes these groups as "Tard-Venus" (always in Bold Face in the book), which means "Late-Comers".

I thought O'Leary was the Tard Venus

DaveScot was Tard-Xenu.  Write that down.

Thank you for not including a picture.

Date: 2009/04/16 12:14:29, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 16 2009,12:01)
[awe]VERY[/awe] cool. Will you be working it into a paper?

I hope Wesley gets some value out of this.  The whole thing reminds me of my favorite description of Usenet:
Quote

UsenetUD:  A group of people pounding a stain in the pavement where once lay a dead horseweasel.

Date: 2009/04/16 22:08:19, Link
Author: Maya
DaveScot's favorite dom continues to pretend to be involved in science:
Quote
Note the phrase “finding new patterns in the information.” That’s the business of ID. Can the AlloSphere be used as an engine for detecting design?

Really?  I thought the business of ID was getting fools like Clive, StephenB, Jerry, Joseph, and the late, unlamented Davey to give money to con artists like Dembski and the Discovery Institute.

Date: 2009/04/23 07:41:53, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (KCdgw @ April 23 2009,05:49)
gpuccio:

Quote
You see, we in ID prefer to discuss things where we can go into details and be qunatitative, rather than give “just so stories”, even if about issues which would certainly be in favour of our position


LOL

KC

Oh please don't tempt me to go back there and ask for a calculation of the CSI of the flagellum.

Date: 2009/04/23 17:30:36, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 23 2009,16:33)
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ April 23 2009,16:14)
tribune7

   
Quote
Something else to consider.

Without God, there is no evil because God is the one who defines evil.

Hi Joseph.  Are you coming here because you're not getting enough attention on your blahg?

Are you saying that Nils is really Joseph "Evolutionary theory makes no predictions" of UD?

<begin Drusilla>
Can I . . . play with it when you're done?
</end Drusilla>

Date: 2009/04/23 19:52:17, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 23 2009,19:36)
Quote

Not only is it not incoherent, it is the only possible explanation. One cannot give what one is not.

Here, have a sandwich.  Damn, I must be ham and brie on rye!

Date: 2009/04/24 06:23:02, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 23 2009,22:29)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-314586

Quote
454

Barry Arrington

04/23/2009

10:13 pm
Allan, I deleted your comment about the Tao, becaue you posted it in a deliberate attempt to confuse and obfuscate. That’s not nice. Please don’t do it again.


Was it? We'll never know, because its deleted. But thanks for thinking for us Barry. That's what an open and honest exchange of ideas is all about..

Reasoning backward from Barry's own moderation policy:
Quote

As a general rule, so long as your comment is not defamatory profane, or a vicious personal attack, you can say pretty much what you want.



we can conclude that confusing the resident UDiots is a defamatory, profane, and vicious personal attack on them.  Allen needs to learn to keep his prose to their reading and comprehension level.

If there is a hell, Barry, I hope there's a special place for lying hypocrites.

Date: 2009/04/25 20:56:47, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 25 2009,20:43)
Personally, I think the saddest part about Nakashima's brief career on UD was not that it ended so abruptly, but that his polite and relentlessly fact based comments got so little traction with the regulars there. Staying on topic just doesn't work in the Barrogant based UD.

Luckily, my kairosfocus sockpuppet has survived Nakashima's assault!

Ah, but you've taken the easy route with voluminous computer generated prose that can easily devolve into incoherence since no one is going to read more than the first and last paragraph.

My StephenB sock requires more attention to tardy detail.

Just kidding, Barry, really.  Don't ban StephenB.  Please don't toss me in dat briar patch!

Date: 2009/04/28 22:06:01, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 28 2009,21:26)
these folks need people or symbols to resist.  The Other controls their lives and mentalities far more than they understand.  It is interesting to note that this phenomenon is not unique to UD but may be seen, in alternate form and manifestation, at Pharyngula.

I usually try to contribute a little more (okay, a very little more) here than "What he said!" but, darn it, that was beautiful!

Date: 2009/04/28 22:07:07, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (keiths @ April 28 2009,22:02)
This is great tard.

Smarmy Sal decides that a little unctuous praise might soften Allen up, so he edits his comment and adds this at the end:
Quote
Remember we are vastly outnumbered by qualified evolutionary biologists like yourself.

Yes, Sal, you are.  Maybe that should tell you something.

Date: 2009/04/29 14:30:03, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (k.e.. @ April 29 2009,10:23)
Had some brill ideas along the lines of Heddle being on some list of unwanted Physics Rock Gods on another planet and I dream of Jeanie VHF TV transmissions
. . .
Maya, Maya, Maya,

Darn it, you know I have to pop out of the lamp when you say that three times.

Quote
aahm no meteorologist but aahm pretty sure it's raining bitches

Paris Hilton let us own that word!

Date: 2009/04/30 14:23:10, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 30 2009,12:34)
I wasn't a tard-watcher back in September '05. It wasn't until after Dover that I took my first hit of Waco Brown. Life has been up and down ever since. I am staying clean and sober at the minute, but it will just take one vinegar and oil-soaked O'Leary word salad to start the addiction spiral.

I've got some CSI if you want.  First hit's free!

Date: 2009/04/30 15:38:33, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 30 2009,14:53)
Quote (Maya @ April 30 2009,14:23)
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 30 2009,12:34)
I wasn't a tard-watcher back in September '05. It wasn't until after Dover that I took my first hit of Waco Brown. Life has been up and down ever since. I am staying clean and sober at the minute, but it will just take one vinegar and oil-soaked O'Leary word salad to start the addiction spiral.

I've got some CSI if you want.  First hit's free!

Whoa!  Nice stash. How much CSI is in that baggie?

From the way the other guys here talk about you, I didn't expect you to check out my stash.

Date: 2009/04/30 23:07:52, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (khan @ April 30 2009,17:40)
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 30 2009,18:38)
Quote (keiths @ April 30 2009,18:22)
If I claim that the Rapture will happen at 14:29 UTC, and that I will disappear from the face of the earth at that time, you can place me on a scale and measure the (non)reduction in mass that occurs at 14:29 UTC.

Has anyone volunteered to be weighed while dying?

I have a vague memory of claims being made that 'something measurable (by weight)' left bodies upon death.

Of course that would be the soul.

Date: 2009/05/06 06:48:25, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (keiths @ May 06 2009,05:23)
 
Quote (Ptaylor @ May 06 2009,03:05)
Fantastic! Denyse is holding a competition:      
Quote
Earn free stuff!: The Uncommon Descent Contest
O'Leary

Why just be a commenter when you can also earn free stuff?

. . .

Rules:

1. No more than 400 words in response. I will select the response I find most interesting and print it as a post. Be succinct.

. . .


I can hardly wait (really).

We should all enter.

Those who do, be sure to post your entries here for the rest of us to enjoy!

Well, since Kairosfocus is ruled out at the start, perhaps I stand a chance.

Date: 2009/05/07 10:41:35, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 07 2009,10:19)
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 07 2009,10:08)
I <3 Tom English.  

"<3" ?

Is that teh interwebs symbol for "offer my bottom to"?

You may have just explained my most recent misinterpreted text message.

Date: 2009/05/09 18:45:17, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ May 09 2009,18:01)
There are many biologists in the ID movement:
Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Paul Chien.

Three is not many.  How many peer-reviewed papers have each of those individuals published in the past five years?
Quote

Quote (CeilingCat @ May 09 2009,17:00)

Hell, I'll give you the nickle if you can find one person on UD who doesn't have his head stuck up his rectum.

Why did you use offensive language in your answers? Is it really necessary?

Necessary?  No.  Justified?  Yes.

The people running UD are proven hypocrites.  That's offensive to those of us who value the truth.

The denizens of UD are ignorant, dishonest, or both.  They are grasping at any straw that might keep their religious beliefs afloat in a sea of scientific knowledge.  That's offensive to those of us who value science.

All ID supporters are contributing to the destruction of science education in this country.  That's offensive to those of us who value the next generation.

You deserve far more opprobrium than you get.

Date: 2009/05/10 09:15:10, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 10 2009,04:07)
Quote (Richard Simons @ May 09 2009,22:28)
Behe is a biochemist, not a biologist. Also, that was not the question you asked of us. You asked "who of you is a real scientist working in the field of biology?" Has Jonathan Wells done any research since he completed his PhD? So you are down to one.

BTW I don't want to give the impression that biochemists and others, including people who ask good questions, have nothing to contribute but Nils was specifically limiting his question to biologists.

I think that's unfair - biology is a big field, with a lot of sub-specialities.  Biochemistry is one, and I don't see how that stops it from being biology.  You might just as well argue that Haldane, Fisher and Wright were doing mathematics, not biology, when they were inventing population genetics.

No, I'm not a biochemist.

Ah, but would you want your daughter to marry one?

Date: 2009/05/11 14:14:59, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 11 2009,12:54)
Dembski has conceded that evolution works (well, for the purposes of his paper anyway), is this the final step before he simply announces he has become a T.E?

School is interfering with my UD addiction, but I did read bits and pieces of Dembski's book chapter.  Am I missing something or is he basically retreating to a fine tuning argument?  He admits that evolution works, but then claims that the information in the environment (I guess that would be, well, reality) needs explaining.

How is this appreciably different from the anthropic principle?  Is Dembski really giving up on the whole "too complex to have evolved" version of ID?

Date: 2009/05/12 19:42:56, Link
Author: Maya
ID Can Haz Conference!

Well, sorta.

The luminaries include:
Douglas Axe (Biologic Institute, Chemical Engineering)
Michael Behe (Lehigh, Biochemistry)
Ann Gauger (Biologic Institute, Zoology)
David Keller (University of New Mexico,Chemistry)
John Sanford (Cornell [courtesy associate professor], Plant Breeding and Genetics)

I'm a big fan of the idea of being a polymath, but aren't there any evolutionary biologists in the ID camp?  Sanford is far and away the heaviest hitter on the panel, and he's well known to be infected with the YEC virus.

Anyone going?  I want a trip report!

Date: 2009/05/12 20:11:42, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (olegt @ May 12 2009,19:44)
. . . one can place an atom in an excited state inside a mirror cavity and it will evolve . . .

That's where the UDers will disagree with you.

Date: 2009/05/14 11:45:31, Link
Author: Maya
A quick drive-by dredging of the tard pits turned up this gem where eintown pwns Barry on the creationist claim that "all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!"

Barry cites the closest thing to a peer-reviewed journal where he can understand almost half the big words:
 
Quote

eintown, we have Science Digest saying one thing and you saying another. Do you have anything to back up your assertion other than your blind faith that its “just gotta be so”? Assertion is not argument. Bald denail is not rebuttal.

Bring us the goods or kindly go to another site to show off your ignorance.

eintown responds
 
Quote

Well, answers in genesis, states that “400 specimens of Neanderthal have been discovered”. Can’t argue with that source.

Nice, SHORT, list can be found at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_fossils

There are the goods, do they fit in?

Followed with:
 
Quote

oh and this.
http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

Also try consult a book that holds inventories of human fossils. E.g. Koobi Fora Research Project… hundreds of fossils from one site, from 1978

What are the odds that he gets an apology, or even an acknowledgement, from Barry "Free Speech" Arrington?

Date: 2009/05/14 12:11:09, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 14 2009,11:57)
http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=798

 
Quote
Fossil Hominids Abundant, Interesting
Posted on May 7th, 2007 by Greg
Afarensis takes creationist Dave Scot to task in this post that summarizes the counterargument to claims such as “there are not enough hominid fossils to fill a single coffin.”

...

I feel a k.e. moment coming on . . .

I didn't say how big a coffin, did I, HOMO?!?!?

Date: 2009/05/15 11:47:41, Link
Author: Maya
JayM brings the snark:
 
Quote

Clive Hayden @23
 
Quote

JayM,

A simple yes or no will suffice.

That’s not what kairosfocus told me.


I confess, I snorted.

Date: 2009/05/18 14:42:52, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 18 2009,14:33)
Clive goes obtuse:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-318055

 
Quote
   
Home About Resources Search
Uncommon Descent presents...


beelzebub

05/18/2009

12:29 pm
Clive,

It seems that you’ve been infected by the “mockery constitutes refutation” meme, judging by your opening post here and by your comments on determinism (link, link) in the “Belief in God” thread.

Do you have any actual criticisms of the concepts of determinism and memes?

8

Clive Hayden

05/18/2009

12:41 pm
beelzebub,

—-”Do you have any actual criticisms of the concepts of determinism and memes?”

Yes.

9

beelzebub

05/18/2009

1:55 pm
Clive,

Any that you’re willing to state publicly on this thread, in the presence of folks who understand both memes and determinism?

10

Clive Hayden

05/18/2009

2:13 pm
beelzebub,

Sure.


ID: not big on details.

Edited.

I bet Clive got beat up a lot as a child.  And the girls beating him weren't doing it to hide the fact that they liked him.

Date: 2009/05/27 10:00:47, Link
Author: Maya
Following one of diffaxial's links coughed up this:
Quote
If the moderators here are not going to abide by the clear guidelines stated by Barry Arrington, common courtesy would dictate that some indication is made when posts are removed. It would also be courteous to somehow visually distinguish those who are in the moderation queue (perhaps a pink triangle or yellow star next to their names) so that the people they are conversing with know not to expect replies for at least 12 hours.

I can haz DesignNazi inference?

Date: 2009/05/31 20:12:40, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Louis @ May 31 2009,15:23)
For once Deadman you've actually hit on something that is TRUE! I can help because I used to work for Pfizer and I know how to make sildenafil citrate.

Well done champ, well done. You can have a biscuit.

You may want to fill in the space between "I know how to make sildenafil citrate" and "have a biscuit" with some more distracting words if you want anyone to take you up on the offer.

Date: 2009/06/14 13:17:25, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ June 14 2009,12:00)
Just caught this:      
Quote
. . .
2 - you write that Darwin did not propose a remedy to the problem under discussion, and then state that the remedy was eugenics, all in a section trying to tie Social Darwinism directly to Darwin himself. That is pretty self-throat-cuttingly incoherent.
. . .


Cut-Me-Own-Throat Mullings?

Date: 2009/06/14 13:35:43, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 14 2009,13:21)
Quote (Maya @ June 14 2009,20:17)
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ June 14 2009,12:00)
Just caught this:        
Quote
. . .
2 - you write that Darwin did not propose a remedy to the problem under discussion, and then state that the remedy was eugenics, all in a section trying to tie Social Darwinism directly to Darwin himself. That is pretty self-throat-cuttingly incoherent.
. . .


Cut-Me-Own-Throat Mullings?

Is that a Dibbler reference? If so, I will have to agree!

On second thought, the UDiots are remind me more of the deep dwarves, or maybe, on a good day, Sergeant Colon.

Date: 2009/06/14 16:59:59, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 14 2009,13:52)
Naah. Colon's too objective. Nobby is way too logical, but I think the deep-down dwarfs and especialy the Grags would fit...

(It has been mentioned that Pratchett used Orthodox Jews as the basis for his Grags)...

If a sock named Grag shows up on UD, it isn't me.  Honest.

Date: 2009/06/21 08:32:17, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Louis @ June 21 2009,06:10)
Quote (Bob O'H @ June 21 2009,07:39)
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

Yay!  We know where to have our first CBEB meet-up then.

Except... which Tards?  The one in Hungary (the link), or Poland (Google Maps).

The nearest lake to the Hungarian one (map) is a couple of miles away, which might be a bit difficult if we want to bring the command center.

I vote for Hungary. The Palinka is great and we can have Unicum shots as forfeits for not mocking T.A.R.D.ists enough.

Louis

Unicum is what happens when you stir vodka into road tar with a licorice stick.  You're a cruel man.

Date: 2009/06/21 21:37:16, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ June 21 2009,20:13)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 19 2009,23:27)
David Kellogg:
   
Quote
—-David Kellogg: “StephenB, is it possible for you to write without condescension? You have shown nothing of what you claim, though as usual you are full of bluster as self-praise. I have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone who behaves in such a manner.”

StephenB:
   
Quote
No, it is not possible. Anyone who would continue to resist slam dunk arguments with the kind of fact-dodging, context-twisting, false framing sophistry that you have been putting out deserves whatever he gets.

Asshole.

people like Stephen Bussell are a nice personal reference for reality checks.

Feel bad about kicking the tard a little hard?  maybe you broke it?  doubting whether or not arguments matter?  feeling like a big group hug?  witness this tard.  you can and should treat this fool with every single nanogram of contempt you can muster until he has a come to Jesus moment.  tard in the face of tard is something you can't fight with facts, only if someone is a bit squeamish about admitting their tardery can you begin to heal them.  Stephen is deeeeep in the pits of denial and other assorted issues and the only treatment that works on tards of this order is to heap heaping piles of red hot scorn upon their head.  Factually correct and epistemologically supportable piles of red hot scorn, but please don't forget the attitude.

Erasmus, you've articulated my feelings better than I've been able to.  I started reading and participating at UD because I thought it was important to rebut the foolishness on display there.  Science education is important, and those who oppose it must themselves be opposed.  I've stopped because even the best of the denizens of UD is, on a good day, simply pathetic.  They aren't interested in learning, they have no knowledge of the disciplines they attempt to critique, and they are even lacking in the low cunning that passes for political savvy in the broader creationist camp.

Their appalling hypocrisy of claiming to support free speech while censoring madly still gets up my nose, but being a scumbag is far easier than being a threat.  We might have to fight the DI in the precincts, but UD isn't even remotely credible now, if ever it was.

Poking the UDiots with a sharp stick and pointing out their ridiculous logical contortions is, admittedly, too much fun for everyone in the reality based community to stop, but I'm curious to know what would happen if we did.  Imagine a UD with no sock puppets and no voices of reason.  Nothing but a giant echo chamber with StephenB, Jerry, Joseph, and Clive in a race to the bottom, with Denyse providing color and commentary.  I suspect that even they couldn't stand each other without an external enemy to distract from their discordant bloviations.

By all means pile on the scorn.  It's all they've earned.

Date: 2009/06/30 13:18:31, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (k.e.. @ June 30 2009,12:09)
I don't know what I'm going to do when that place shuts shop.

Free laughs.

I suppose I'll have to pay to see that sort of clowning in public in future.

"If it were funny, clowns wouldn't be doing it."
-- Terry Pratchett

Date: 2009/06/30 16:41:36, Link
Author: Maya
Following the above link to Clive's always entertaining anti-intellectual contortions caused this to catch my eye:
Quote
Wow—it looks like WND is a gold mine for accurate info on evolution. I think the following quote is quite appropriate, given the topic of this thread:

Yet none puts it more plainly than Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner and professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University.

Quote
“I do not want to believe in God,” Wald admitted to Scientific American magazine. “Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”


I have to at least respect Dr. Wald for being upfront about his religious views, unlike Darwin.

Applying the frequently validated theory that all creationists, including the ID variant, are liars, I assumed this to be a quote mine.  Sure enough, it is.

Date: 2009/07/01 13:35:21, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ July 01 2009,12:17)
Talking of moderation policies, clive has started deleting peoples posts again.

David Kellogg makes an interesting point:
Quote
If insults and sarcasm are reasons for deletion, Clive, you’ll have to start paying more attention to your side.

That would eliminate 90% of everything StephenB, Joseph, UprightBiped, and Jerry write.  I don't know if it would eliminate any of Gordon's ramblings, because frankly I fall asleep before getting to anything insulting or sarcastic.

So how about it, Clive baby?  Are you going to start applying the same rules to everyone or are you just going to admit that you know that ID can't stand the scrutiny of a truly open discussion?

Date: 2009/07/01 17:35:36, Link
Author: Maya
Clive is being oppressed, er . . . vilified!
 
Quote
Are you trying to vilify me? I don’t want that website linked, not because it exposes a moderation policy, but because most of those people have been banned, and I do not want to give them an audience here. You’re welcome to join them if you want, just keep up your tactics.

Clive baby (love the new nick), you voluntarily act as a censor in an echo chamber populated primarily by people so profoundly ignorant of the history and practice of science and simultaneously so desperate to cling to their religious beliefs that they'll shower charlatans like Dembski with money to provide them with books to use as blunt weapons in their fight against reason.  Daily you demonstrate a lack of intelligence, honesty, and integrity normally not found outside the wards holding the terminally brain damaged who pose a threat to themselves and others.

Vilify you?  I wouldn't know what I could say about you that's worse than what your actions show about yourself.  I wouldn't cross the street to pee on you if you were on fire (not just because watching your pathetic waste of flesh burn would amuse me, but also because most of you holier-than-thou hypocrites get off on that sort of thing).

If you could defend your position, you wouldn't need to insult the sacrifices made by so many to protect free speech.





Date: 2009/07/01 18:24:07, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 01 2009,18:02)
Quote (Maya @ July 01 2009,17:35)
Clive baby (love the new nick...
I wouldn't cross the street to pee on you if you were on fire (not just because watching your pathetic waste of flesh burn would amuse me, but also because most of you holier-than-thou hypocrites get off on that sort of thing).


I'd hope you'd do that for me if I was kinkurious ... asked nicely was on fire, or stung by jellyfish or ...umm...beset by frostbite or something.   ;)

P.S. Sorry -- I blame it on the evil influences of librul society. Being here too long. The caustic effects of T.A.R.D. It's not my fault.

No fair flirting (however grossly) when I'm on a rant!

Date: 2009/07/02 09:33:16, Link
Author: Maya
David Kellogg brings more of what UD most fears:  Education
Quote
Quote
Those who survived did so often by getting better at something. Faster, stronger, taller, smarter, more beautiful, etc. It is basic Darwin 101.

No. Basic Darwin 101 doesn’t specify in advance what counts as an advantageous trait. It’s possible that being slower, weaker, shorter, stupider, uglier, etc. can offer greater survival either (a) directly (as smaller and uglier may do in some times) or (b) indirectly, in a trade-off with another, more advantageous trait.

Many simple organisms (molds, bacteria, jellyfish) have had great evolutionary success.

Is part of the UDiots problem this cartoon view of evolutionary theory?  I realize that the vast majority of them have no background in any field of science, but if they really believe the "constantly bigger, stronger, faster" caricature, that explains a lot.

I'd like to take this time to curse David Kellogg for giving me a reason to read UD even intermittently.  The collateral damage to my brain cells from exposure to the regulars there is far from minimal.

Date: 2009/07/02 18:53:12, Link
Author: Maya
Wow, all it takes is one picture to stop all the guys here from posting.

Someone should post that at UD.

Date: 2009/07/03 07:38:43, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 03 2009,06:23)
ETA lolololol Seversky

Quote
As has been pointed out before, his thesis is based on an equivocation on the meaning of ‘religious’, much as Denyse O’Leary and others conflates discussing the nature of race with being racist.   To this extent, Cornelius Hunter is just Denyse O’Leary but with bigger words and longer paragraphs.

Denyse bred with Gordon?

*shudder*

Date: 2009/07/04 13:26:15, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 04 2009,10:23)
Quote (Maya @ July 01 2009,18:35)
Clive is being oppressed, er . . . vilified!
   
Quote
Are you trying to vilify me? I don’t want that website linked, not because it exposes a moderation policy, but because most of those people have been banned, and I do not want to give them an audience here. You’re welcome to join them if you want, just keep up your tactics.

Clive baby (love the new nick), you voluntarily act as a censor in an echo chamber populated primarily by people so profoundly ignorant of the history and practice of science and simultaneously so desperate to cling to their religious beliefs that they'll shower charlatans like Dembski with money to provide them with books to use as blunt weapons in their fight against reason.  Daily you demonstrate a lack of intelligence, honesty, and integrity normally not found outside the wards holding the terminally brain damaged who pose a threat to themselves and others.

Vilify you?  I wouldn't know what I could say about you that's worse than what your actions show about yourself.  I wouldn't cross the street to pee on you if you were on fire (not just because watching your pathetic waste of flesh burn would amuse me, but also because most of you holier-than-thou hypocrites get off on that sort of thing).

If you could defend your position, you wouldn't need to insult the sacrifices made by so many to protect free speech.


Apologies for the delay.

Aw, shucks!  *blush*

I'd like to thank the academy, everyone here at AtBC for making it socially acceptable to mock the kids who voluntarily get on the short bus, and of course UD, without whose tard none of this would be possible.

(This doesn't make me any more likely to pee on Clive baby, though.)

Date: 2009/07/05 07:10:09, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 05 2009,01:31)
Oh, noes! Kellogg, Alan Fox and iconofid are bad, bad, godlessmaterialistatheisticaldarweenian meanies who have tested Clive's saintliness and been found wanting  here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....so-foul

Shame on you Alan Fox, calling Gil a TARDist and intellectual pansy. For shame!

Repent, David Kellogg! Pointing out hypocrisy is a low trick of Satan.

Iconofid...well, you're just zooming straight to hell on a bobsled made of sin.

Iconofid should at least get a comfy seat on the bobsled for this:
   
Quote
   
Quote
Calling a prostitute a prostitute is not viscious. Calling her ‘a c***’ is.”

I thought Ms. O’Leary made her living as a journalist.

I just can't get quit of UD.

ETA:  Yes, Clive baby, it is funny, you insufferable twit.

Date: 2009/07/06 14:39:20, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 06 2009,14:29)
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 06 2009,14:15)
I had lunch with Blipey once.

What's that get me?

A shot at that strain of cooties that Louis carries?

I was going to go with "More guts than Davey."

Date: 2009/07/07 13:25:17, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 07 2009,13:15)
Oh, and Clive, although I'm in no way a part of the group, our intellectuals and scientists make yours look like it clear yours are a bunch of bewildered theologians.

Adjusted that impertinently for you.

Date: 2009/07/08 08:39:14, Link
Author: Maya
Joseph is reduced to sputtering
 
Quote
JTaylor:
 
Quote
When was the last time any experimental lab-based ID science was presented here?

So if Behe goes into a lab and designs a flagellum ID is “proven”?

No.

Does the theory of evolution have any lab-based non-telic science that supports the claims of itsd position?

No.

Did Watson and Crick perform lab-based experiments to deduce the double-helix?

No.

Watson and Crick did no lab work?  Rosalind Franklin generated x-rays from her eyeballs?

Date: 2009/07/12 11:39:38, Link
Author: Maya
Clive baby shows he has a sense of humor:  
Quote
mad doc,

If the Darwinists are respectful and adhere to Barry’s moderation policy, they can comment here, it’s an open forum for debate.

Isn't there something in your holy book about not bearing false witness, Clive baby?

Date: 2009/07/19 09:13:29, Link
Author: Maya
Perhaps Denyse's next post will cover this observed speciation event.  No doubt she'll add the observation that they're still just birds....

Date: 2009/07/22 12:05:27, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Louis @ July 22 2009,10:10)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 22 2009,15:34)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 22 2009,06:04)
   
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 21 2009,23:17)
The organisms were sharing genes (lateral transfer) like Louis and Carlsonjok share undies: often and messily.

Hey Deadman?  RichardTHugs tells me that you and Davescot share spank material.

[snip juvenile "Lolcat" image]


Don't be a hatah. You'll only encourage Louis and no one really wants that.

Least of all me.

Louis

Why does this thread make me think of this:



? ? ?

Date: 2009/07/22 16:25:03, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 22 2009,12:44)
Because you're wonderfully terribly kinky, Maya.

You're sweet (by AtBC standards, of course), but I think it's because I grew up with older brothers.  I don't think they were serious about the duct tape and the hamsters.

On the other hand, anyone looking for kinky only has to enter "duct tape" into Google and click on "Images."  The things I do for you guys....

Date: 2009/07/26 07:44:50, Link
Author: Maya
BillB tries to get Gordon back to the point:
Quote
Onlookers:

The balance of this debate on its merits is quite evident, in particular the following:

1-> Despite numerous requests, a blanket refusal to demonstrate how FSCI can be calculated for a specific example.

2-> instead resorts to rhetorical claims and gestures towards products of human design with claims of ‘Look, FCSI, its obvious onlookers.’

3-> this, coupled with a clearly demonstrated failure to understand computational models of biology and nature

4-> and inventions of islands of function as an evidence free rhetorical dismissive device ignoring established and emperically based concepts like neutrality

5-> all clearly illustrate the vacuity and lack of scientific rigour that underlies FCSI and the selective hyperskeptisism employed to avoid a discussion of the issues on their merits.

In short: cut the flowery rhetoric KF, put your money where your mouth is and show us how to calculate the FSCI in a GA, in a pen, a rock or anything else for that matter.

Well done, BillB, but to quote Rocket J. Squirrel, "That trick never works."

C'mon Clive Baby, ignore the content of the post and put BillB in moderation for being rude to Gordon.  You know you want to.

ETA: No, I don't think BillB was rude in the slightest, but Clive Baby's definition of rude seems to include "calling any of the regulars on their nonsense."

Date: 2009/07/26 09:11:50, Link
Author: Maya
Jerry brings the tard in response to BillB:
Quote
“the FSCI in a GA, in a pen, a rock or anything else for that matter.”

There is no FSCI in a pen or a rock though I could imagine how some intelligence might make it so. I assume it is a normal pen. In a GA, just use the letters or individual units of code and do an analysis such as the the amount of variation in an English sentence.

“Methinks I am contrary” as opposed tp “ivjioe kjfe faod tm q”

or 2^21 for each. Neither would be FSCI except there exist an independent mechanism to relate one to something else. Both of these other entities (that which does the relating and that which being related to) are completely independent of the initial entity or data set which is the source of information.

Now maybe in some other language or by using some encryption technique we can relate the second string of information to something else. If that is true, then that string is also FSCI.

There is no FSCI in a pen, therefore a pen is not designed.  Got it.

Jerry follows up, admitting an error!  His FSCI calculation for "Methinks I am contrary" is now 27^21, presumably the number of letters in the alphabet, plus a space, raised to the power of the number of letters in the sentence.  Now, he's still wrong (surprise, surprise) for at least two reasons.  First, he's using both upper and lower case letters, so he should come up with 53^21.  Second, the number of bits required to describe 53 different letters is approximately 5.72, so Jerry's number should be about 5.72^21 or 8E15.

So Jerry is asymptotically approaching the ability to do junior high school math.  Hopefully some kind sock puppet will explain to him that the real problem lies in applying that number to an actual biological system.  Going from "it takes x bits at a minimum to describe this system" to "therefore this system is designed" requires a bit more detail than his handwaving about relating to external entities.

I can't even begin to understand how he can admit that "mabye in some other language . . . we can relate the second string of information to something else . . . then that string is also FSCI" and still claim that FSCI is well-defined.

Date: 2009/07/26 10:06:24, Link
Author: Maya
It's a good day on UD.  Clive Baby begs for some attention from a real scientist:
Quote
Can Dr. Collins spare an hour? What would he have to lose in an honest discussion about Darwinism and ID with Dr. Meyer if his position is tenable?

Well, let's see, Clive baby.  First, you're assuming that it's possible to have an honest discussion when one participant is from the Discovery Institute.  That's clearly not realistic.  Second, Collins has nothing to gain -- but Meyer and the DI would get a huge benefit in perceived credibility.  They haven't earned it.

If you want real scientists to take you seriously, do some real science.

Date: 2009/07/26 16:17:36, Link
Author: Maya
Jerry is the gift that keeps on giving:
Quote
Quote
The point is that FSCI is meant to be a well defined concept. But you can only make it well defined by including a lot of arbitrary assumptions about both the target and the context in which the outcome is generated.

No, it is really quite simple and since you seem to have a hard time understanding this very simple concept, maybe you should refrain from commenting on it. Perhaps you should study some computer programming and some basic courses in English grammar.

Translation:  "You should stop pointing out that I can't define my terms."

Date: 2009/07/31 11:51:53, Link
Author: Maya
Herb's cover is nearly blown:
Quote
Obviously it is annoying when evos repeatedly ask for calculations of CSI, FCSI, FSCI, or STI without reading the FAQ. I guess they’re unaware that these sorts of calculations have already been done for biological systems.

Nevertheless, maybe it would be wise for us to go the extra mile and post a complete, self-contained example of an FCSI calculation for some “real” example from biology (say the bacterial flagellum) that a reasonably bright undergraduate could understand. We should also include a rigorous justification for the standard 500-1000 bit design threshold.

Again, I think it’s critical that this document 1) should refer to real biology, not drawing cards from a deck or whatever, and 2) it should be as self-contained as possible, so that anyone with good knowledge of calculus and probability can read it from start to finish without having to consult a bunch of references (which would probably be aimed at a postgraduate audience anyway).

Really, Gordon, Herb is on your side.  Pay no attention to the sock behind the curtain.

Date: 2009/07/31 11:52:52, Link
Author: Maya
Darn you Zachriel and your teenage boy, video game trained twitch factor.  Darn you to heck!

Date: 2009/08/03 09:10:18, Link
Author: Maya
Joseph, well, I guess "lies" is the best description:
Quote
Diffaxial,

The fact that neither you nor anyone else can come up with a testable hypothesis for your anti-ID/ non-telic position pretty much proves it is incapable of becoming empirical science.

However ID is based on observations and experience AND it can be tested experimentally.

I've only had undergrad psych courses (which make me eminently unqualified to even speak with k.e. in his current mood); is what Joseph is doing some form of projection?  Instead of accusing others of having his problems, he's claiming the virtues of science for his nonsense.

Date: 2009/08/04 14:07:18, Link
Author: Maya
DLH skips directly to incoherence.

I've got to leave the straight tard to those of you who have already burned out whatever neurons act as a fuse for this stuff.  As near as I can tell, DLH is saying "People use language, therefore ID is true."

I need a lie down.  Maybe even a stuffed animal.

Date: 2009/08/06 10:27:35, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (KCdgw @ Aug. 06 2009,09:58)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 06 2009,09:18)
New ideas bubble up from the ooze...

 
Quote
False! you/they start from a known degraded position and then try to rely on compensatory mutations to falsify Genetic Entropy,,,Whereas a strict rendering of the Genetic Entropy principle will hold that only the original un-degraded bacteria is optimal.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-329026

I think its funny born77 is walking right into the teeth of a falsification of his thesis and now he wants us to "tweak' the fitness test "in all fairness".

If you don't have the chops to defend your hero Sanford, don't humiliate him by demanding special teatment from the big bad Darwinists.

What a maroon.

My prediction, which is mine, is that within a month the UDiots will be hauling out Sanford's Genetic Entropy as a "testable scientific prediction" of ID, ignoring that whole "but it failed" part.

Date: 2009/08/07 13:06:26, Link
Author: Maya
Quote

Quote (keiths @ Aug. 07 2009,13:25)
Quote (Barrett Brown @ Aug. 06 2009,19:31)
Howdy-

Thought you guys might enjoy this article I just wrote for The Huffington Post on the subject of Uncommon Descent and its general wackiness. Most of the stuff described therein probably won't be new to you since you're the world's greatest experts on Dave Springer, but perhaps you'll get a kick out it nonetheless. Here it is.

Regards,

Barrett Brown

Dave is a tard's tard.

Has anyone seen ol' Scooter in the blogosphere lately?

People  asked "Where's StephenB?" and he started posting again. There is a name for this kind of magic.

Poorly thought out?

Date: 2009/08/08 09:36:40, Link
Author: Maya
"... reporter Denyse O'Leary...."

There's a reporter with the same name as that poor, functionally illiterate grandmother at UD?

Date: 2009/08/08 13:31:50, Link
Author: Maya
deadman_392 slaps the UDiots' faces with a glove:
Quote
With ID, there’s this odd tendency of ID-ists to cry “conspiracy!” and huddle together in specifically moderated environments, rather than going out and confronting critics directly. There are exceptions: Cornelius Hunter once went over to an adjunct of Panda’s Thumb. John Baumgardner had the honor and decency to publicly voice his views at Theology Web (a site primarily run by theists). John Sanford was supposed to show up there, but hasn’t as of yet.

I’d like to invite anyone from UD — capable of actually debating the topics and simultaneously exhibiting a modicum of politeness — to venture on over to Theology Web and see how well your ideas hold up under scrutiny where the moderators aren’t your fellows.

Go on, Clive baby (yes, we know you're still lurking here), show Deadman how much confidence you have in your position -- ban him and remove his comments.

Date: 2009/08/08 13:57:27, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 08 2009,13:46)
I'd like to think that my mysterious alter-ego is merely respectfully promoting a little friendly scrum in a neutral forum. I thought it was a shame that Baumgardner didn't bring along some friendly support and had to rely on folks like "Jorge" at T-Web.

I'd hope that anyone taking up the invitation might bring along a few aides, then everyone could all get down to the business of thrashing matters out in a pretty-strictly-controlled environment that holds to relatively unbiased moderation (for either side).

The opportunities for White-Knighting must be tempting.

I'd love to see that, too, but the level of intellectual integrity demonstrated by the UD regulars suggests that a real, open, honest discussion is the last thing they want.

I invited Davey and the other moderators to continue our discussion at talk.origins after I was banned.  That went over like a lead balloon.

Date: 2009/08/08 14:22:25, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 08 2009,14:04)
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 08 2009,13:57)
I'd love to see that, too, but the level of intellectual integrity demonstrated by the UD regulars suggests that a real, open, honest discussion is the last thing they want.

I invited Davey and the other moderators to continue our discussion at talk.origins after I was banned.  That went over like a lead balloon.

It's your shy demeanor  :) Like yourself, I am but the tenderest daffodil straining delicately towards the light of reason.

You need a new avatar, then:

Date: 2009/08/09 07:38:57, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 08 2009,23:03)
Already good stuff from Brown:

Quoting Clivebaby,

Quote
Quote


“That is because you have written nothing, and nothing cannot be refuted.”


That you would accuse me of having written nothing on the subject and would do this in the comments section of a blog post concerning something I have written on the subject and in which you yourself make reference to an entire book I’ve written on the subject about which I’ve allegedly written nothing is, frankly, disingenuous beyond anything I’ve ever seen. You may very well be the most intellectually dishonest of any intelligent design advocate that I’ve ever encountered.

Yay Clive Baby!  You're number 1!

Date: 2009/08/09 09:46:53, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 09 2009,09:41)
Alas, I think Maya will also prove to be a soothsayer; I haven't been able to get a one of them to agree to an offsite "discussion."

I'm loving your continued attempts:
Quote
I don’t think you really grasp much about science at all, StephenB. Nor do I hold your logic or “philosophical” skills in much regard when you seem to be ignoring some basic facts regarding the studies available on bias/presuppositions/worldviews in science and how they affect even the most pristine “methodologies” that —must still be APPLIED, StephenB…applied by fallible humans who may not even be aware of the hidden biases they bring to every aspect of their work and subsequent claims.

In short, I don’t think you even come close to knowing what you are talking about, StephenB.

You're definitely crossing the double secret moderation rules with that one.

Date: 2009/08/09 18:04:16, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 09 2009,17:47)
Please tell me this is referring to a Poe. Please tell me those are not real course requirements for a real course at a real seminary. Please tell me Dembski is not this vapid. Please, please, please!

Louis

I just read the discussion on richarddawkins.net and, not only is it for real, someone posted Dembski's address and phone number to confirm it.

You could call him and check for yourself....

Date: 2009/08/10 17:29:39, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 10 2009,16:05)
Heh, I also love how they ignore that I directly addressed every bit of what StephenB was yapping mindlessly about.

The self-delusion and petty dishonesty is amazing.

"Amazing" in the sense of "It's amazing how much you make me want to kick you really hard with my spikiest heels, Clive baby."

ETA: But that would be wrong and unladylike.

E(again)TA: Then again, ladylike is a cultural norm, and my home culture is a military family....

Date: 2009/08/19 09:58:56, Link
Author: Maya
Hedge knows what ID needs:
Quote
I think that, right now, what the ID movement needs most is some sort of online, social networking site aimed at interesting young people in ID theory and teaching them about the holes in Darwinism. Something like that could go a long way toward “disarming Darwinism in the general culture” and would, I bet, prove quite popular too.

a) There's an ID theory now?
b) Is anyone even pretending anymore that ID is about science?

I almost started another UD account to ask, but I hate to send a young sock on a suicide mission.

Date: 2009/08/19 10:47:31, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (franky172 @ Aug. 19 2009,10:35)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 19 2009,10:31)
Quote (franky172 @ Aug. 19 2009,10:06)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 19 2009,09:48)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2009,09:40)
Dembski can has peer review?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature

Fucks sake
     
Quote
P.S. Our critics will immediately say that this really isn’t a pro-ID article but that it’s about something else (I’ve seen this line now for over a decade once work on ID started encroaching into peer-review territory). Before you believe this, have a look at the article. In it we critique, for instance, Richard Dawkins METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL (p. 1055). Question: When Dawkins introduced this example, was he arguing pro-Darwinism? Yes he was. In critiquing his example and arguing that information is not created by unguided evolutionary processes, we are indeed making an argument that supports ID.

What the fuck does WEASEL have to do with anything? Anybody seen the paper yet? He "critiquing"  latched or proper Weasel?

And their argument might "support ID" in his mind but does it mention ID in the paper? Inquiring minds want to know and I can't look at the paper right now.

Dembski is full of shit, and he knows it.  On page 1055 he critiques "Partitioned Search", cites Dawkins [12], and then pretends that Weasel is a partitioned search.  Dawkins never used the term, AFAIK, and Weasel isn't partitioned.

Dembski knows these facts because they have been pointed out to him on his own blog, and he has known these facts for months, yet he let these lies (formerly perhaps mistakes, now corrected lies) be published.  Why?

So, are you saying that Dembski and Marks have not addressed any of the criticism of the paper that Wes had previously pointed out to them?

Yes.  And worse - they deliberately let a falsehood pass through peer review.

You know, I suspect that sort of thing is frowned upon.  I'd double check with my advisor, purely in the interests of providing some collegial advice to Dembski, but I don't want my advisor to think I'm a dishonest idiot.  ;-)

Seriously, shouldn't this be raised with the IEEE editors?

Date: 2009/08/19 10:57:53, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2009,09:40)
Dembski can has peer review?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....erature

I'm a bio student and, as one of my Chinese-American high school math team co-members told me, "White girls can't do math.", so I could be wrong, but isn't Dembski misusing the NFL theorems here?  On the very first page of the paper, he says:
Quote
"{U}nless you can make prior assumptions about the . . . {problems} you are working on, then no search strategy, no matter how sophisticated, can be expected to perform better than any other"

If my understanding of the NFL theorems is correct, what he quotes is technically true but misleading (I'm shocked, shocked I tell you).  The NFL theorems talk about performance across all possible domains.  It is entirely possible for a particular strategy to perform very well on a particular domain or set of domains, but do correspondingly poorly on other domains.  Since the strategies of evolutionary theory clearly work well in the problem domain of life on Earth, Dembski's conclusions seem . . . unwarranted.

Am I missing something?

Date: 2009/08/19 12:40:48, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 19 2009,12:09)
I’m growing weary of these quibbling and thus shutting the comments off. - WmAD

Translation - "Dang, that peer review thing is brutal. I'm gonna stick to books from now on!"

OMFG.  What a gutless prick dishonest wimp.  (Self-censoring in case mom is reading.)

Date: 2009/08/20 11:06:42, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 20 2009,10:51)
Quote
jerry: The only logical thing to explain the results in the Blind Watchmaker is a latching mechanism .

No. The results in Blind Watchmaker are entirely consistent with a fair reading of Dawkins's description as phrase selection, not letter latching.

Quote
jerry: It actually makes better evolutionary thinking too ...

Which simply reveals that, after all this time, you still don't understand "evolutionary thinking".

Quote
jerry: ... since once something is selected it is unlikely to unselected and not disappear so easily.

Latching means there is *no* chance a trait will disappear.

-
Not Xposted to Uncommon Descent, because it never shows up anyway.

Didn't David Kellogg show the UDiots a website where someone went through the weasel section of The Blind Watchmaker sentence-by-sentence to show just how wrong the whole latching argument is the last time they had this discussion (sorry, no link, my Google-Fu is acting up today)?

Of course, they could just read the actual text themselves, if they could get over their fear of actually learning something.

Date: 2009/08/20 11:27:43, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 20 2009,11:19)
Do mean more weaseling at software matters?

Wow, the Google is strong in Sparc.

That gave me enough to get to the exchange I was remembering where Gordon refused to read past the first paragraph because he thought it said "IDiots" when in fact it says "IDCists".  Apparently his reading comprehension is . . . consistent.

Date: 2009/08/20 12:18:13, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 20 2009,12:10)
i love it when Frill has thoughts.

ETA  oooh jerry too

from "graffiti"
Quote


73

jerry

08/20/2009

12:09 pm

R0b,

You have set yourself up as an expert on this so I have a suggestion. Namely, that you take your insight to the journals that have published his articles and publish a letter or article telling the world what you know and that you claim Dembski is lying. Lying would be the appropriate term if “his points are false as a simple matter of fact.”

So step up and back your accusations. Otherwise there is a religious expression that applies.


careful jerry, that is gonna happen and d-d-d-d-d-d-d-dr dembski ain't gonna like it.

With all due respect, Mr. Erasmus, sir, it seems to me that Dembski will get more benefit from being a martyr than being the author of an article that will never be referenced by anyone outside of the ID cesspool.

Perhaps he left the misrepresentation of Dawkins work in on purpose!  (Okay, okay, I'll go sit in the corner with my tinfoil hat now.)

Date: 2009/08/20 14:34:34, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 20 2009,14:08)
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 20 2009,12:18)
With all due respect, Mr. Erasmus, sir, it seems to me that Dembski will get more benefit from being a martyr than being the author of an article that will never be referenced by anyone outside of the ID cesspool.

Perhaps he left the misrepresentation of Dawkins work in on purpose!  (Okay, okay, I'll go sit in the corner with my tinfoil hat now.)

No hat necessary. This is the exact point I was trying (poorly) to make here.

I thought you were just suggesting that Dembski is a backdoor man, there.

:O

Date: 2009/08/20 16:38:24, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 20 2009,15:50)
atom claims that only humans are intelligent

Quote


80

Atom

08/20/2009

2:15 pm
<snip>
So it seems we need to posit a source of functional information, that can create it directly. From experience, we know that humans regularly generate large amounts of functional information, even if we cannot yet explain how they do so. But the empirical fact remains that functional information is consistently associated with intelligent agency.<snip>


swing and miss.  my bold.  he doesn't seem to grasp the significance of his redefinition

Quote
Intelligence is the only cause we know of capable of generating large amounts of functional information.


again, Atom, you say "intelligence" when you apparently mean to say "Human intelligence".  Because that is all you have brought up so far.

Atom seems like one of the nicer folks over there.  I would like to see him correct his misunderstandings of his own position.

Atom is the only one at UD that seems to be able to think logically.  He strikes me as someone who was thoroughly indoctrinated in that old time religion from an early age and is trying to justify what he "knows" with what he knows.  I wish him luck.

That being said, has he ever defined "functional information" or is he just handwaving like the rest of the CSI / FCSI / FSCI blatherers?

Date: 2009/08/21 08:17:06, Link
Author: Maya
Clive baby tells more about himself than he intended:
Quote
. . . the argument presented by Dr. Dembski and Dr. Marks is very sophisticated . . .

No, Clive baby, it isn't.  There's a bunch of junior high school level statistics and logarithms, a gross misunderstanding of the No Free Lunch theorems, what can only be rationally assumed to be a deliberate misrepresentation of Dawkins' work, and repeated misuse of the word "information".  There is no support for, or even mention of, ID and there is no link between what little content might be hiding in the rest of the rhetorical garbage and evolutionary biology.

That you think it is sophisticated, Clive baby, says more about you than the paper.

Date: 2009/08/21 09:00:23, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 21 2009,08:55)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 21 2009,08:44)
anyone still doubting that clive,baby = dembski ???

Yes.

Added in edit: I am of the impression that he is this year's Joel Borofsky, theology lab assistant.

So that's what you kids are calling it these days....

Date: 2009/08/21 12:00:10, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (olegt @ Aug. 21 2009,11:25)
After typing millions of lines on the subject, Gordon E. Mullings got around to actually reading Dawkins' original text!  

I suppose we can call it progress.  What's next?

Understanding it?

Date: 2009/08/21 18:40:37, Link
Author: Maya
Davey Lives!

(I must not finish with "Too bad."  I must not finish with "Too bad."  I must not . . .)

Date: 2009/08/24 13:21:21, Link
Author: Maya
Skew Jones commits seppuku:
Quote
William A. Dembski has a new book out soon; ‘The End of Christianity: Finding A Good God in an Evil World.’ An unfortunate title perhaps, bearing in mind the steady decline of Christianity, as well as its failed attempts to invade the scientific realm: creationism and intelligent design. So is Dembski no more than a harbinger of doom tolling the bell that brings about the destruction of science?

Let’s be frank, Dembski is in reality more dangerous than your average stuffed bear – the type of twisting rhetoric and obfuscatory language that Dembski engages in is the type that leads to tyranny, not to respectful dialogue or family entertainment. He should be more careful, but he seems to have sacrificed his cares on some high altar; perhaps the hundred dollar book deals are clouding his judgment, but in reality his theism leaves him unaccountable to anyone but himself or his theist friends in the Discovery Institute (yay lying for Jesus). Yes, his rhetoric often appears to be as dangerous as that of the ravaging theism that has scourged humanity since the dawn of time, and led to such tragedies as the Inquisition, the Crusades, and even the suicide bombings of the modern day Middle East, all of which abuse human rights and lead to the deaths of millions.

That's one way to get more time to study this semester.

Date: 2009/08/24 13:25:42, Link
Author: Maya
And he keeps it up while Clive baby is asleep at the switch:
Quote
You would think that the camp that is constantly foisting the image of god upon themselves is the one with self-esteem problems. Were you picked on by the science geeks in high school or something?

Ah, that brings back memories of being a science bully in my teens....

Date: 2009/08/24 17:04:30, Link
Author: Maya
J-Dog and Deadman -- You guys rock!

You did have those comics with idealized female bodies rather close to hand, though.

:D

Date: 2009/08/25 09:29:19, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 25 2009,09:27)
hahah. Dembski:
 
Quote
But at the next Dover trial, as the body of peer-reviewed work supporting ID continues to grow (Marks and I have plenty in the pipeline, and there are other labs now getting into the act), it will no longer be possible for the next Judge Jones to dismiss ID for lack of peer-reviewed papers (even at the Dover trial, Jones was mistaken to claim that no peer-reviewed work supports ID).

The argument just keeps rumbling on …

Comments disabled.  They allow men without balls to live in Texas?

Date: 2009/08/25 12:48:16, Link
Author: Maya
Dembski gets an analogy right:
Quote
Nothing much has changed when a camel first starts sticking its nose into a tent. And nothing much has changed just at the moment something begins to slide down a slipperly slope. Nothing much has changed when a virulent bug first invades a body. But soon enough everything has changed.

ID is a diseased, slippery, camel coming in where it doesn't belong.  Well done, Bill.

Date: 2009/08/25 17:10:48, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Turncoat @ Aug. 25 2009,16:40)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 25 2009,14:07)
Gordon Mullings does not know when to shut up
     
Quote
I noted earlier that no sensible rape complainant in Barbados shows up in court dressed in a micromini.

BillB plainly thought that his had to do with my prejudices — but I was simply a spectator, not a participant in the trial. My opinion had zero weight on the outcome of the case.

(Let’s just say that I sat in a waiting room across from a late 20’s young miss dressed in a greyish, plaid micro mini, black sheer stockings and a low cut top, and chatted with a couple of friends in for a traffic violation. The topic came up as to why I was there, and I said that I was there because of a rape case accusation against a former student who 300 mi from home was on a rape accusation by another student. Imagine my shock when I got into the courtroom, to see the same young miss as the complainant! Her lawyer should have been fired from the bar for failing to advise his client on suitable court dress, especially with so weak a case as she actually had.)

The actual case was stopped by the Judge as unsafe to further pursue when it turned out after a couple of hours of evidence, that the claimed crime occurred in a bed room in a rooming house full of students with no-one else in the house at the time reporting any untoward sounds or circumstances. A complainant who presented herself as she did, and whose case was as weak as that effectively asked for such a result.

Fuck off and die Gordon Mullings.

Just wait until a Homeland Security interrogator leaves you bleeding out the ass, Gordon E. Mullings of Montserrat, and a judge gives no credence to a foreigner who works 24x7 to document his manic delusions on the Web.

A woman who was sexually abused as a child may dress provocatively when it is inappropriate, as well as exhibit a propensity for getting herself into situations where she is at risk of rape.

Grandiloquent dumb-shit.

Gordon probably considers any dress that shows knee to be a micro-mini.

Date: 2009/08/26 18:21:43, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 26 2009,18:15)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 26 2009,17:49)
In the Densey No Leery  "Hard Up for a Floppy"   thread ("demanding" Dawkins' "original" code) ... I think the probabilities are pretty good that "Kibitzer" is actually Slick Willy "My camel nose is in Marks' tent" Dembski.

Read for yourself and see what you think.

Deadman - I think you nailed it - Not bad for one of the Deceased Persuasion

re: kibitzer comments

Thinks they Know It All - check
Smarmy snide comments - check
Cheap shots - this close to making farty noises - check
Unable to admit a mistake - check and mate -

It's The Spendid Sweater hisself.

I found Jerry's comment there quite telling:
Quote
But here we are debating this nonsense like the fate of the world depended on it. For one reason only. Whether Bill Dembski interpreted the original code correctly.

Yeah, Jerry, that whole academic integrity thing is just a complete red herring.

Date: 2009/08/28 07:49:23, Link
Author: Maya
Indium sums it up:
Quote
So, now, kf, you are reduced to claiming that an algorithm that does a query by constructing a population by copying a string with random mutations and then selecting the best fitting member is the same as an algorithm which gueries by just randomly selecting a new letter for every wrong one.

This is so obviously wrong that it doesn´t even need a refutation. It is plain denial of the obvious.

That thread is just astonishing.  Gordon seems constitutionally incapable of admitting even the tiniest possibility of error, and projects his own psychological failings madly over everyone who disagrees with him.  He has worked up to truly epic failure of logic and reading comprehension.

Naturally, Clive baby won't moderate good ol' Gordo for behavior that would get a member of the reality based community evicted.

Date: 2009/08/28 09:45:51, Link
Author: Maya
I'm feel like I'm channeling Erasmus here, but would Indium please PM me?

Date: 2009/08/28 11:02:16, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 28 2009,10:54)
Quote (Indiumas @ Aug. 28 2009,10:33)
Might as well say hello here I think, I am Indium from Uncommon Descent. Tried to register here under the same name but somehow messed it up!  :(   I blame the board software of course!

So, while my biology and english language skills also suck, I will still try my best there to have a good time with kf, Joseph and whoever shows up to the party!

Cheers! :D

So, come on,  tell us why your English / biology skills suck, and some more background details!

ps:  Yes, you DO get bonus points if you can get kf, jerry or BA^77 to post away from their safe little UD cocoon.

Could this software take the stress of Gordon-sized posts?

Date: 2009/08/28 15:52:38, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 28 2009,15:35)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 28 2009,14:14)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 28 2009,12:41)
We also have "JLT" posting from Germany, you can always pm her.

sparc also posts from over there.  And I will be soon as well.



Sort of a "starter kit" for you. No need to thank me.

Disco on an accordion.  That's two consecutive life sentences where I grew up, if Dad and my brothers didn't catch you first.

Date: 2009/08/28 18:44:42, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 28 2009,18:27)
Why do I suddenly feel like invading Poland?

Oh gee, I couldn't imagine. . .



(Miss Poland 2009 -- a Friday night gift for you guys.)

ETA: I hear O'Leary has the same swimsuit.  I give with one hand, take away with the other.

Date: 2009/08/29 10:05:46, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 29 2009,08:40)
First we had CSI! Then FCSI!! er FSCI!!! Now CCSI!!!!

And still free of any link to biology or usable mathematics!  Helps keep your choirboy figure!

Date: 2009/08/29 21:45:29, Link
Author: Maya
Richard Dawkins states that his original Weasel code did not latch correct letters, in this thread on Pharyngula.

I'm sure that Gordon will just call him a liar.

Date: 2009/08/30 10:38:51, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 30 2009,10:19)
WASTE of BREATH (above):  
Quote

After taking time to go through the above, I am still shaking my head.
So am I Gordon, so am I.

Anybody know why he's referring to Richard Dawkins as "CRD"?

Dr. Dawkins' first name is Clinton.  That's apparently a brush to tar him with in Gordon's social circle.

Date: 2009/08/30 10:41:30, Link
Author: Maya
Dave Wisker gets blunt with Joseph:
Quote
Quote
I never said the illustration was an example of telomeric fusion.

It is dishonest to illustrate one thing when talking about something else.
Only if it is used to deceive. And only deeply stupid people would think what I wrote was deceptive in nature.

I used to think that Joseph was a sock, but now I'm pretty sure he has the lowest intelligence of anyone I've encountered on the interwebs.

Date: 2009/09/01 18:00:12, Link
Author: Maya
We can add "tautology" to the long list of concepts Clive baby doesn't understand:
Quote
So, to give an anology, to give any positive number, is to say that it is more than zero. That’s not a tautology, for the positive number isn’t all positive numbers, it is a specific number, a specific amount. It’s not exhaustive, so it’s not a tautology, because it is not all numbers, but rather a specific number.

Date: 2009/09/04 13:47:43, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 04 2009,07:16)
Quote
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/blown-away-dan-peterson-reviews-dr-stephen-meyers-book-the-signature-in-the-cell-at-the-am

erican-spectator/#comment-332867]kairosfocus[/URL]: Onlookers (and Clive):
. . .

Looks like Gordon is calling for Mama Clive Baby to make the mean old Blue Lotus stop pointing out Gordon's less than honest tactics.

Date: 2009/09/04 14:17:59, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 04 2009,14:12)
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 04 2009,13:47)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 04 2009,07:16)
 
Quote
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/blown-away-dan-peterson-reviews-dr-stephen-meyers-book-the-signature-in-the-cell-at-the-am




erican-spectator/#comment-332867]kairosfocus[/URL]: Onlookers (and Clive):
. . .

Looks like Gordon is calling for Mama Clive Baby to make the mean old Blue Lotus stop pointing out Gordon's less than honest tactics.

He better be careful what he asks for. Clive moderates one of his own:
 
Quote

18
Clive Hayden
09/04/2009
1:51 pm

bFast,
 
Quote

   Oatmeal, you are a bit stupid, aren’t you.

That just landed you in the moderation pool.

Clive baby is joining the evil conspiracy of Expellers!

Date: 2009/09/04 16:37:57, Link
Author: Maya
Joseph outs himself as a YEC:  
Quote
Cabal:
 
Quote
The evolutionist position is amply supported by 150 years of research.

The only thing supported is the Creationists’ position of baraminology.

Date: 2009/09/04 16:40:48, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 04 2009,16:37)
All of us could vow to never make socks at UD again because, really, getting your laughs from watching a bunch of moderately crazy strangers act like idiots is kind of immature

I'll stop mocking them when they stop voting.

Date: 2009/09/07 14:51:37, Link
Author: Maya
Learned Hand finds a use for D'Wooza:
Quote
An astute point. This battle, over the currency of ID, is fought with mass market books. There is another battle, fought with laboratories and original, empirical research. ID has retreated from that fight. D’Souza has observed how ID chooses its battles, and drawn an appropriate conclusion.

Date: 2009/09/08 07:05:33, Link
Author: Maya
Joseph brings the pure TARD:
Quote
PaulBurnett:
Quote
Would anybody suggest that the whales’ distant tetrapod ancestral line that moved from the sea to the land had “devolved” when they later went back to the sea?

Anyone who thinks such a transformation is even possible is living in fantasy-land anyway so what does it matter?

Past experience shows that providing Joseph with overwhelming evidence is futile.  Some of the IDiots seem ignorant of basic biology and blinded by religion, but Joseph appears monumentally stupid.  Please tell me he's someone's sock.

Date: 2009/09/08 08:55:05, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 08 2009,08:21)
Renounce the TARD, people. I am more and more convinced that Steve Story was right and that interacting with TARD of this magnitude is bad for one's mental health. Encountering that level of stupid always leaves me with a feeling of almost overwhelming hopelessness and the immense and imponderable question of "Where does one even start?".

When I ponder why I find UD weirdly fascinating, I sometimes think that I half expect to see them one day admit that it was all a big practical joke (and that most of you long time tardaholics were in on it from the beginning).

Date: 2009/09/08 20:16:17, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 08 2009,19:44)

My Greek is a little rusty, but I think I got "F*** Clivebaby and the horse he rode in on."

I can haz humanateez duhploma now?

Date: 2009/09/12 19:28:44, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 12 2009,16:55)
As every ID advocate has ever done DLH asks you to do the work he should be doing to prove his point
     
Quote
To apply these measures to distinguish between materialistic and intelligent causes, See William Dembski, No Free Lunch, Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, (2002) Rowman & Littlefield Pub Inc. ISBN 0-7425-1297-5

Does this get you started?

Erm, DLH. Why not just do it yourself? What's stopping you?
   
Quote
See Tchaikovsky’s musical score for another measure of prior specified complexity that could be compared with the audio frequency analysis.

Could be? Should be if you ask me. So, who's suppressing you DLH? Your example sounds great. So please do it. Then once you have the prior specified complexity you can determine the FSCI.

I'm trying to lay off the hard, direct from the source tard this semester, but you tempt me, Satan Old Man.

Are they claiming to be able to use ID to distinguish between music and noise?  Color me unimpressed.

Regardless of the details, this smells like one of those discussions that they'll drag on endlessly, never answering any direct questions nor applying  their junior high math to any real organism and then constantly refer back to it in support of their conclusions.  "Of course ID can identify design.  You need to read about the use of our collection of three and four letter acronyms in musicology, stupid materialist."

This prediction brought to you by the letters F and Q, the number 68, and the long history of ridiculous behavior by the IDiots at UD.

Date: 2009/09/14 05:53:10, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 14 2009,03:52)
Cornelius Hunter is turning into a real asshole.

Then, in the comments section, we find:              
Quote
Corny: "There are multitudes of examples of similarities amongst the species that do not fit the evolutionary pattern."

Bob O'H: "Such as?"

Corny: "Incredible. This shows how far evolutionary misinformation and misrepresentation has penetrated science. If you really want science rather than dogma then you'll have to look at the evidence. Try any life science library. If that is not convenient, here are some links for starters:


http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_4.2_Genomes_of

http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_4.3_Genomes_of"



I briefly looked at those links, but won't have time to read the referenced papers until later this week.  Taking as a given that Creationists lie, that Intelligent Design Creationists lie even more than members of their parent species, and that they tend to repeat their lies, has anyone already fisked darwinspredictions.com?

Date: 2009/09/15 16:15:02, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (olegt @ Sep. 15 2009,15:20)
Clive is a one-trick pony.    
Quote
Dar-win is a misnomer, Dar-lose is more accurate.

That level of "humor" is evidence in support of the Dembski-is-Clivebaby hypothesis.

Date: 2009/09/18 07:08:22, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 17 2009,23:36)
Dembski  
Quote
I receive a mention next to one of the slides — apparently the emergence of nylonase is supposed to provide empirical disconfirmation of my theoretical work on specified complexity (Miller has been taking this line for years). For my response about nylonase, which the critics never cite, go here.

If you go ther you will find something hilarious:
 
Quote
The problem with this argument is that Miller fails to show that the construction/evolution of nylonase from its precursor actually requires CSI at all. As I develop the concept, CSI requires a certain threshold of complexity to be achieved (500 bits, as I argue in my book No Free Lunch). It’s not at all clear that this threshold is achieved here (certainly Miller doesn’t compute the relevant numbers).
Did Dembski ever calculated such numbers himself?

Is that a rhetorical question?  ;-)

Has anysock asked him why he doesn't do the calculation himself in his response?  That would be a lot more credible as a refutation than his usual logorrhea.

Or does the brave DrDr bar the hoi polloi from commenting on his threads?

Date: 2009/09/18 22:42:22, Link
Author: Maya
No more comments all day?  Did I kill the board?

(Where's that emoticon for feeling sorry, yet powerful?)

Date: 2009/09/20 08:43:49, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 19 2009,19:50)
Frilly Gilly's incredulity is silly:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/simply-not-credible/



 
Quote
19 September 2009
Simply Not Credible
GilDodgen
This thread inspired the following observations.

The bottom line is that none of Dawkins’ computer programs have any relevance to biological evolution, because of this in WEASEL1:
Target:Text=’METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL’;
and this in WEASEL2:
WRITELN(’Type target phrase in capital letters’);
READLN(TARGET);

which allows the user to enter the “target” phrase. No search is required, because the solution has been provided in advance. These programs are just hideously inefficient means of printing out what could have been printed out when the program launched. The information for the solution was explicitly supplied by the programmer. Once this is recognized, further conversation about the relevance of the programs to biological evolution is no more illuminating than conjecture about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

The bottom line is that the proposed Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection makes no sense on its face, as an explanation for the kinds of highly sophisticated information-processing engineering we see in living systems. It is a claim that an inherently entropic process can produce unlimited neg-entropic results, from the lowest to the highest levels (the cell to the piano concerti of Rachmaninoff). The magic wand of “deep time” (which is not very deep in terms of probabilistic resources) cannot be waved to make this transparent lunacy believable.

The Darwinian mechanism as an explanation for all of life is simply not credible. Most people have enough sense to recognize this, which is why the consensus “scientists” — with all their prestige, academic credentials, and incestuous self-congratulation — are having such a hard time convincing people that they have it all figured out, when they obviously don’t.

Oh. My. Goddess.

I went on the tard wagon this week, but I fell off because I had to see for myself that they were still ranting about that silly little program.

I'm not going to start a sock during school, but would someone please point out the giant freaking elephant in the middle of the room to these morons:  It doesn't matter in the slightest how Dawkins implemented his algorithm.  The point is that the algorithm demonstrates cumulative selection.

Now, sure, it's worth demonstrating yet again that Dembski is completely lacking in integrity and that the IDiots of UD lack the ability to comprehend, well, almost any science topic, but that's just:



Regardless of all that, anyone can implement Dawkins algorithm and show how random mutation and variable reproductive success result in populations evolving to be more fit in their environment.  In two pages, twenty-some years ago, Dawkins provided more supporting evidence for one small facet of evolutionary theory than Dembski has ever provided for his entire preferred brand of creationism.

Dembski must dream of one day being relevant enough to be considered Dawkins' bitch.

Date: 2009/09/20 14:27:11, Link
Author: Maya
Analogy.  Barry does it wrong.

Date: 2009/09/20 19:05:14, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Ptaylor @ Sep. 20 2009,18:11)
I see that Joseph has been working overtime on Barry's Evolution is a Fact! thread, forcefully driving home the point that ...um...err...

Joseph is the one entity at UD that I have never suspected of being a sock.  He's also, not coincidentally, the one that makes me most cynical about humanity.

Date: 2009/09/21 08:59:39, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 21 2009,08:44)
Hey, Clive. Don't you get it yet? People see Joseph as an official spokesperson for ID.

Actually, I see Joseph as the epitome of the Intelligent Design Creationism target demographic:  ignorant, uneducable, and proud of it (with a dash of violent fantasies, in his case).
Quote
Sumpthin serious wrong with that 'un.

I'm worried that there are more like him out there.

Date: 2009/09/22 06:29:50, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 22 2009,00:52)
i think you guys are getting to him!!!!

Quote
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2009
The Gossip is in and it is never disappointing
Gossip factory AtBC (another tired baby crying) is still cranking out the gossip.

oldmanwithadickuphisass is gossiping about me.

The Rich Hughestard has joined in. Tards of a feather type of thing.

What the oldmanwithadickuphisass doesn't understand is that the computer code is not readable except with a computer.

The code is NOT the disc. The code is not reducible to the matter that makes up the disc.

Then a couple of comments down the oldmanwithadickuphisass gets on me for using his type of tactics against is type of ilk.

When people make bald assertions I respond accordingly.

And seeing that is all those mother-friggers have are bald assertions my responses of "Prove it" are right in line with their grade-school antics.

But anyway I am more than willing to take on any one of those fruitloops in a debate.

We can both put up some money and see who knows best.
posted by Joe G @ 2:17 PM   0 comments  


joe Allah gets angry when you use the dirty talk

Do you have a link for that?  Surely Joseph wouldn't use foul language in the Online Church of UD?

Quote
But anyway I am more than willing to take on any one of those fruitloops in a debate.

Someone should invite Joey over here.  Mr. Wannabe Tough would be wearing a wig, corset, and badly applied makeup while serving drinks on his knees to the AtBC regulars in short order.

Rhetorically speaking, of course.

Date: 2009/09/22 06:37:06, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 22 2009,06:29)
Do you have a link for that?  Surely Joseph wouldn't use foul language in the Online Church of UD?

Nevermind, my Google Fu is strong this morning.  Joey's posing is here.

I've invited him over.  I hope no one minds.  Perhaps if everyone tells him how much we want him to join us, he'll be persuaded.

Date: 2009/09/22 08:40:02, Link
Author: Maya
Since Joey has his blog moderated (Clivebaby envy, perhaps?), here's what I've posted there:
Quote
You might take a little heat at AtBC, but if you could actually support any of the ridiculous assertions you post on UD, you'd get many serious responses.  You might even learn something (which, I suspect, is the real reason you don't want to go there).

If AtBC isn't acceptable, I suggest the talk.origins newsgroup.  No one is going to debate you here where you can moderate them out of existence.  We've seen the echo chamber of UD, which is why there is a long running thread at AtBC dedicated to mocking it.

It's too bad you lack the intellectual courage to defend your views in a forum where you can't run and hide.

Date: 2009/09/22 08:40:58, Link
Author: Maya
And this:
Quote
The reason my profile is blocked, Joey dear, is that there are some disturbed people on the Internet.  People who post violent fantasies about what they'd like to do to those who don't share their beliefs on pseudo-science blogs.  People who threaten college professors when those professors mop the floor with them in an argument.  In short, willfully ignorant people with poor self-control.

People like you.

We know you're reading, Joey (we can see your lips moving).  Come out and play!

Date: 2009/09/22 11:49:30, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (franky172 @ Sep. 22 2009,11:45)
Dembski gets a reply from Dawkins:

 
Quote
The relevant portion of his email for this discussion reads: “I cannot confirm that either of them is mine. They don’t look familiar to me, but it is a long time ago. I don’t see what more I can say.”


I have to wonder - what did the irrelevant portion of the e-mail say?

"No, you're not welcome at the Oxford cafeteria either."





Date: 2009/09/22 13:22:39, Link
Author: Maya
Joe has moved from stupid to stupid and potentially violent
 
Quote
 
Quote
Please provide a cite to PZ making a credible threat.

PZ said to break out the brass knuckles, steel-toed boots, and baseball bats- then use them against people like me.
 
Quote
Then explain how that justifies your response to David Kellogg.

All responses to Kellogg were because of his bullshit.
 
Quote
You're just the kind of wannabe bully my brothers love to meet.

Evolutionists are the bullies. I am the one who can put a stop to that.

For example if I ever meet PZ or Lenny Flank, I will have no problem with punching them right in the nose.

And if they get up I will do it again.

While I strongly suspect that Joey is just as gutless in the physical world as he is in the virtual, this kind of thing ought to be preserved in case his fantasies ever start to overwhelm his meds.

Date: 2009/09/22 14:33:32, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 22 2009,13:44)
Considering he's retired and just had a hip operation, he's probably only a danger to himself.

Ah, so all the posturing is to try to attract him some Granny Tard luvvin'!

Date: 2009/09/22 16:40:59, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 22 2009,16:36)
But..but... I got a new bag and hat, special.  :angry:


I really do worry wonder about the pictures you boys have so close to hand....

Date: 2009/09/24 08:04:20, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 24 2009,06:51)
Quote (Touchstone @ Sep. 24 2009,00:50)
Diffaxial is banninated?? Ouch. That was a hell of a run.

... Diffaxial RIP.

Another argument won for Intelligent Design!

So, Clivebaby, how do you justify this one?

I really hope you are Dembski, because I'd hate to think there are two such gutless fuckwits.

Date: 2009/09/24 14:25:37, Link
Author: Maya
Dembski, the weasel, puts code in Dawkins' mouth:

From
Quote
When I contacted Richard Dawkins to confirm their authenticity, he replied, in an email dated 9.21.09, “I cannot confirm that either of them is mine. They don’t look familiar to me, but it is a long time ago. I don’t see what more I can say.”

the loud-mouthed but gutless Dover no-show gets to
Quote
We therefore conclude, unless further evidence is presented, that the single-mutation algorithm implemented by WEASEL1 is the one used by Dawkins in TBW.

in an almost Gordon Mullings-like spew of illogic and baseless assertions.

Any chance of bothering Dr. Dawkins again about this, Mr. Elsberry, sir?

Date: 2009/09/24 14:48:27, Link
Author: Maya
Dembski claims "These programs were widely circulated at the time." but a search for any of the unique strings within them turns up just one hit:  Dembski's UD post.

Is he really stupid enough to a) think that he can just make stuff like this up and b) not realize that neither of these faux weasels correspond to his claims in his paper with Marks?

Okay, enough for today, back to real biology.

Date: 2009/09/24 16:25:22, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Turncoat @ Sep. 24 2009,15:43)
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 24 2009,14:48)
Dembski claims "These programs were widely circulated at the time." but a search for any of the unique strings within them turns up just one hit:  Dembski's UD post.

Is he really stupid enough to a) think that he can just make stuff like this up and b) not realize that neither of these faux weasels correspond to his claims in his paper with Marks?

Okay, enough for today, back to real biology.

Sorry, Maya, but R0b is right in pointing out that neither Weasel implements partitioned search.

Exactly.  That's what I was trying to say in my point (b).  Re-reading it, the double negative with a half-twist is not my most cogent writing sample ever.

It seems that Dembski doesn't realize that he is contradicting his own claims about Dawkins' algorithm.

Date: 2009/09/24 18:07:30, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 24 2009,17:31)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 24 2009,09:01)
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 24 2009,09:42)
On the solemn occasion of Diffaxial's demise.

 
Quote
kairosfocus: Again: every Genetic Algorithm program, and every Evolutionary Algorithm implementing program we see was composed by a programmer, who is of coruse intelligent.

Every weather simulation is composed by a programmer who is of course intelligent. Hence the Wind blows by Design. Bow down to the Anemoi!

that is the perfect analogy for pointing out how verily stupid is that bullshit line of argument

I used it on Dembski in 2006 at the Greer-Heard Forum. He changed the topic.

If only you could have put him in a . . . thingy.  Darn, right on the tip of my tongue.  A . . . wossname, holds stuff tight . . . .

Date: 2009/09/24 19:33:48, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 24 2009,18:47)
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 24 2009,18:07)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 24 2009,17:31)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 24 2009,09:01)
   
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 24 2009,09:42)
On the solemn occasion of Diffaxial's demise.

     
Quote
kairosfocus: Again: every Genetic Algorithm program, and every Evolutionary Algorithm implementing program we see was composed by a programmer, who is of coruse intelligent.

Every weather simulation is composed by a programmer who is of course intelligent. Hence the Wind blows by Design. Bow down to the Anemoi!

that is the perfect analogy for pointing out how verily stupid is that bullshit line of argument

I used it on Dembski in 2006 at the Greer-Heard Forum. He changed the topic.

If only you could have put him in a . . . thingy.  Darn, right on the tip of my tongue.  A . . . wossname, holds stuff tight . . . .

Speedo? Prevert.

Sure, this time you guys don't have a picture.

ETA: No, I don't mean of Dembski.  Or Davey.

Date: 2009/09/24 19:58:09, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 24 2009,19:45)
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 24 2009,19:33)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 24 2009,18:47)
 
Speedo? Prevert.

Sure, this time you guys don't have a picture.

ETA: No, I don't mean of Dembski.  Or Davey.

How about RichardTHughes?

I didn't realize he was a nice Catholic boy.

Date: 2009/09/24 20:08:19, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 24 2009,19:58)
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 24 2009,19:33)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 24 2009,18:47)
 
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 24 2009,18:07)
 
If only you could have put him in a . . . thingy.  Darn, right on the tip of my tongue.  A . . . wossname, holds stuff tight . . . .

Speedo? Prevert.

Sure, this time you guys don't have a picture.

ETA: No, I don't mean of Dembski.  Or Davey.

Ask and ye shall receive. Christmas comes early for Maya:

Ho, Ho, Ho, Bay-beee

Note to self:  No more posting on AtBC on Thursday Margarita night.

Date: 2009/09/29 08:44:09, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 29 2009,08:19)
Gordon Mullings continues

 
Quote
Cabal:

All you have to do is write a program that without using the target sentence and a distance to target metric, reliably achieves it in several dozens to several hundreds of generations, showing implicit [quasi-]latching-ratcheting as it converges on target by a real, current functionality anchored metric of fitness.

I would love to see the result.

GEM of TKI
Tard. Where to begin?

WTF?  Can anyone translate that from tardese to something resembling English?  Is he asking for a simulation of evolution that doesn't incorporate any evolutionary mechanisms?

Date: 2009/10/01 17:06:16, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (steve_h @ Oct. 01 2009,16:23)
Or, maybe some of your accounts may have been unbanninated too.



Fly my pretties, fly!

Date: 2009/10/02 09:13:54, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 02 2009,08:18)
clive,baby has "difficulties"

this sombitch has a big bag of the killer
   
Quote
So it appears that humans didn’t evolve from apes after all


Clive baby (yes, we know you're lurking), we are apes.  We and the other apes share a common ancestor.

At least we now know why you let morons like Joseph post so prolifically on UD -- if you banned him, you'd be at the bottom of the IQ totem pole there.

Date: 2009/10/04 17:49:49, Link
Author: Maya
Barry, you're a lying sack of . . . organic matter.

Clive baby, you're a sycophantic immoral toad.

Oh yes, and water is wet.

When Joseph is the only ethical ID proponent in a thread, it's a good time to check your premises.

*spit*

ETA: Those of you (us) who Barry "Free Speech" Arrington prevents from posting on UD can always contact him here:

Arrington Law Firm
7340 East Caley Ave, Suite 360
Centennial, Colorado 80111

telephone:  303-205-7870
fax:  303-463-0410

email:  barry@arringtonpc.com

Sending him some choice Christian porn would, of course, be wrong.

Date: 2009/10/04 19:19:05, Link
Author: Maya
Here's what I faxed to 303-463-0410:

Quote
Barry baby,

Thanks for the hot picture.  Here's a similar one of me (with a little more clothing on, you're bolder than I):



Now that we've both had a preview, when can we get together for the main event?

Love,

Joseph

I'm sure that Barry's secretary is used to this kind of correspondence.

Date: 2009/10/06 14:36:48, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 06 2009,11:06)
X-posted from the Czar thread:

The most excellent Learned Hand informs me that he has been silently banninated at UD.

He asked, "Would you mind posting a quick FYI that Barrys thread is, indeed, a cowards trap?"

Indeed.

(LH was never a sock. He'll be joining us shortly.)

We could all see that coming.  Learned Hand was routinely vulgar, utterly contemptuous towards those with whom he was debating, completely unable to support his theses, and generally fit the definition of a troll to a T (and that leaves aside his clear intellectual deficiencies).

Oh, wait, that's Barry.

Date: 2009/10/12 16:11:36, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 12 2009,15:51)
Is there a medical term for the amount of delusion Clive is labouring under?

Is "shitload" a medical term?

ETA: Hello, Bathroom Wall!

Date: 2009/10/14 06:56:09, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 13 2009,19:54)
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 13 2009,07:16)
 
Quote
niwrad: But the entropic order is not true organization and as such cannot account for the complexity of organisms, which are highly organized systems... ID theory says that organization is different from the simple energy decrease in entropy because the former implies CSI while the latter doesn’t.

Ouch.  Doesn't it hurt when you do the stoopid, nirwad?

I need to keep my brain tard-free this week, but has anyone with an active sock noted in that thread that no one has yet calculated CSI for, well, anything?

Date: 2009/10/15 08:33:54, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (KCdgw @ Oct. 15 2009,08:24)
You have to love this:

Doomsday Smith:

Quote
Whatever the actual reason, though, there’s still nothing in thermodynamics for either you or ID in general to latch onto and that poor horse is still stone-cold dead. If it seems like it’s still twitching a bit, that’s only because you keep whacking on it so much.

Isn't nirwad Dembski?  Doomsday should just wave a "Ban Me!" flag.

Date: 2009/10/18 18:15:40, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 18 2009,16:01)
Damn you all for making me feel inadequately informed, thus forcing me to learn.

Bastards.

Yeah, I never have that problem when reading UD.

Date: 2009/10/25 12:15:02, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Raevmo @ Oct. 25 2009,04:45)
I noticed the sidewiki comments at UD have disappeared. Same story at TT. Do site owners have the power to make that happen? If so, sidewiki is utterly useless.

It's probably just a glitch, but if anyone would complain to Sidewiki, it would be Barry "Free Speech" Arrington.

Date: 2009/10/25 14:19:28, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 25 2009,14:00)
Quote (Maya @ Oct. 25 2009,12:15)
 
Quote (Raevmo @ Oct. 25 2009,04:45)
I noticed the sidewiki comments at UD have disappeared. Same story at TT. Do site owners have the power to make that happen? If so, sidewiki is utterly useless.

It's probably just a glitch, but if anyone would complain to Sidewiki, it would be Barry "Free Speech" Arrington.

Sidewiki is still running. Comments by: Jack Mollier, Tom English, Colin Purrington and Alan FOx

Cool, you prompted me to install the Google toolbar and take a look.

It seems Tom English needs some votes.

Date: 2009/10/27 11:37:12, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (RDK @ Oct. 26 2009,20:00)
Also, the idea that randomly selected letters of the alphabet--when pooled together--create a better argument than anything that has spewed forth from the Tard Mines That Time Forgot seems to be extremely relevant to the conversation at hand.

Randomly selected?  You're using the nixplanatory filter incorrectly by ignoring the possibility of IS -- Intelligent . . . Defecating.

Date: 2009/10/28 19:33:41, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 28 2009,17:41)
Quote
* What does evolution have to say about our being able to make a virus from scratch?

And does somebody really have an itch to do that?

It would be pretty rash.

Date: 2009/11/01 09:30:23, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 31 2009,23:47)
you may want to vote up a related sidewiki comment

The whole site, and every individual article, needs more SideWiki comments and votes.  Try censoring that, Clive baby.

Date: 2009/11/08 15:20:07, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 08 2009,14:51)
Meanwhile, Clive is still struggling with sentences:
 
Quote
Allen_MacNeill,

You know very well why some of your comments are admitted and some not, as evidenced by the fact that you know how to edit the ones I haven’t allowed to make them less offensive and less of an ad hominem and more of an argument. If you didn’t know, what to edit, and you’re editing is by chance, then I might believe in evolution and not make a design inference. ;)

Clive baby:  "Offensive" and "demonstrates that my frantic and feeble attempts to give my irrational bronze age myths the veneer of science in fact simply demonstrate my ignorance, lack of education, and general mendacity" are not synonyms.

Date: 2009/11/08 19:16:53, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 08 2009,17:38)
Quote
Maya, posted 11/08/09 2:20 PM
Clive baby:??"Offensive" and "demonstrates that my frantic and feeble attempts to give my irrational bronze age myths the veneer of science in fact simply demonstrate my ignorance, lack of education, and general mendacity" are not synonyms.

But such things are offensive to him. What more do you want? :p

Henry

I'd like to see him groveling under my spike heeled boot on his neck.  Is that so wrong?

ETA: No, not in the fun way.

Date: 2009/11/09 11:17:04, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 09 2009,01:18)
jesus god yall are a buncha damn nerds.  you make black powder reloaders look like pimps

You calling my daddy a pimp?

Date: 2009/11/09 12:29:12, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 09 2009,12:11)
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 09 2009,12:17)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 09 2009,01:18)
jesus god yall are a buncha damn nerds.  you make black powder reloaders look like pimps

You calling my daddy a pimp?

shoulda thought about that a bit longer

the overlapping demographic group might be a dangerous lot!

Daddy is the nicest, most mellow retired Marine officer you could ever hope to meet.

(What's the opposite of "damning with faint praise"?)

Date: 2009/11/09 13:15:24, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (dnmlthr @ Nov. 09 2009,13:13)
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 09 2009,18:29)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 09 2009,12:11)
 
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 09 2009,12:17)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 09 2009,01:18)
jesus god yall are a buncha damn nerds.  you make black powder reloaders look like pimps

You calling my daddy a pimp?

shoulda thought about that a bit longer

the overlapping demographic group might be a dangerous lot!

Daddy is the nicest, most mellow retired Marine officer you could ever hope to meet.

(What's the opposite of "damning with faint praise"?)

He does not by any chance own a floating command center house boat and enjoy cheetos a tad too much?

No, thank you very much.  Daddy actually served with honor.

Date: 2009/11/09 14:42:37, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (DiEb @ Nov. 09 2009,14:39)
I'm still trying to get in contact with W. Dembski:

<insert obligatory sweater joke here>

Date: 2009/11/10 14:20:11, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 10 2009,11:02)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....respond

Just when I think I can kick the habit and stop visiting UD, something like this makes me see red.

Is Dembski really deluded and ignorant enough to believe that nonsense or is he simply utterly dishonest?  Surely he has had the evidence for evolution pointed out to him on numerous occasions?

At least bornagain77 and Joseph have the excuse of being proven morons.  Dembski seems to be just a scummy excuse for a human being.

Date: 2009/11/11 09:39:53, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 10 2009,21:45)
Uptight Blowhard drops some names:
Quote
I truly believe UD should start a talent show. Obfuscation as Performance Art. You and Whisker and Hunt can do a routine. Diffaxial can be your manager. Reciprocating Bill, Keiths, and Maya can be in your banned.

I guess we made an impression on him.  :p

Uptight Dickhead outs himself as an AtBC lurker!

C'mon and post your nonsense here, unless you're as gutless as the rest of the IDiots.

Date: 2009/11/11 14:31:59, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 11 2009,14:03)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 10 2009,22:45)
Uptight Blowhard drops some names:
   
Quote
I truly believe UD should start a talent show. Obfuscation as Performance Art. You and Whisker and Hunt can do a routine. Diffaxial can be your manager. Reciprocating Bill, Keiths, and Maya can be in your banned.

I guess we made an impression on him.  :p

I'm really honored to be included in this company.

Well, not that Diffaxial fellow. I'll have nothing to do with him.

I feel like the token chick.

Date: 2009/11/11 20:14:49, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 11 2009,14:42)
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 11 2009,12:31)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 11 2009,14:03)
 
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 10 2009,22:45)
Uptight Blowhard drops some names:
Quote
I truly believe UD should start a talent show. Obfuscation as Performance Art. You and Whisker and Hunt can do a routine. Diffaxial can be your manager. Reciprocating Bill, Keiths, and Maya can be in your banned.

I guess we made an impression on him.  :p

I'm really honored to be included in this company.

Well, not that Diffaxial fellow. I'll have nothing to do with him.

I feel like the token chick.

You can play the tambourine.

Scarily, that may be the limit of my musical abilities.

Date: 2009/11/12 06:32:29, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2009,06:23)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 11 2009,20:25)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 09 2009,04:33)
   
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 08 2009,16:20)
     
Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 08 2009,10:14)
         
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 08 2009,14:38)
         
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 08 2009,13:24)
           
Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 08 2009,13:06)
             
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 08 2009,12:09)
               
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 08 2009,09:30)
               
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 05 2009,07:25)

   
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 05 2009,00:03)

   
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,23:02)

   
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 04 2009,18:07)

   
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 04 2009,19:13)

   
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,18:54)

   
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,16:43)

   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 04 2009,13:59)

   
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,14:32)

   
Quote (jerry @ Nov. 04 2009,whenever)
I know he has a PhD in mathematics but he failed to understand the implications of Behe’s Edge of Evolution and on his blog mocked him because of his short sidedness.

On behalf of all small polygons, I object to this slur.

It's a deep-seeded short sidedness, too.

It's a doggy-dog world, for all intensive purposes.

Jerry is a bowl in a china shop.

Jerry deserves a pullet surprise, but this is a mute point.

Indeed, for it seems Jerry could care less about what you have to say.

That's because he's a naval gazer.

I thought he won the Noble Prize for naval grazing.

It's time for him to shit and get off the pot.

BA77 warms the coggles of my heart. Yours?

RB, I think you need to curve your enthusiasm for these eggcorns.

They say the pun is mightier than the sword.

I have nothing but the up-most respect for BA^77, irregardless of his rather lengthy posts.

Is this what you folks call a nested hierarchy?

I have it on good authority that no such thing exists.

Wes'll be so mad if you break his forum!

Like BA77, you speak with undo bias.

Anyone have more eggcorns? Speak now or forever hold your piece.

Noledge is power, sayeth Frost122585. And just saying your a Chrsitain does not make you one. It simply doe snot.

Stare at the squares.  Innie or outie?

Date: 2009/11/13 15:39:18, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 13 2009,02:24)
Oh goody, a nature documentary.  I love those.  So follow her link to YouTube and the first thing you notice is the title above the screen, ""L'Our" (1988):...a lil bear v a cougar ..."  Hmm, a 1988 nature documentary?  Well, let's watch it.
. . .
       
Quote
The Game of Survival...  The Bear, (1988) known as L'Ours in its original release, is a feature film directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud.  The screenplay by Gerard Brach ws adapted from the novel The Grizzly King by James Oliver Curwood.


O'Leary was sucked in by a 20 year old feature film!

I love L'Ours!  It's even got a nice mushroom scene for k.e.

Of course, to think for a second that it's a documentary you'd have to be ignorant enough to consider Expelled a documentary as well.

Oh, wait....

Date: 2009/11/15 09:53:16, Link
Author: Maya
It's a lovely Sunday morning, I go for a run, come back ready to study, but I check AtBC first which leads me to this from Sal:
 
Quote
The model is not run on a computer or requires source code.

The animation makes vizual a simple inference.

For IDiots, pictures of gingerbread men "defeat Darwinism"?  I really didn't need my faith in humanity shattered so quickly today.

PS:  A lawyer writes and spells like that?

Date: 2009/11/15 09:58:39, Link
Author: Maya
It gets better!  From the same comment:
Quote
I look forward to hearing whatever obfuscation, distortion, and twisted Darwinistic sophistry you will attempt to put forward to refute a very simple and logical inference.

This in the topic immediately following Casey Luskin's "Let’s restore civility to the debate on evolution and intelligent design."

Don't Sal and Casey ever discuss their writing during pillow talk?

Date: 2009/11/15 11:20:09, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 15 2009,10:03)
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 15 2009,09:53)
PS:  A lawyer writes and spells like that?

Sal isn't a lawyer.  I am not sure really what he does for a living. Last we knew, he was going back to grad school for Physics at John Hopkins.  But that was about two years ago and we haven't heard much since.

Ah, so it's Casey who is among the 99% who give the other 1% a bad name.

Date: 2009/11/21 14:59:16, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 21 2009,06:55)
10/10 for waterbear
     
Quote
But on the upside he’s now one of the leading figures in a growing scientific enterprise and his name will be remembered alongside the likes of Faraday and Newton long after Darwin’s has been relegated to a footnote.

I love this, but surely even Clive baby and the other anti-intellectual troglodytes at ID can detect the facetious tone (even if they can't spell it).  How long before Waterbear is muzzled?

ETA:

Date: 2009/11/22 13:56:06, Link
Author: Maya
The amazingly patient Zachriel asks Sal for details of his model:
Quote
Is that the average mutations per individual? What is the distribution of effects of the harmful mutations? How often do reversions occur? How frequent are beneficial mutations and what is their distribution? What is the population? The size of the genome? What about recombination which is common in haploid organisms?

Sal's response is less than enlightening:
Quote
Minimum. See the discussion above.

How about trying to model it with the other parameters to your choosing.

Someone less charitable than I might conclude that Sal has no mathematical model behind his silly little gingerbread people.

Is he always this pompously ignorant?

Date: 2009/11/22 17:04:02, Link
Author: Maya
Flannery keeps up the high quality of reporting at UD:
 
Quote
Keith M. Parsons, writing for Eugenie Scott’s National Center for Science Education (largely an organization devoted to fear-mongering against ID)

Funny, I thought the NCSE was devoted to defending science education against the political attacks of anti-science religious wackjobs.

Date: 2009/11/29 09:55:44, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 29 2009,05:24)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 29 2009,04:07)
Dembski:
         
Quote
My resolution is to argue that just as the salvation of Christ purchased at the Cross acts forward as well as backward in time (the Old Testament saints were saved in virtue of the Cross), so too the effects of the Fall can go backward in time. Showing how this could happen requires extensive argument and is the main subject of the book.

I'd think so! So that is only the first of a series?

(My bold.)

I love the way an old earth and fossilised organisms predating humans are referred to as tentative possibilities which, if true, need to be explained in reference to the Fall of Adam:
     
Quote
My book attempts to resolve how the Fall of Adam could be responsible for all evil in the world, both moral and natural IF the earth is old and thus IF a fossil record that bespeaks violence among organisms predates the temporal occurrence of the Fall.

Dembski is upping his game here.  He must have read a biography of L. Ron Hubbard and realized the truth of "If you want to make a little money, write a book. If you want to make a lot of money, create a religion."

The money in ID books has been drying up since Dover.  Billy has evidently decided to break into that hip new Science Fiction genre.

Date: 2009/11/30 11:31:15, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (dvunkannon @ Nov. 30 2009,11:17)
Thank you Kattarina!

If anyone else would like to sponsor Nakashima's patience, PM me! Special rates apply for Joseph.

I'll chip in to have Medecins Sans Frontieres visit Joseph.  'Tis the season and all that.

Date: 2009/11/30 16:16:15, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (dvunkannon @ Nov. 30 2009,12:56)
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 30 2009,12:31)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Nov. 30 2009,11:17)
Thank you Kattarina!

If anyone else would like to sponsor Nakashima's patience, PM me! Special rates apply for Joseph.

I'll chip in to have Medecins Sans Frontieres visit Joseph.  'Tis the season and all that.

OK, there are two takers so far.

Same rules as Kattarina's November bet - 20 Euros (or your local equivalent, no Hanukah gelt, please) to Doctors Without Borders (or your choice of worthy people) if Nakashima does not get banninated.

Nakashima, for his part, will be his usual pain in the ass self.

Well, I really meant to help send a couple of nice men in white coats to take care of Joseph before he hurts himself, but what the heck, I'll stay in.

"Euros" sounds furrin, though.  What's that in real money?  ;-)

Date: 2009/12/04 12:45:33, Link
Author: Maya
A quick tard mining expedition during lunch resulted in this amazingly large nugget from WAD himself:
Quote
A test of a scientific theory might be how it fares at a grade school/high school science fair.

Yeah, what 12-year-olds think about your theory is far more important than, say, explanatory and predictive power.

Date: 2009/12/04 12:53:30, Link
Author: Maya
The Discovery Institute continues to pursue it's scientific research agenda.  Following the link leads to this from Casey Luskin:
Quote
We believe the reason the California Science Center withheld these public documents is simple: the e-mails show evidence of discrimination against the pro-intelligent design viewpoint.

Viewpoint discrimination?  Can they actually make a case for that, even in the land of nuts and flakes?

(I'm kidding about the nuts and flakes, I'm just jealous of their weather.)

Date: 2009/12/04 15:02:26, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 04 2009,14:21)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 04 2009,13:02)
Is there a law against viewpoint discrimination?

Yes, it is called the First Amendment of the US Constitution.  The essence of the issue is that, if any governmental agency makes it's facilities available for use to one organization, it must do so for all organizations.

Does that apply in this particular instance, though?  The purpose of the California Science Center is, I imagine (yes, I should check), to promote science education.  Would they have to allow their facilities to be used by flat earthers and perpetual motion machine inventors?  ID isn't science -- shouldn't the Dover decision provide some protection to the CSC?

Date: 2009/12/04 15:12:50, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 04 2009,14:21)
The classic case, in my mind, was that the city of Skokie, IL (which has a large Jewish population) was forced to issue a parade permit to the Ku Klux Klan because it had issued such permits to other, less objectionable organizations.

I just realized, you compared the IDiots to Hitler!

Date: 2009/12/04 15:14:35, Link
Author: Maya
Joseph overshares:
Quote
Yeah I would like to see a pomeranian successfully mate with a great dane…

Date: 2009/12/10 09:02:49, Link
Author: Maya
UD is straying from ludicrously and willfully stupid to creepily scary starting around here:
 
Quote
Barry Arrington

As Jay Budziszewski has eloquently stated, some things you can’t not know. Those things are the standard, or, as Lewis called it, the Tao. Your and Mr. Frank’s statements imply that that we cannot be sure that the prescriptions of the Tao really are transcendent. Rubbish.

and continuing here:
 
Quote
Clivebaby

StephenB,
 
Quote

The history of those who deny these first principles is a history of those who, offended at the prospect of objective moral truths and the demands that it might place on them, would prefer to live in an irrational world in which no truths exist at all. It’s as simple as that.

That has been my experience when dealing with them as well. Well said.

Their standard of morality is right because it's right and anyone who doesn't recognize it is evil (according to their standard, which is right).

Do they honestly not realize that they share a profound psychological connection with people who fly airplanes into buildings?

(That was a rhetorical question.  Please don't answer it, you'll only depress me.)

Date: 2009/12/10 14:35:00, Link
Author: Maya
Mung has a wish:
Quote
I wish I had a nice warm blanket of CO2 surrounding my apartment just now to help keep the heat in

I wish you did too, Mung, preferably while Joseph and Clivebaby were visiting.

Date: 2009/12/11 15:48:41, Link
Author: Maya
Dembski is crowing about getting another article published.  Has the IEEE always had such low standards?

Date: 2009/12/12 08:25:02, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 12 2009,02:10)
Quote

If the fitness of the organism
does not decrease, we keep the mutation and repeat the
iteration. If the fitness does increase, the mutation is
discarded and the process repeated.


What is this, the almost completely neutral evolution strategy?

It's the middle of the night, and maybe my eyes just are too glazed over, but can anybody else see why all the R strategy values for successes in Table III are the same, 353?

The same is true of table iv on the next page.  I tried to get back in touch with my inner math geek, but all I could see is that those solutions were found in each of the 353 trial runs.  The paper doesn't specify how long it took to find each.

This paper is hard to read, not because the math is particularly difficult but because the authors love to create new terms on nearly every page rather than using standard terminology and the information they provide is insufficient to reproduce their results.  Someone less kind and forgiving than I might think those are signs of crank pseudoscientists with an agenda.

Date: 2009/12/12 12:59:57, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 12 2009,10:32)
dvunkannon, Maya, please look at my question on the Evo Computation thread. Why are the random strategies in the Dembski/Marks paper suddenly changed to avida strategies in Marks' presentation slide? Or am I going crazy?

Marks' slide is just a subset of table iii from the paper.

Or did I misunderstand your question?

We can talk about the crazy bit once I understand this shimmy thing better.

ETA: dvunkannon beat me to it.

Date: 2009/12/12 13:05:07, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (dvunkannon @ Dec. 12 2009,11:00)
I have my own dumb question, which is why they divide by I sub omega in the last column of that table.

That's the normalized active information per instruction (NAIPI), of course.  Pronounced "nappy" and interpreted in the British sense of the word.

(Where's the puking emoticon?)

Date: 2009/12/13 14:05:01, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 13 2009,13:59)
I have some questions:
Is it normal for a professor to have so many publicity shots of themselves?

Not in my (admittedly somewhat limited) experience.

Quote
Is it normal for a scientific paper to be so jokey?


I've had professors who tried to use humor, with varying results.  One organic chemistry prof was actually pretty funny:  "Remember girls, once you've lost your chirality, it's gone forever."

Date: 2009/12/13 14:49:55, Link
Author: Maya
Could this be the end for Seversky?
   
Quote
For Larry Laudan and Mary Midgley, I will trade you a John Wilkins

   
Quote
Larry Laudan, a well-respected philosopher of science, rejects Popper’s view of science, unlike Ruse, who is a staunch Popperian. According to Laudan, and it’s a view I share, there is no demarcation criterion between science and other human activities, but that doesn’t mean there is no way to tell if something is good or bad science. We don’t have a sharp line between them, but good science is well marked by its explanatory successes, predictive value, and contribution to further research. A “theory” that offered no avenues of further investigation is useless in science, unless it offered the final explanation of all the phenomena it purported to explain. And no theory has reached that state of blessedness.

Bad science is obvious to scientists. Most scientists at any rate. It has no techniques, no methods or no models. ID is such a beast, lacking, in fact all three. Dembski’s so-called explanatory filter, which has been eviscerated many times, including by myself and Wesley Elsberry, is not an explanation or a method – it is in fact an argument from ignorance – what we don’t know can be put down to the “Designer” (by which they of course mean God, despite the disingenuous protestations). And there are no other methods – no way to identify the action of the Designer, no way to find out if the Designer did a particular thing or it is natural, and so on. Just the bland and, as John Jones III put it in the Dover judgement, breathtakingly inane, claim that intelligence must be the cause of anythign we don’t presently have an explanation for and which looks like it might be designed (despite the complete lack of criteria for design identification).

and an Edmund Burke:
   
Quote
…though no man can draw a stroke between the confines of day and night, yet light and darkness are upon the whole tolerably distinguishable.


I fear that Clivebaby will leap up from his knees to protect the good DrDr from such . . . such . . . objective criticism.

(Edited to fix link.)

Date: 2009/12/14 15:45:57, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 14 2009,15:35)
Sorry, providing links is a bit of a pain on my iPhone. But I've either made a design inference or a lucky guess. I just went through the conference programme for the meeting where Marks presented his stuff. And guess who one of the session chairs was? (hint: not WmAD)

Wes or someone knows the comp. Sci. area better - would the chair organise the reviews for the final version?

There was another chair, so Marks might have ensured that everything was above board, though, so there's no evidence for anything fishy.

The session was in T3, if anyone wants to go through the programme and check. It's in an excel sheet, of all things.

Marks is sitting on his own lap?

Yes, my Google-Fu is strong today.

ETA:The link.

Date: 2009/12/15 15:42:08, Link
Author: Maya
Clivebaby doesn't need no steenkin' evidence:
 
Quote
Mustela Nivalis,
 
Quote
That’s a very strong claim. Do you have any objective, empirical evidence to back it up?

Do you have any objective, empirical evidence that Mung should back it up with objective and empirical evidence? Objective and empirical evidence is not the only reasons we have for asking questions or giving answers, and your question of what is so bad about atheism is just one of these types of questions that doesn’t need empirical evidence to be asked, and shouldn’t demand any to be answered. I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical, so it shouldn’t demand as an answer something that it cannot produce for the grounds of its own existence. You asked the question of what is so bad about atheism, and one of the things that is so bad about it is a confused philosophical position that requires empirical evidence for everything except for itself. It confuses physics and metaphysics because it is so steeped in materialism, it forgets to turn the qualifications that it demands back on itself and doesn’t see the self-referential incoherence that results. This is one of the most obvious things that is wrong with it, it demands grounds for all other claims what it cannot give as grounds for its own claim. Saying that atheism is a false view of reality need not have any empirical evidence, just as the question “what’s wrong with being an atheist?” never had any empirical evidence to begin with.

I have two questions:

1)  Did Clivebaby get a fresh shipment of mushrooms recently?
2)  Why do I have this horrid compulsion to click on his name when I see it in Recent Comments?

Date: 2009/12/18 12:09:03, Link
Author: Maya
The UD thread starting from here is frustrating to watch.  Do the IDiots have enough low cunning to understand that once they commit to a definition, their nonsense is easily refuted?

Date: 2009/12/20 16:20:24, Link
Author: Maya
O'Leary's reading comprehension is exceeded only by her writing skills:
Quote
Seversky at 2, “Of course, there is nothing wrong with a climatology journal publishing papers which are skeptical of AGW, as long as they are held to the same standards as all other papers. What is wrong is where a paper that would not otherwise have passed muster is finagled through peer-review by an editor sympathetic to its views.

Richard Sternberg, anyone?”

Sorry, I didn’t understand. I hadn’t realized so clearly as now that it is all just a tankerload of propaganda, and the key to getting published in a journal is not to have a new or challenging idea but to be “sympathetic to its views.”

Clearly "as long as they are held to the same standards as all other papers" is too complex a subordinate clause for Canada's premier journalist.

Date: 2009/12/22 07:48:32, Link
Author: Maya
Joseph brings the early morning tard:
 
Quote
Why do some people want to be related to chimps?

Yes, Joeybaby, science is all about wish fulfillment.

ETA: *throws poo in Joey's general direction*

Date: 2009/12/22 09:52:14, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 22 2009,09:10)
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 22 2009,07:48)
Joseph brings the early morning tard:
       
Quote
Why do some people want to be related to chimps?

Yes, Joeybaby, science is all about wish fulfillment.

ETA: *throws poo in Joey's general direction*

Why are some people ashamed of their relatives? How far is that, really, from this "Nazi!!!" racism that they supposedly decry?

They're hypocrites.

Oh no!



Not the Nazi chimps!

Date: 2009/12/25 13:22:08, Link
Author: Maya
[quote=Quack,Dec. 25 2009,06:38]
Quote (didymos @ Dec. 25 2009,06:24)
     
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 25 2009,01:32)

More annoying still, he claims they "falsify" the molecular clock, and therefore evolution itself (of course),  but his "evidence" is this abstract (bolding mine):
     
Quote

Using entire modern and ancient mitochondrial genomes of Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) that are up to 44000 years old, we show that the rates of evolution of the mitochondrial genome are two to six times greater than those estimated from phylogenetic comparisons. Although the rate of evolution at constrained sites, including nonsynonymous positions and RNAs, varies more than twofold with time (between shallow and deep nodes), the rate of evolution at synonymous sites remains the same. The time-independent neutral evolutionary rates reported here would be useful for the study of recent evolutionary events.


Shorter CornTard: Flippers were designed because emprical evidence indicates that some penguins' MtDNA has evolved faster than estimated.  So you see, they don't actually evolve at all, and neither does anything else. You lose again evolution!  Take that!

Thanks, I was going to ask for a comment on that, funny how even I could know in my heart that he had to have it wrong?

If only something was known about the ancestors of modern penguins . . .



(Sitting at the folks' house with a Christmas mimosa and little more than Wikipedia for a resource -- does Hunter not do even minimal research before pontificating?)

Date: 2009/12/28 08:39:28, Link
Author: Maya
Dave Wisker points to the elephant in the room:
 
Quote
The biggest error is the assumption that ID is a theory:

 
Quote
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable.

~ Philip Johnson, Berkley Science Review (Spring 2006)


Ah, Dave, we hardly knew ye.

Date: 2009/12/28 12:05:29, Link
Author: Maya
Joseph shows off his Wikipedia skills:
 
Quote
Mustela Nivalis (aka weasel man)

That's sure to put a gleam in O'Leary's eye.

Date: 2009/12/28 15:14:08, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 28 2009,13:06)
Quote (dmso74 @ Dec. 28 2009,12:36)
jerry gives us a late xmas present by showing off his deep understanding of science:

       
Quote
Every time I pick something up, I am violating a law of physics, namely gravity


that's the good stuff, thanks jerry

uncut tard here

Come on. We're trying to keep a straight face over there.

At least Jerry knows his limitations:

Quote
Mustela Nivalis:
I’m afraid I see no content to which to respond. If you’d care to define your terms and refrain from simply assuming dualism, I’m sure we can have a more productive discussion.

Quote
jerry:
I cannot imagine such an event.

I'm going to miss bathing in tard when school starts.

Date: 2009/12/29 12:14:18, Link
Author: Maya
Jerry shows off his rhetorical skills:
Quote
“”The impression is that you couldn’t back up what you said, you engaged in ad hom to avoid the discussion.”

When you do not want to discuss something with jerks, one does not have to continue.

then complains about being abused:
Quote
For the anti ID person, a couple put downs I admit is their example of critical thinking.

It's too bad hypocrisy isn't painful.

Date: 2009/12/31 07:18:29, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Mark Frank @ Dec. 31 2009,05:45)
After years of a charmed life I finally got put into moderation. At the same time this comment:

Quote
Would you rather ride in a plane based on the faith of science or the faith of Christianity?


was removed. So presumably that was the reason.

What a relief. It is like being forced to give up smoking.

That's so much more offensive than anything Jerry has ever said....

Date: 2009/12/31 09:15:04, Link
Author: Maya
Sorry to interrupt the punning and the wake for Mark's sock, but Seversky deserves some recognition for destroying every UD argument in one post:
Quote
tgpeeler @ 344
Quote
Physics will NEVER have an explanation for anything that is immaterial because physics describes the behavior of material things, matter and energy. Physics will never have an explanation for design because design is a mental, that is to say, abstract, phenomenon. What about this is so hard to get?

The fact that science is not yet able to describe every link in the causal chain between quantum-level events and human thought does not mean that it never will. Neither you nor anyone else alive has any way of knowing that. All science can do for now is to continue to investigate to see how far we can get.
Quote
What about this is so hard to get? You are committing an egregious (is there any other kind?) of category mistake. Since physics can’t possibly describe non-material or immaterial things because part of the DEFINITION (LAW OF IDENTITY) of physics is that it is about the physical world, yet that is all the materialist has in his metaphysical bag of tricks, well then, the only thing left to do is deny the existence of those things. It’s intellectual degeneracy of the highest order.

Unlike religion, science does not deny any thing because it conflicts with some impregnable dogma. What it does require is that if you want to overturn or supplant a well-established theory then the replacement needs to do more and do it better than the incumbent.

As for a non-material or immaterial world, what is there for physics to describe? Physics can only study what exists. You talk about abstracts like morality or information as if they exist in the same way as my car yet plainly they don’t. I can verify the existence of my car through my senses and through instruments. I can find evidence that it continues to exist regardless of whether I am observing it or even thinking about it. They same cannot be said about morality. There is no evidence of any such thing outside the human mind. If the human race were snuffed out of existence our artefacts would continue to exist after – in some cases, long after – the last human consciousness was extinguished. Alien explorers, if they came to Earth after, would be able to study all the material things that survived us. There would be no rusting bits of morality for them to pick up and take to a laboratory to study, would there? So tell me how abstracts like morality can have any existence beyond our conscious minds.
Quote
… you feel free to ignore ALL OF THE DATA/OBSERVATIONS of design because it offends your philosophically indefensible premise. How would you know about design in the first freaking place if there wasn’t such a thing as real design?

I am not ignoring anything.

Of course we know about design. It’s what we do.

We also know that we did not design those things that look designed.

And while there are many beliefs and speculations about gods and extraterrestrial intelligences we have no evidence for any of them.

What we do have is a theory of how these biological features that look designed might have come about through purposeless or undirected processes.

That is why we talk about the appearance of design.

Because that is all it might be.

If you really want to be reasonable and scientific then, for a start, you need to be wary of the fallacy of selective reporting, which is the pitfall any analogical argument. You need to study the differences with even greater care than noting the similarities. People see the face of Christ in a damp stain on a wall or the Virgin Mary and Baby Jesus in a pretzel. Are these examples of design or just false-positives from our internal pattern-recognition software?

And remember, it’s not about what you believe and want to be true, it is what we can reasonably infer taking into account all factors.
Quote
You say: “And it is not a fallacy to appeal to appropriate or competent authority.”

It is when the issue under discussion is that competence.

On the one side we have a motley collection of lawyers, mathematicians, philosophers, engineers, doctors, dentists, chemists, physicists, etc with a smattering of representatives from the biological disciplines.

On the other side we have the overwhelming majority of the community of biologists.

So tell us, on questions of biology, which would you say was the more competent?

Put it another way. How do you think Phillip Johnson would react if Kenneth Miller tried to lecture him about points of law? Do you think it would be much the same way as a professional biologist would react, having spent many years of education and the whole of his or her working life in the field, being told by someone like you that they don’t have the first idea of what they are talking about?
Quote
There IS NO objective morality . There IS TOO objective morality. That’s what you are claiming in the same post.

No. Read it again. I am stating my own moral beliefs. Unlike you, I am not claiming they have any objective existence or must be true because they are approved by some Supreme Moral Authority.

But even if yours were the Approved Version, what reason do you have for thinking they are any better than we could come up with and are you saying that you only know what is right or wrong because God tells you what they are?

Asking for reason and evidence, while pointing out concisely that ID is utterly vacuous.  He'll be joining Mark Frank in the moderation queue soon.

Date: 2010/01/02 09:38:00, Link
Author: Maya
Joseph owns UD:

Date: 2010/01/02 14:30:55, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (raguel @ Jan. 02 2010,14:00)
wth is Joseph trying to say? Is he really giving evidence of nested hierarchies to disprove nested hierarchies? Is he trying to say something like "if evolution is true, why are humans still mammals?"

If I'm reading him correctly, it's even worse than that.  He seems to be saying that

1) His favorite definition of "nested hierarchy" requires that defining characteristics can't change and can only be added to subsequent layers in the hierarchy, and
2) Characteristics in the nested hierarchy of biological organisms can change and even be eliminated in descendants, so
3) Common descent is unproven.

Therefore:  Jesus.

Proof by definition and posturing for O'Leary nookie.  Nothing new to see here.

Date: 2010/01/02 16:12:35, Link
Author: Maya
I'm beginning to suspect that Joseph is a piece of software:
 
Quote
 
Quote
Graham1:
My point was that (some) people have been trying to invoke the supernatural for about 2000 years, and in that time they havent produced anything useful. I think that is telling us something.

Other people have been trying to invoke MN for much longer than 2000 years and they haven’t produced anything useful. I think that is also telling us something.

The famous Pee Wee Herman "I know you are but what am I?" defense.

I also like the claim that science has produced nothing useful in 2000 years.

Date: 2010/01/02 17:38:18, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (steve_h @ Jan. 02 2010,16:42)
Just donated 4x20 SFr. to MSF in honor of Nakashima's continued presence at UD. Keep up the good work whoever you are.

I think $30 is about the same as EUR 20, right?



My kudos to Nakashima as well.

Date: 2010/01/04 08:17:18, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2010,22:59)
Joseph's gay, maybe he wants to do it with Gordon.

Not that there's anything wrong with that....

Date: 2010/01/05 08:46:00, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 04 2010,23:08)
Here's how Jerry and SCheesman pissed WMAD off:  
Quote

6
jerry
01/04/2010
7:45 pm

Too many hesitation on Bill’s part as he seemed to over think the question just asked.

Interesting criticism.  No one is going to accuse Jerry of overthinking anything.

Date: 2010/01/05 15:50:51, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 05 2010,13:55)
Has Dembski managed to leave 'comments open' on any of his recent posts? Because he's all for controversy and against censorship...

He's probably seen how well it works for Corny, who is getting his butt handed to him by several posters.

Just a few more days before the semester starts and I go back on the tard wagon.  Thank goodness -- you know you have a problem when you follow links from UD in search of more.

Date: 2010/01/06 15:16:39, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 06 2010,15:04)
Clive replies
     
Quote

Ahhh, interesting tactic. Deny something, and then call it controversial

Hey, it's what all the cool kids IDiots are doing.

Date: 2010/01/07 17:11:43, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 07 2010,13:54)
EXPELLED!

Hey UDites who read here, are you proud of your leadership? Tell them - it might stay up for 15 seconds*





* Insert PeePee joke here.

You could also tell Barry "Free Speech" Arrington his own self:

Quote
We welcome any questions or comments you may have. Feel free to contact us at any time:
Telephone...   303-205-7870
Fax...   303-463-0410
Email...   barry@arringtonpc.com

Arrington Law Firm
7340 East Caley Ave, Suite 360
Centennial, Colorado 80111

You can also send us a message directly through the Contact page of this website .

Date: 2010/01/08 17:44:39, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 08 2010,16:56)
From Josh at SciBlogs - Bill Dembski Friday Meltdown!

Dembski Kisses Jesus Out Loud

I was raised in one of the more warm-and-fuzzy protestant denominations, where the community (mostly military) was more important than the details of the dogma.  Could someone with a better understanding of what, for lack of a better term, I'll call the subtleties of fundamentalism please explain exactly what Dembski signed up for when he joined the bible school?

In particular, he says he's an old Earth creationist, but believes that Adam and Eve were real, historical individuals.  Does that mean he thinks the Earth was around for 4.6 billion years, then the Garden of Eden popped up 6000 years ago?  Does he believe in a global flood?

I could look it up, but I'm off the tard until spring break.

Date: 2010/01/09 22:02:39, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Maya @ Jan. 08 2010,17:44)
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 08 2010,16:56)
From Josh at SciBlogs - Bill Dembski Friday Meltdown!

Dembski Kisses Jesus Out Loud

I was raised in one of the more warm-and-fuzzy protestant denominations, where the community (mostly military) was more important than the details of the dogma.  Could someone with a better understanding of what, for lack of a better term, I'll call the subtleties of fundamentalism please explain exactly what Dembski signed up for when he joined the bible school?

In particular, he says he's an old Earth creationist, but believes that Adam and Eve were real, historical individuals.  Does that mean he thinks the Earth was around for 4.6 billion years, then the Garden of Eden popped up 6000 years ago?  Does he believe in a global flood?

I could look it up, but I'm off the tard until spring break.

Fine, make me spend five minutes looking up the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.  See if I care.
Quote
Article XII.

WE AFFIRM  that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
WE DENY  that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Dembski believes in the Noachian flood.

Any suggestion that he values, or even understands, science is immediately refuted.

Date: 2010/01/12 12:17:46, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 11 2010,22:30)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Jan. 11 2010,21:03)
Welcome, Arch Thompson, 11000th member!

   
Quote
Most users ever online was 1043 on Aug. 12 2008,05:34


I went back and looked at the UDII thread, it looks like a completely average day of ridiculing TARD. Does anyone remember why so many people were online that day?

Aug 12, 2008 starts here. On Aug 11 DaveScot challenged Maya but I don't know if this caused the traffic.

I remember that.  It was shortly after he posted a video of William Shatner, in his Boston Legal character, making some less than gentlemanly comments about women.  Davey cited the sentiments approvingly, evidently failing to realize that Shatner was acting.

Not the way to get a girl's phone number.

Date: 2010/01/12 14:21:25, Link
Author: Maya
Denyse shows off her research skills again:
Quote
Flu kills millions every year

Well, maybe not:
Quote
Regular flu in the United States kills about 30,000 people in an average year.
. . .
A regular year worldwide is for 250,000 to 500,000 people to die from the flu.

Where did she print receive her journalism diploma again?

Date: 2010/01/12 14:49:03, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (RDK @ Jan. 12 2010,14:47)
[quote]23
Leviathan
01/12/2010
3:39 pm

Mrs. O’Leary,

 
Quote
Flu kills millions every year


Really? This is news to me….according to this source, the figure is quite different:

   
Quote
Regular flu in the United States kills about 30,000 people in an average year.
. . .
A regular year worldwide is for 250,000 to 500,000 people to die from the flu.

I'm not sure I know you well enough to have my hand in your sock.

Date: 2010/01/13 13:05:46, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (RDK @ Jan. 13 2010,11:48)
Moar astute journalism from the Citizen Kane of our times:
   
Quote
Leviathan at 23 and Seversky at 24, I would never assume that the reported causes of death are the same as actual ones.  Many people die with no reported cause of death, or no seriously examined one.

Wow.  Refusal to accept correction on even minor points must be the minimum character flaw required to be allowed to start threads at UD.

Date: 2010/01/16 10:02:27, Link
Author: Maya
h.pesoj is on an automatic shotgun posting spree.  How many hands are in that sock?

Date: 2010/01/16 11:12:51, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (RDK @ Jan. 16 2010,10:56)
Broseph catches on fast, doesn't he!:

 
Quote
113
Joseph
01/16/2010
11:40 am

h.pesoj is a troll.

h.pesoj is just my name spelled backwards. :cool:

Could be a sock-puppet for Zachriel.

But I will answer the backwards me:


Then he proceeds to stick his head farther up his ass, proving that it is indeed possible.

Hmm, Joseph as a cranial-rectally inverted Klein bottle.  If only my Photoshop skills were up to the task....

PS:  Did it really take Joseph that long to recognize his name written backwards?

Date: 2010/01/17 16:02:20, Link
Author: Maya
Number 1 in the Top Ten ID Science Stories of the year ("ID science"?) is:
 
Quote
Authors William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II use computer simulations and information theory to challenge the ability of Darwinian processes to create new functional genetic information.

No reference to the paper included, but O'Leary must be referring to the IEEE paper.  Wasn't that the one that had nothing to do with biology and merely mangled (again) the weasel?

O'Leary once again confuses word processor with food processor and produces this salad in a double parenthetical remark:
 
Quote
And while we are here, Dawkins claims he cannot produce an original statement of his big no-design theory - though professionals associated with the goals of this site reconstructed it - and it doesn't work.

Is this more weasel bashing?

This big a headache from a quick glance at the front page of UD.  I'm going to lie down now.

Date: 2010/01/18 13:16:26, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 18 2010,12:56)
Just come over and have an open, honest and unmoderated conversation here, Clive. We'll be civil.

Richard,

I'd also like to see Clivebaby participate here, but I need your guidance.  Is "pompous intellectual coward" more or less civil than "willfully ignorant America-hating science denier"?

Thanks!

Date: 2010/01/18 13:57:15, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 18 2010,13:49)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 18 2010,13:56)
Just come over and have an open, honest and unmoderated conversation here, Clive. We'll be civil.

I say invite them en masse, in the form of a thread in which Clive, Jerry, StephenB, Timaeus, Vjtorley, Upright Biped, KF, BA77, Joseph and anyone else who cares to may present their case. I for one promise to keep it civil therein.

We'll have to define "civil" very carefully for them.  Their working definition is "doesn't disagree with me in public."

Date: 2010/01/19 12:50:47, Link
Author: Maya
Jerry shows a sense of humor:
Quote
I never put myself on record. Otherwise I might have to defend something.

Clivebaby (yes, we know you're still reading here), you know that a sense of humor is a sure sign of a sockpuppet.  Ban him!

Date: 2010/01/19 19:14:24, Link
Author: Maya
Richard Jerry, comes dangerously close to defining a term:
Quote
And if you want to know what FCSI means, just think the transcription/translation process with its over one thousand auxiliary parts leading to the creation of a protein. No suns, brown dwarfs, planets, comets, plate tectonics, snowflakes, crystals, sand dunes has anything like one intermediary part that takes input A and provides a completely different output B each and every time. But the transcription/translation process does.

He apparently also hasn't heard of catalysts, but what can we expect from a sock?

Date: 2010/01/20 19:48:35, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 20 2010,17:35)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 21 2010,12:28)
If you're really Jerry, say something about No Free Lunch in your next comment over there.

Well I'll be...

I'm torn between throwing my underwear on Richard's stage and scolding him for not holding out until he got posting privileges at UD.

Date: 2010/01/22 06:45:51, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 22 2010,05:08)
My sole reason for shooting film now is to get full-frame images out of my Sigma 12-24mm lens. On my Nikon DX style DSLRs, I get only a 18mm equivalent field of view. By putting it on my N80 body, I get the full 12mm wide angle experience.

I like to have my feet in every picture, too.  ;-)

I'm still learning to use a 20mm effectively.

Date: 2010/01/24 07:25:53, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 24 2010,07:15)
Looks like somebody's been teaching an old dog some new tricks:
Quote
Except my reference to a box of fireworks isn’t a symbol, it’s reality with a materialist. And I know you’re not in Japan, so please don’t use the charade of Japanese obfuscation with me.

Clive, who cares? The only reason you have to even look at the I.P address is because your comment/moderation policy is so lop sided, any ID supporter can say what they like but the moment anybody else steps over your arbitrary line they've had it.

There's a line?  It seems to me that Clivebaby just rolls the dice whenever he sees an anti-ID commenter.  Eventually they all end up banned.  UD is the result of chance!  (It certainly isn't the result of intelligence.)

You're an intellectual coward, Clivebaby.  Given how much you and your ilk like to wrap yourselves in the flag, your attitude towards free speech is hypocritically un-American.

Date: 2010/01/24 10:10:23, Link
Author: Maya
Joseph attempts to define Aleta out of existence:
Quote
Aleta writes:
I like Cabal’s list at 97, which makes the point that being a materialist (which I am) is not the same as being a reductionist (which I am not).

Quote
Joseph responds:
Being a materialist means that you think everything can be reduced to materialistic processes- ie can be reduced to matter, energy, chance and necessity.

Don't let reality intrude into that world view of yours, Joey.  Be really careful not to learn anything about the problems of reductionism.

Date: 2010/01/28 11:58:47, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 28 2010,09:24)
Joseph:
 
Quote
Educated people understand that “evolution” is not being debated.

Huh?  
Quote
So perhaps the higher the education level the less people think critically.

Tell that to Dr Dr Dembski.

Nakashima's kid brother apparently decided to do just that:
Quote
“So perhaps the higher the education level, the less people think critically.”

Do you mean to suggest that Dr. Dembski, holder of 2 PhDs is less of a critical thinker than the average layperson?

Date: 2010/01/29 09:28:20, Link
Author: Maya
Robert Deyes knows something the rest of the world doesn't:
Quote
The series . . . aims to further strengthen the global influence that the Intelligent Design movement already enjoys . . . .

Having three threads in the discussion section of a science blog devoted to mocking ID in general and UD in particular counts as global influence?

Date: 2010/01/29 12:27:57, Link
Author: Maya
Jehu starts the Predictions Game:
 
Quote
For some reason this reminded me of Robert Shapiro’s prediction that we would understand the origins of life in the next five years. He made that prediction in 2006. With one year left that prediction doesn’t seem any more likely now than it did then.

My turn!  My turn!
 
Quote
William Dembski in the July/August Touchstone magazine:
In the next five years, molecular Darwinism—the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level—will be dead. When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules. I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years.

Molecular biology doesn't look dead to me (although my lab does smell funny).

Date: 2010/02/03 14:37:18, Link
Author: Maya
The good guys win in Mississippi:
 
Quote
Mississippi's House Bill 586, which if enacted would have required "scientifically sound arguments by protagonists and antagonists of the theory of evolution" to be presented in the state's schools, died in committee on February 2, 2010, according to the legislative website. In 2009, the bill's sponsor, Gary Chism (R-District 37), introduced a bill, HB 25, requiring biology textbooks in the state to include a hybrid of two previous versions of the Alabama evolution textbook disclaimer; that bill also died in committee.

Countdown to UD claims of being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture in three . . . two . . . .

Date: 2010/02/12 11:30:35, Link
Author: Maya
UD manages to avoid being completely useless by posting a link to a petition to properly categorize intelligent design creationism books.

Thanks, DonaldM, I just signed!

Date: 2010/02/12 13:01:02, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 12 2010,12:43)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 10 2010,16:10)
And that is all that distinguishes ID from special creationism- honesty.

. . .
ID says that not all mutations are genetic accidents.

Genetic accidents occur but they are a minor player.

. . .

IOW there are targeted searches going on.

So ID says speciation occurs by mutation but not all mutations are blind and undirected.

As soon as you provide any empirical evidence for your little hypothesis, it will warrant some consideration.  Right now all you and the rest of the IDC movement have are baseless assertions.

Date: 2010/02/13 18:28:57, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 13 2010,14:53)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 12 2010,02:08)
P.S. Was it Joe G. who was threatening Hermagoras with violence a couple of years ago?

YES.

I thought that was all just posturing in the hopes of getting to bump uglies with Granny Denyse.

Date: 2010/02/14 09:32:21, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 14 2010,09:22)
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 14 2010,00:38)
UPDATE: scordova is playing the "clergy letter project card":      
Quote
Amy Bishop was charged in the murder of several people recently. Now, there are some very fine Darwinists like Francis Collins, and I don’t mean to say Amy Bishop is representative of all Darwinists. But I’d recommend that if the clergy wishes to put on a good face for Darwinism, they might consider disassociating themselves from Amy Bishop.
In other words:        
Quote
[slimy]I don't actually say that Francis Collins is the next to kill his colleagues but if that should happen one day don't say I didn't warn you.[/slimy]

UD can always count on Slimy Sal when in need of someone to squat, pants around ankles, and curl a fetid, steaming turd into his shoes.

When BarryA is unavailable, that is.

Put yer shoes on, Sal.

Wow, that nearly made me hurl my See's chocolates.  Not good Valentine's reading.

Sal reminds me of something I'd wipe off the bottom of my shoe.  Quickly.

Date: 2010/02/18 06:20:52, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 18 2010,05:47)
To me "free will" is a meaningless concept. I think that free will as proposed by the UDiots can not be defined without God.

Thank you.  I didn't want to come across as the geek who hasn't read enough philosophy, but I've never heard a coherent definition of "free will."

Date: 2010/02/18 14:14:21, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2010,12:32)
Doesn't someone usually play the "emergent propeties" card about now?

I'll counter your "emergent properties" with my "chaotic sensitivity to initial conditions" card.

Date: 2010/02/26 09:16:27, Link
Author: Maya
Cornelius Hunter is a tard:
Quote
Finally, the evidence suggests the multiple mutations work together. Alone, some of the mutations have little affect on helping the snake resist the tetrodotoxin, but together the mutations have a tremendous effect. The weak mutations alone would have been less likely to have been selected and therefore, according to evolution, essentially simultaneous mutations are more likely to have occurred.


Zachriel is already on his case, but really.  Slight advantages aren't selected for?  Simultaneous mutations are more likely than single mutations?  And this guy is on the faculty at Biola?

Date: 2010/03/06 08:59:51, Link
Author: Maya
For my 500th post I was going to do a full fisking of one of Corny Hunter's bits of nonsense, or maybe do some research into the reasons why the typical UDiot seems incapable of abstract thought, but I got distracted by this from Joey G's object of desire:
Quote
Now, what I’d be interested to know is, the ETs never phone, they never write. Why do we assume they exist?

Gee, Denyse, are there any other objects of belief to which we could apply that criteria?

I see hypocrites.  They don't know they're hypocrites.

Date: 2010/03/09 10:57:47, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 09 2010,03:09)
 
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 08 2010,23:32)
WMAD        
Quote
New Peer-Reviewed ID Paper — Deconstructing the Dawkins WEASEL

I find it interesting that he uses    
Quote
METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL

in the paper but the word "Dawkins" does not appear. Neither does the phrase "Intelligent Design".

It's almost as if the authors either don't know how to properly cite references.  Surely it couldn't be because they lack the intellectual integrity to do so.
 
Quote
So as this paper was announced as
   
Quote
New Peer-Reviewed ID Paper — Deconstructing the Dawkins WEASEL

A) How does it support ID?

Excellent question.  I read the paper and it never mentions intelligent design nor does it discuss biology.

I have a question for the mathematicians reading this.  Isn't there an already existing, standard term for what Billy and the boys are calling endogenous information?  I remember Tom English addressing the idea that active information is a misnomer.  I'm too busy with school to do the research, unfortunately, but I'm sure that I remember something about this from my undergrad days.

I also hope someone challenges the idea in the first few paragraphs that the antenna GA uses NEC-4 as an oracle.  My understanding is that it uses a simulation of the real world to provide feedback to the evolutionary algorithm.  It seems to be stretching the meaning of "oracle" to the breaking point to apply it there.

I'm not impressed with the peer reviewers of this one.

Date: 2010/03/11 09:58:42, Link
Author: Maya
Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 11 2010,08:37)
  • well, the article is delayed - and will look quite  different in print, I suppose

  • I'm sure it will.  Dembski always promptly corrects his errors when they are pointed out to him.

    Oh, wait....

    Date: 2010/03/15 06:38:51, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (sparc @ Mar. 14 2010,22:27)
    Quote (JLT @ Mar. 14 2010,17:39)
    as quoted by SlimeySal

    Seems Sal has quite some spare time lately. Is he on holidays or did he finally quit grad school?

    Posting continuously on UD must be his idea of an exciting Spring Break.

    Date: 2010/03/26 12:10:51, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Lowell @ Mar. 26 2010,12:02)
    I wonder: Is "carrying on propoganda" a "substantial" part of UD's activities?



    I'm shocked, shocked to find that propoganda is going on in here!

    Date: 2010/03/28 11:59:59, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 28 2010,04:13)
    Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 27 2010,21:42)
    But isn't lye soap what the Clampetts use?

    Did you ever see Elly Mae lying down in the straw?

    Seems kind of itchy to me, but I could be persuaded...

    Date: 2010/03/28 17:54:47, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 28 2010,15:48)
    Maya -

    I sure hope that richardthughes' publicist gave you permission to use his photo... he's very touchy about that.

    I thought it was Arden I was talking to....

    Okay, who's been spoofing on Skype?

    Date: 2010/04/01 14:36:36, Link
    Author: Maya
    Does Dembski know he's posting an April Fool's joke?

    He never struck me as the type to laugh at himself.

    ETA:  Original link just in case one of those bizarre software snafus makes Dembski's original post disappear.

    Date: 2010/04/01 14:57:36, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Maya @ April 01 2010,14:36)
    Does Dembski know he's posting an April Fool's joke?

    He never struck me as the type to laugh at himself.

    bornagain77 eats it up:
    Quote
    I am so glad to hear this. It is a shame dogmatism in science, by the atheists, is to such a point that fairness in science would have to be semi-enforced from the top-down, but none-the-less Baylor can now live up to its historic reputation as a premier Christian university in America that has top-notch academics who not afraid to follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if the conclusions drawn from the evidence are not to the liking of some.

    Date: 2010/04/01 19:36:57, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Freddie @ April 01 2010,15:21)
    Quote (Maya @ April 01 2010,14:36)
    Does Dembski know he's posting an April Fool's joke?

    He never struck me as the type to laugh at himself.

    ETA:  Original link just in case one of those bizarre software snafus makes Dembski's original post disappear.

    Looks like that was made by Brian Garner, on the faculty at Baylor.  Should we give Dr2D the benefit of the doubt and suggest he was reposting it only in the interest of propagating the joke?

    Brian Garner - Baylor

    Okay, I'll try to imagine that.  The self-deprecation and humility required of Dembski in your hypothesis makes it hard, though.

    I'm a bad person.

    Date: 2010/04/04 19:12:27, Link
    Author: Maya
    Belatedly I realize that Gil baby should not be read after a couple of glasses of wine at Easter dinner.
    Quote
    Darwin’s unidirectional “tree of life” never existed. It might have been something more akin to a hologram than a tree, as far as I can tell.

    Gil clearly goes straight for the mushrooms.

    Date: 2010/04/08 08:15:01, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (DiEb @ April 08 2010,01:37)
    Thanks, Sooner Emeritus!
    As W. Dembski asked for it, here is a concise list of his errors.

    I think you have a typo in errata numbers 1 and 2.  The "actual" and "should" formulae are identical.

    Date: 2010/04/08 12:13:16, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (DiEb @ April 08 2010,08:19)
    Quote (Maya @ April 08 2010,08:15)
     
    Quote (DiEb @ April 08 2010,01:37)
    Thanks, Sooner Emeritus!
    As W. Dembski asked for it, here is a concise list of his errors.

    I think you have a typo in errata numbers 1 and 2.  The "actual" and "should" formulae are identical.

    It's about minor errors - so, here the signs are different...

    Sorry, time for new contacts.  Maybe I'll go for the cat's eyes this time....

    Date: 2010/04/08 12:18:22, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Doc Bill @ April 08 2010,08:25)
    In Bizarro World log and minus log are the same thing.

    Just fold the x-axis, then the y-axis and you'll get the point.

    p.s.  I'm in the running for Alter Boy of Information Science.

    For some reason I'm reminded of the joke about the Greek sailor who got stuck in a porthole and couldn't get out to save his ass.

    Hello again, Bathroom Wall, how have you been?

    Date: 2010/04/12 11:49:44, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 12 2010,11:16)
    Winston lets the cat out of the bag regarding how his and Dembski's latest paper received it's "peer review":

    Does anyone else feel sorry for Winston?  He looks so young in the EIL picture, and he's clearly fallen in with a bad crowd.

    ID?  You can't send a kid up in a crate like that!

    Date: 2010/04/13 18:34:03, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 13 2010,16:55)
    Someone, er, prods Atom into explaining how the latest "ID supporting" papers actually support ID:
       
    Quote
    . . .
    However, the type of landscape we need to achieve success in a search cannot simply be assumed to be given to us.
    . . .


    Reality is not a given at UD?

    Date: 2010/04/15 18:50:49, Link
    Author: Maya
    Bob Marks is one of the 20 Most Brilliant Christian Professors.
     
    Quote
    Marks said the recent recognition of his work is not vindication for criticism that has been directed both at him and the field in general.

    “I think that when truth emerges, that will be the ultimate vindication,” he said. “And I think that’s going to come someday.”

    Stacking up

    That day may be sooner than later, Marks said, noting that peer-reviewed publications in his field in 2009, if printed and stacked, “would exceed the height of the Empire State Building.”

    What font does he use?

    Surely a good Christian wouldn't try to conflate publications in the field of genetic algorithms, or whatever he considers his field, with publications supporting Intelligent Design Creationism?

    ETA: I notice that Simon Conway Morris is also on the list, although that isn't mentioned at UD.

    Date: 2010/04/16 09:13:35, Link
    Author: Maya
    Connecticut Teacher EXPELLED For Teaching Evolution!
    Okay, he actually quit and, okay, reading between the lines it sounds like he had some personality differences with the administration, but he easily clears the bar set by the IDC whiners.

    Regardless of the other facts of the case, this quote from Mark Ribbens, then principal of the school, is indicative of a real problem (bolding mine):
     
    Quote
    While evolution is a robust scientific theory, it is a philosophically unsatisfactory explanation for the diversity of life.  I could anticipate that a number of our parents might object to this topic as part of a TAG project, and further, parents who would object if evolution was part of a presentation by a student to students who do not participate in the TAG program.
    . . .
    Evolution touches on a core belief — Do we share common ancestry with other living organisms?  What does it mean to be a human being?  I don’t believe that this core belief is one in which you want to debate with children or their parents, and I know personally that I would be challenged in leading a 10-year-old through this sort of discussion while maintaining the appropriate sensitivity to a family’s religious beliefs or traditions.

    That sounds dangerously close to "Some people might not like this extremely well supported scientific theory, and I don't like it personally, so we shouldn't teach it."

    Date: 2010/04/16 14:12:35, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (midwifetoad @ April 16 2010,13:08)
    Quote
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/olive-branch-from-karl-giberson/


    Can any sense be made of the olive branch thread?

    It seems at once to violate all the years at UD of denying the Designer is God, and at the same time making anything other than a Deistic god unnecessary.

    I couldn't make it past the first quote from Karl Giberson:
    Quote
    Not all ID theorists insist on this however. I had a chance to chat with Michael Behe when we were on a panel a few months ago at Brigham Young University; I pressed him to find out just how far apart we were. I knew he accepted common ancestry and rejected young earth creationism, just as we do at BioLogos. Behe insisted that "design is empirically detectable" but he did not insist that such design requires intervention by God.

    Fair enough.

    Perhaps it would be most appropriate to say that ID "tends to slip into god-of-the-gaps," rather than equating it with god-of-the gaps, as its critics tend to do.

    Talk about damning with faint praise.

    Date: 2010/04/29 20:14:08, Link
    Author: Maya
    vjtorley comes so close to making sense:  
    Quote
    Now if all those obstacles could be overcome and somebody could build a robot with a body, with the requisite formal/finalistic features I listed (master program, nested hierarchy and embedded functionality) then it would certainly be alive. It would also be capable of learning, too, so it would have a mind of sorts. Would it be conscious, in some sense? If you think (as I’m inclined to do) that having qualia is caused by having a sufficiently well-organized brain, then it would.

    So far, so sane.  Clearly vjtorley has at least triple the intelligence of the average UD denizen.

    Then, unfortunately, he continues:
     
    Quote
    But would it be capable of genuine thinking and choosing? I’d say no. I don’t think these are thins we do with our bodies, as they involve not just behaving in accordance with a rule, but adhering to a norm. Adhering to a norm is not a physical activity. So the robot wouldn’t be rational.

    Thinking is magic!

    Date: 2010/05/01 11:22:37, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (khan @ May 01 2010,09:21)
    Quote



    BIO-Complexity

    The editorial team has some familiar members.



    I am reminded of MAD Magazine: "The usual gang of idiots".

    The name William F. Basener looked familiar -- it turns out that he's on the roll at the famous Evolutionary Informatics Lab.  I thought R.I.T. was supposed to be a decent school -- is Basener their token creationist?

    Date: 2010/05/01 18:33:41, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (J-Dog @ May 01 2010,16:30)
     
    Quote (Bob O'H @ May 01 2010,15:48)
    Hm, and this is interesting. Dembski gives his affiliation as
       
    Quote
    William Dembski, Mathematics and Information Theory; Discovery Institute, United States

    Could he be embarrassed at being in a bible school?

     
    Quote
    Could he be embarrassed at being in a bible school?


    That and the sweater.

    And the posters on UD.

    And the morons that are drawn to ID like flies to honey rich organic matter.

    Fixed that for you.

    Date: 2010/05/03 10:58:49, Link
    Author: Maya
    A poster on talk.origins noticed that Steve Fuller has admitted that ID is "the latest version of scientific creationism."

    When will we see this article referenced on UD?

    Date: 2010/05/05 12:22:25, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Maya @ May 03 2010,10:58)
    A poster on talk.origins noticed that Steve Fuller has admitted that ID is "the latest version of scientific creationism."

    When will we see this article referenced on UD?

    Hail Eris, Fuller himself showed up!

    I wonder if any UDenizen will mention the "scientific creationism" line?

    Date: 2010/05/07 07:09:37, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Amadan @ May 07 2010,06:28)
    Meanwhile, the pinnacle of peer reviewed science that is Baptist Press carries the DrDr's's latest whinge*:

    H/t The Sensuous Curmudgeon

           
    Quote
    Former Baylor president Robert Sloan's "2012 Vision" continues, at least for now. This vision rests on two pillars, seeking to establish Baylor both as a top research university and as a school faithful to its Christian heritage. Secularized faculty, who are in the majority at Baylor and forced Sloan's removal (he is now president of Houston Baptist University), see Baylor's Christian heritage as a liability and would like to make the university's slide into secularization complete.
    ...
    Ken Starr, who becomes Baylor's new president June 1, therefore faces a crucial test: ...  The question is what he will do regarding Baylor's Christian identity.
    ...
    Such optimism would be better justified if incoming Baylor president Ken Starr were to reinstate the Evolutionary Informatics Lab's website on the Baylor server and to recognize Intelligent Design as a legitimate area of research for Baylor faculty. That would constitute a true vindication of Marks' work on Intelligent Design. It would also constitute a true validation of Starr's commitment to the full Baylor 2012 Vision.


    So, would giving ID a free pass back into Baylor help the "research" or "Christian heritage" bit of the 2012 Vision?

    ID was more fun when they at least pretended it wasn't about Christianity.

    Date: 2010/05/07 11:32:43, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Aardvark @ May 07 2010,10:18)
    BarryA tells us about his latest case.

    Quote
    I like to say that reality is the practical wall you smack into when you’re theory is wrong.  And thankfully trials are nothing if not practical endeavors.  No matter what a post-modernist might say about “all reality is subjectively constructed,” the truth of the matter is they all look both ways before crossing the street.  And it turns out that judges really do try to determine “what actually happened,” and another name for “presenting a competing version of reality” is “lying under oath,” which judges tend to frown on (as the defendant found out to his dismay).


    My reply:  Dover.

    Barry's last paragraph includes this:
    Quote
    I hope our opponents who post comments on this site will keep this story in mind.  I hope they think about it the next time they are tempted to write in response to one of the arguments an ID proponent makes, “Well, that’s your reality.  My reality is different.”

    Has anyone ever made a claim like that on UD?  Surely Barry isn't sleazily and dishonestly attempting to impugn his opponents?

    Date: 2010/05/07 12:21:24, Link
    Author: Maya
    Phaedros explains the purpose of the crucifixion:
    Quote
    I think that Christ did have to die so that people could learn about God even more. If I’m not mistaken, before Christ people were simply afraid of God and didn’t really think about God’s love or anything like that.

    "He must love us, look what he did to his son."

    "That was his son?  Imagine what he'll do to people he doesn't like!"

    Date: 2010/05/07 14:26:50, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 07 2010,13:01)
    Quote (JohnW @ May 07 2010,13:01)
       
    Quote (Maya @ May 07 2010,09:32)
    Barry's last paragraph includes this:
         
    Quote
    I hope our opponents who post comments on this site will keep this story in mind.  I hope they think about it the next time they are tempted to write in response to one of the arguments an ID proponent makes, “Well, that’s your reality.  My reality is different.”

    Has anyone ever made a claim like that on UD?  Surely Barry isn't sleazily and dishonestly attempting to impugn his opponents?

    Sadly for Barry, real reality is also different.

    Well, let's see.

    Using UD's handy search box, we learn that, other than in Barry's post, the phrase "my reality" appeared once in 2006 in a post in which a contributor named Mentok described his conversion to Christianity.

    It appeared again in 2009, again in the context of an ardent expression of Christian faith.  

    That's it.

    ("Your reality" is flagged once by the UD search box, but can't be found on the actual page.)

    You've found proof that the treasure trove of censoredmoderated posts still exists!

    Date: 2010/05/08 16:26:57, Link
    Author: Maya
    IDiots are so cute when they try to do logic:
     
    Quote
    The “Weasel Algorithm” relies on a “oracle” to tell it if it is getting closer or further away from the target in order to greatly improve the time it takes to find the solution.

    Dawkins' algorithm models fitness based on distance to a known target, yes.
     
    Quote
    Evolution is not like that it is blind.

    Biological evolution has no fixed target, true.  "Blind" is an inaccurate description of the process, though.
     
    Quote
    It cannot know if a mutation provides an intermediate step to something beneficial until that happens.

    Natural selection can only act on the fitness of an organism in the current environment, okay.
     
    Quote
    It simply wont get selected because it provides no fitness benefit.

    Assuming "it" refers to a non-beneficial mutation, this is close enough for a first approximation.  Of course, neutral mutations can be fixed.
     
    Quote
    So evolution is more like a blind search.

    WTF*

    My apologies for posting something this obvious here.  It was either that or create a sock and I can't face another Weasel War.

    * The opposite of QED.

    Date: 2010/05/09 13:55:17, Link
    Author: Maya
    Clive baby supports the separate but equal doctrine:
     
    Quote
    Toronto,

     
    Quote
    How can you say this,

    kairosfocus: Never think you are just beating the air. Your arguments are devastating. The materialists rarely answer them because they are unusually unanswerable.

    to the people like me, who thanks to the moderation policies of this site, cannot respond in a timely manner?

    Why are you afraid to give us the same access to the floor that kairosfocus has?

    You should be addressing that to me, given that I put you into moderation. Your comments are approved timely, which, even if they weren’t, has nothing to do with whether they actually adequately answer kairosfocus. You have the same access to the floor, given that your comments get approved, so don’t pretend otherwise.

    Clive baby, you're an unethical, dishonest coward.  We know you read here, so how about answering Toronto's question:  Why are you afraid to give the same access to all participants?  You don't strike me as intelligent enough to understand just how badly the ID position gets beaten in a fair debate, so what is it?  Is "pathetic power junkie" another on the list of your many, obvious faults?

    Date: 2010/05/11 15:32:22, Link
    Author: Maya
    Phaedros explains the difference between paganism and his true religion:
    Quote
    Pagan interpretations of Easter are symbolic whereas the Christian Easter is actual rebirth. It’s not even just rebirth for the Christian either. It is Christ’s vindication as the actual Son of God, not just a symbolic story.

    My story is real.

    Date: 2010/05/11 18:38:21, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (didymos @ May 11 2010,16:08)
    Quote (Maya @ May 11 2010,13:32)
    Phaedros explains the difference between paganism and his true religion:
       
    Quote
    Pagan interpretations of Easter are symbolic whereas the Christian Easter is actual rebirth. It’s not even just rebirth for the Christian either. It is Christ’s vindication as the actual Son of God, not just a symbolic story.

    My story is real.

    That's not that uncommon a concept in Christianity.  I doubt Phaedros came up with that himself.  C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien both believed something similar.  Lewis actually got it from Tolkien.  Here's how he put it:
     
    Quote
    The story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God's myth where the others are men's myths: i. e. the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call real things.


    I'm surprised Clivebaby hasn't jumped all over the opportunity to quote Lewis again, actually.

    That ready acceptance of proof by assertion is something I'll never understand about the fundies.

    Date: 2010/05/12 12:55:41, Link
    Author: Maya
    StephenB points out the problem with UD:
    Quote
    Born again 77 is one of the most scientifically knowledgeable posters on this site

    Date: 2010/05/12 13:29:20, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (olegt @ May 12 2010,13:15)
    Quote (Maya @ May 12 2010,12:55)
    StephenB points out the problem with UD:
     
    Quote
    Born again 77 is one of the most scientifically knowledgeable posters on this site

    POTW.

    *smooch*

    You snark addicts are easy to please.

    Date: 2010/05/12 19:31:09, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Richardthughes @ May 12 2010,14:55)
    Apparently POTW nominations get you smooches.

    Louis will be POTWing Arden when he returns.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that.

    Date: 2010/05/23 10:30:26, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (JLT @ May 22 2010,11:29)
    OMG.
     
    Quote

    I hate to break it to you Coloradans but you've got another battle with Texas coming up. Barry Arrington, ex-Texan and webmaster at Uncommon Descent, is running for the Colorado state Board of Education.

    Arrington holds a business degree from the University of Texas-Arlington and a law degree from the University of Texas law school, has been a CPA and an attorney, with his practice focused on business, non-profit law, contract law, school law, real estate and constitutional law.

    He lists his "qualifications" for the board as:

         
    Quote
    [H]e is also a conservative Republican [as was the previous holder of the seat, who is term-limited] with a proven track record of conservative activism, cutting taxes, fiscal conservatism, social conservatism and that he is an education reformer and passionately pro-life.


    You lucky Coloradans!

    Arrington promises that pushing ID "is not on his agenda" so you don't have to worry about that, given how honest IDers always are about their motives.


    Thoughts in a Haystack

    Time to start mining UD for "Barry Baby's Best" to let Coloradans know about his dedication to free speech and rigorous science.

    Date: 2010/05/27 02:32:12, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (steve_h @ May 26 2010,17:46)
    Edward T- Oakes

               
    Quote
    This is because for Nietzsche—who was perhaps the only truly honest atheist in the history of philosophy —science was ultimately ...

    This was already shite, but not shite enough for the world's most honest lawyer and christian (with über-moderator privs at UD), "honest" Barry Arrington, who was unable to resist the  creationist's natural urge to quote mine:
         
    Quote
    Oakes: Nietzche, the Only Honest Atheist


    eta: corrected emphasis. Added "'honest' BA"

    That post contains another comment that may be of interest to Coloradans:
    Quote
    How can someone who sees the patent foolishness of Darwinian just so stories with respect to the evolutionary psychology scenario (to use Oakes’ term), fail so completely to see the equally absurd just so stories Darwinists push in their “mud to man” scenario?

    Do you want this person on your school board?

    Date: 2010/05/29 07:36:42, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 27 2010,21:05)
    Quote
    Horizontal Gene Transfer and the Evolution of Evolution: You Can’t Make This Up

    (bolding added)


    That's the difference between science and ID, after all.

    For ID, that you can make it up is a virtue.

    Glen Davidson

    SSIOTW!

    (Succinctly summarized insight of the week.)

    Date: 2010/06/04 12:54:08, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Hermagoras @ June 04 2010,12:41)
    ID Can Haz Peer Review!

    Thoughts?  My university doesn't subscribe, so I can't get the full text.

    It was peer reviewed, and found lacking:
    Quote
    The reader should not assume that the Journal or the reviewers agree with the conclusions of the paper.

    Is the editor just trying to increase circulation by encouraging a controversy in the letters section?

    Date: 2010/06/08 16:20:58, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Ptaylor @ June 08 2010,15:41)
    Toronto tries to point out StephenB's fuckwittery:
       
    Quote
    StephenB @ 27,

       “At the moment, I am less concerned about the wall between us and more concerned about your aggressive attempts to render my son uneducable.

    You took the words right out of my mouth.

    All the Evos who come here do so for a very serious reason.

    We recognize that our future generations need to be free to explore the world and universe around them without interference from those who would insist that knowledge has an absolute end which can only be reached if you are guided by an absolute truth.


    ...but Clive's onto him
    :
        [quote]Toronto,

           
    Quote
    All the Evos who come here do so for a very serious reason.


    No they don’t, I’ve been moderator here long enough to know that this statement, as an absolute truth, is absolutely wrong. Plenty come here to be snide and try to get laughs from their cohorts at the “after the bar closes” asylum.

    Hey Clivebaby, you supercilious intellectual coward.  Unlike the usual blog crowd you associate with, the people here at AtBC are pretty smart.  Certainly smart enough to laugh at you while taking you to court.

    Date: 2010/06/16 15:43:03, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Hermagoras @ June 16 2010,14:06)
    Sal deletes a comment by veilsofmaya because it  
    Quote
    repeated illogical arguments that had already been taken care of.

    If you deleted everything on UD for that, it'd be a 404 page.

    OMFG, that comment should be preserved in its entirety:
    Quote
    Quote
    So, I take it my comments are deleted without any reference to their removal?

    Yes. Thank you for your participation, other discussions at UD might be better suited for your comments, but not this thread.

    Your comment was initially put in the spam buffer by me since they repeated illogical arguments that had already been taken care of.

    When the comment reappered I deleted it.

    At this time you are still free to discuss on other threads and you can offer technical data here. Beyond that, if I find that you’re repeating erroneous points that have already been refuted, as a service to readers, such comments will be edited out.

    Thank you however for your submissions.

    Clivebaby has competition for Most Cowardly at UD.

    Date: 2010/06/16 18:47:41, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Hermagoras @ June 16 2010,16:33)
    Quote (Maya @ June 16 2010,15:43)
    Quote (Hermagoras @ June 16 2010,14:06)
    Sal deletes a comment by veilsofmaya because it    
    Quote
    repeated illogical arguments that had already been taken care of.

    If you deleted everything on UD for that, it'd be a 404 page.

    OMFG, that comment should be preserved in its entirety:
     
    Quote
     
    Quote
    So, I take it my comments are deleted without any reference to their removal?

    Yes. Thank you for your participation, other discussions at UD might be better suited for your comments, but not this thread.

    Your comment was initially put in the spam buffer by me since they repeated illogical arguments that had already been taken care of.

    When the comment reappered I deleted it.

    At this time you are still free to discuss on other threads and you can offer technical data here. Beyond that, if I find that you’re repeating erroneous points that have already been refuted, as a service to readers, such comments will be edited out.

    Thank you however for your submissions.

    Clivebaby has competition for Most Cowardly at UD.

    FWIW, that comment was by scordova, who has moderation/deletion power in threads he starts.

    It's a good thing that hypocrisy has no mass, otherwise this comment following so quickly after Sal's "service" to the readership of UD would have generated a black hole:
    Quote
    One thing I have learned from my debates with evolutionists, they HATE free speech.

    Date: 2010/06/21 12:53:24, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 21 2010,07:45)


    George L Farquhar - Yes
    Blue Lotus - Yes
    H.pesoj - Yes
    Moseph - Yes
    Enchidna-Levy - Yes

    The others - No.

    Clive, your sock detector is playing up.

    Did any of those socks use Tor?  Clivebaby doesn't strike me as sharp enough to understand anonymous routing.
    Quote
    Anyway Clive, why even bother? Why not just not ban people and see what happens? They'll either be out-argued by the cunning intellects at UD or not. If they are, win for you! If they are not, well, that was what "Expelled" was about, right? Being able to express your ideas freely?

    C'mon, Clive has at least as much respect for free speech as Barry.

    Date: 2010/06/21 13:13:56, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 21 2010,13:04)
    Quote (Maya @ June 21 2010,12:53)
    Did any of those socks use Tor?  Clivebaby doesn't strike me as sharp enough to understand anonymous routing.

    Yes, all of them in fact*.

    EDIT: * That were mine, anyway.

    I'll 'fess up to one of the others on the list, that also used Tor.

    Date: 2010/06/23 16:17:50, Link
    Author: Maya
    Whichever one of you is Petrushka, you're doing a fantastic job of explaining the invalid assumptions underlying typical IDC calculations.

    Don't out yourself -- Clivebaby is watching.*

    * Not that the lying coward needs any real excuse for censoring people who refute ID creationism.

    Date: 2010/06/24 15:50:45, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (dvunkannon @ June 24 2010,06:55)
    Nakashima has decided to use Google SideWiki to comment on UD. His deleted posts from the Destroy the DI thread are now available.

    I've started adding comments there as well.  It would be interesting to pipe all of this AtBC thread into SideWiki on UD.

    Date: 2010/06/24 17:35:43, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (MichaelJ @ June 24 2010,16:36)
    Quote (MichaelJ @ June 25 2010,07:28)
    Quote (Maya @ June 25 2010,06:50)
     
    Quote (dvunkannon @ June 24 2010,06:55)
    Nakashima has decided to use Google SideWiki to comment on UD. His deleted posts from the Destroy the DI thread are now available.

    I've started adding comments there as well.  It would be interesting to pipe all of this AtBC thread into SideWiki on UD.

    I've just installed it for Chrome. I get a dialog to enter comments but I can't see any other comments

    I found four comments on the main page but nothing on individual entries

    Most of the entries have no comments, but I can see Nakashima's (and my one) on The Discovery Institute Needs To Be Destroyed thread.

    Date: 2010/06/25 07:58:35, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (carlsonjok @ June 24 2010,19:31)
    Quote (Maya @ June 24 2010,17:35)
    Most of the entries have no comments, but I can see Nakashima's (and my one) on The Discovery Institute Needs To Be Destroyed thread.

    I can only see the Sidewiki entries on the main page, not the individual thread.  What browser are you using?  I am using Firefox 3.6.4.

    FireFox 3.6 on a Mac.

    Date: 2010/06/25 08:02:23, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (MichaelJ @ June 24 2010,22:22)
    Quote (carlsonjok @ June 25 2010,10:31)
    Quote (Maya @ June 24 2010,17:35)
    Most of the entries have no comments, but I can see Nakashima's (and my one) on The Discovery Institute Needs To Be Destroyed thread.

    I can only see the Sidewiki entries on the main page, not the individual thread.  What browser are you using?  I am using Firefox 3.6.4.

    I'm not seeing them either and I am using Chrome

    Okay, this is weird.  I saw Nakashima's and mine yesterday.  I just checked and there is only one SideWiki comment on that thread, by Michael Janos.  Nakashima and I have been Expelled!

    Perhaps SideWiki isn't ready for prime time yet?

    Date: 2010/06/25 08:04:56, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Maya @ June 25 2010,08:02)
    Quote (MichaelJ @ June 24 2010,22:22)
    Quote (carlsonjok @ June 25 2010,10:31)
     
    Quote (Maya @ June 24 2010,17:35)
    Most of the entries have no comments, but I can see Nakashima's (and my one) on The Discovery Institute Needs To Be Destroyed thread.

    I can only see the Sidewiki entries on the main page, not the individual thread.  What browser are you using?  I am using Firefox 3.6.4.

    I'm not seeing them either and I am using Chrome

    Okay, this is weird.  I saw Nakashima's and mine yesterday.  I just checked and there is only one SideWiki comment on that thread, by Michael Janos.  Nakashima and I have been Expelled!

    Perhaps SideWiki isn't ready for prime time yet?

    I just figured it out.  If you click on the "Comments" link for that thread from the main UD page, you'll see Nakashima's SideWiki comments.  I'll have to be careful to comment only on the main article itself, not one of the comments.

    Date: 2010/06/25 12:43:55, Link
    Author: Maya
    I accidentally read one of bornagain77's posts and felt the need to share the pain:
    Quote
    Petruska, to be as clear as possible on the yeast, the gain in ability to utilize a broader scope of sugars will be found to come at a cost of original “optimal” functionality of the yeast in the wild

    I can only quote Charles Babbage, admittedly out of context, in response:
    Quote
    I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

    Date: 2010/07/01 14:41:18, Link
    Author: Maya
    Sal Cordova maintains his "Slimey" title by referencing his non GA that was so roundly trashed that he ran away from the thread he started.

    I'll know I've burned out on UD when I'm no longer surprised at the depths of intellectual dishonesty demonstrated there.  The behavior of a number of the regulars goes way, way beyond the level of hypocrisy that can be willfully ignored.  They remind me why I have no interest in psychology.

    Date: 2010/07/04 12:49:37, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Texas Teach @ July 03 2010,18:05)
     
    Quote
    My wife gets 2000 hits on her blog on a bad day - she's averaging 5-6k per day most of the time.

    Yes, but she's got those videos of Louis to draw a crowd.  Not the kind of crowd you'd want to spend time with, but still.

    I think I'd rather be part of that crowd than the one composed of people looking for Dembski in flagrante delicto.

    Date: 2010/07/05 11:18:38, Link
    Author: Maya
    veilsofmaya (no relation) spanks bornagain77 hard:
    Quote
    Born, what’s shocking and unbelievable is that It seems you’ve done the very same thing yet again, after having pointed it out to you time and time again.

    If you had actually read the entirety of the original paper behind the article, you’d notice the following…

    Not that BA (hmm, BA, who else at UD has those initials...) will get the point, even if his/her nose is rubbed in a YouTube video.

    Date: 2010/07/05 16:17:24, Link
    Author: Maya
    gpuccio assures Occam that there IS a theory of ID:
    Quote
    Occam:

    There is a theory of ID. And it is rather detailed and specific.

    Maybe you have just come here, but be sure that on this blog many in depth discussions have been made about that theory. For instance, some interesting aspects have been debated in these same days on the thread about proteins.

    And, obviously, you can read the “classics”: Dembski, Behe, Meyers, Berlinski and others.

    This is a blog. Sometimes the theosry in its various aspects is discussed, other times other issues, even unrelated, emerge. That’s normal blog life.

    Of course, he seems to have left it out.
    Quote
    If you have specific questions, or comments, about ID theory, just ask. Somebody will answer.

    It just won't be gpuccio.

    Date: 2010/07/08 09:59:03, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (didymos @ July 07 2010,19:22)
    Clivebaby:
     
    Quote



    zeroseven,

     
    Quote
    Clive, why would you put Occam into moderation. He/her is way more civil than many of the pro ID commentators. He is having a very interesting and insightful discussion with gpuccio and now you have made it more difficult for that discussion to flow. I personally have found the discussion very illuminating. If you submitted the whole thread to a dispassionate and objective adjudicator, it would be StepenB and Upright Biped who would be found to be uncivil. That is presumably because they are threatened by Occam’s clear and reasoned arguments.


    Nah, nothing of the sort. It was because he condescendingly claimed that Wells and Dembski needed to go back to school on a text of which he was admittedly not aware. Don’t disparage the owner of a blog on the blog, are we clear?


    Now, we shall continue to observe.

    P.S.  Clive, you dumb motherfucker. Dembski doesn't own the blog. He hardly even acknowledges its existence these days.   I guess this is all part of the whole "gloves are off" policy, right?
    If your goal was to look like a blustery, ignorant, stupid, cowardly dick, well, congratulations Clivebaby.  A winner is you.

    I never use the 'c' word (as an insult), but Clivebaby tests my good upbringing.

    What is more pathetic is that he censored Occam for a post that he (Clivebaby) completely misunderstood:
    Quote
    If in fact the weighty Dembski/Wells text open on my desk contains the explanation that you have shared here, the two of them need to go back to school. They can’t begin to present a case with the clarity you have done in a few short paragraphs.

    Anyone with the reading comprehension of a caffeinated squirrel can see that Occam is both questioning gpuccio's assertion that Dembski and Wells have articulated a scientific theory of intelligent design creationism and disparaging their writing skills.  Clivebaby, of course, misses the entire point.

    Date: 2010/07/08 14:37:56, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 08 2010,12:09)
    Quote (JohnW @ July 08 2010,11:58)
     
    Quote (Maya @ July 08 2010,07:59)
    I never use the 'c' word (as an insult), but Clivebaby tests my good upbringing.

    The 'c' word?  Would that be 'Chesterton'?

    No. But it is a synonym for Cordova...

    Hmm, I sometimes use the 'p' word, but never quite so . . . descriptively.

    Date: 2010/07/14 14:30:20, Link
    Author: Maya
    Wagenweg escapes from the UD padded room and gives his support to Meyer's YouTube video:
    Quote
    evolution looks at the observable and from it concludes that an explsoion took place and created our universe. That origin is unobserveable just as unobservable as there being an intelligent agent who created the universe. Both are unobservable would you agree?? Yet in evolution the "science" behind the "facts" has made a conclusion of the unobservable by looking at the observed. how is this any different of a method than the method od ID???

    Even more errors than question marks, and in so few words!

    Date: 2010/07/16 14:09:59, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Maya @ July 14 2010,14:30)
    Wagenweg escapes from the UD padded room and gives his support to Meyer's YouTube video:
    Quote
    evolution looks at the observable and from it concludes that an explsoion took place and created our universe. That origin is unobserveable just as unobservable as there being an intelligent agent who created the universe. Both are unobservable would you agree?? Yet in evolution the "science" behind the "facts" has made a conclusion of the unobservable by looking at the observed. how is this any different of a method than the method od ID???

    Even more errors than question marks, and in so few words!

    That YouTube thread is the gift that keeps on giving.  Kairosfocus takes personal umbrage at comments by Oakram*.  Oakram responds on the YouTube thread, invoking Kairosfocus' True Name.  That's some old magic, that is.

  • With a handle like that, it must be a guy.  Which one of you is overcompensating?
  • Date: 2010/07/16 14:57:13, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ July 16 2010,14:39)
    It's a very woody name.



    Think there's a snake in his . . . boot?

    Date: 2010/07/17 11:53:47, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 17 2010,08:15)
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 17 2010,07:43)
    Clive has ventured from the confines of UD to defend his moderation decisions here.

    Clive seems just as weaselly there as he is at UD. I agree with Art Hunt's statement there
    Quote
    I can’t think of anything more pointless than complaining about UD’s moderation policy.  Or arguing with Clive about it.  Here or anywhere.

    UD can't afford to let dissenters comment, just like ID can't stand up to the crucible of self- and allo-criticism that has forged the science that we have today. So Clive will never change his policies; if he did they would just replace him with the next nanny.

    True, but it's nice to see his intellectual cowardice and hypocrisy exposed in a venue with more people who might be otherwise sympathetic to IDC.

    Date: 2010/07/18 08:06:30, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 17 2010,07:43)
    Clive has ventured from the confines of UD to defend his moderation decisions here.

    Darn, Clivebaby seems to have run away.  What a surprise.

    Date: 2010/07/21 16:33:02, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Doc Bill @ July 21 2010,11:12)
    Should that be "The Clive is So, Stupid Biologos Thread?"

    Srsly, Biologos is like a Disney version of UD, isn't it?

    Preserving my comment on that thread, just in case:
    Quote
    Clive Hayden writes (#22817):
    "As an aside, After the Asylum Closes amuses me to no end, for all that happens there, is talk about us."

    Actually, what happens at AtBC is people mocking and laughing at UD, for very good reasons.

    Dave at #22784 makes a very strong point:
    -- begin quote --
    Clive wrote:
    “but seeing as how ID is a worthless philosophy designed by charletons to mislead the masses…”

    The above statement would get you banned, and you wonder why you’re banned…....

    And yet that statement, substituting “Darwinism” or “evolution” for ID, would not get you banned at PT or AtBC.
    -- end quote --

    Ponder the difference between the two venues, Clive.  Which demonstrates the most confidence in their arguments and greatest commitment to truly open discussion.

    Your behavior at UD proves you to be an intellectual coward.  You have the right to censor your blog that way, of course.  Just don't be surprised when people point out your cowardice and hypocrisy.

    Date: 2010/07/23 22:24:59, Link
    Author: Maya
    It's nice to be appreciated, guys.

    ;-)

    Date: 2010/07/25 11:35:35, Link
    Author: Maya
    vividbleau inadvertently summarizes a favorite Intelligent Design Creationist tactic:
     
    Quote
    All you do is to keep making the claim as if no one notices that you have failed to back up your repeated mantra.

    Of course, he's making that statement to Petrushka who has already provided references to the evidence, but at least he's taking baby steps in his thinking.

    ETA: Immediately following this, vividbleau demonstrates the civility for which UD is known:
    Quote
    Gaz I am sure Petrushka appreciates your help, God know he (she) needs it.

    I'm sure that Clivebaby will immediately ban vividbleau to avoid any hint of a double standard?  Right, Clivebaby?

    Date: 2010/07/25 17:43:05, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 25 2010,16:37)
    The Explanatory Filter in action, used by Bilbo:
     
    Quote
    We rule out pseudogenes as designed largely because they don't look designed. So we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.

    http://tinyurl.com/33f2tak

    Ah, so design is like obscenity.

    Date: 2010/07/26 13:58:19, Link
    Author: Maya
    Upright Biped continues to amaze.

    Petrushka asks him for a reference to Allen MacNeill's original comments:
     
    Quote
     
    Quote
    Now, want to have some real fun? Address my post at 589.

    could you provide a link to the statement paraphrased at 589?

    Upright Biped responds with . . . more paraphrasings:
     
    Quote
    #19

    Upright BiPed

    04/21/2010
    2:52 pm

    . . .

    Upright BiPed

    04/22/2010
    8:52 pm

    . . .

    Upright BiPed

    04/23/2010
    9:12 am

    . . .

    Upright BiPed

    04/24/2010
    6:35 am

    . . .

    Upright BiPed

    04/25/2010
    12:09 pm

    . . .

    Upright BiPed

    04/26/2010
    7:47 am

    . . .

    Upright BiPed

    04/27/2010
    10:59 am

    . . .

    Upright BiPed

    05/01/2010
    3:06 pm

    . . .

    Since we know you're listening, Clivebaby, you might want to let Upright Biped know that one quote from the original source is much more valuable than eight from the person paraphrasing him.

    ETA: Allen MacNeill's comment is here.  What he really said was:
    Quote
    Information, which as I have pointed out in many past threads, is neither reducible to the material and/or energy by which it is encoded nor possible without a material and/or energetic medium.

    What Upright Biped claimed he said is:
    Quote
    I appreciate that you see information as a causal force that is not reducible to material/energy.

    Is misrepresenting your opponent considered "civil" at UD, Clivebaby?

    Date: 2010/07/28 20:17:20, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Raevmo @ July 28 2010,15:00)
    macho UD crew

    "Null set" is shorter and easier to type.

    Date: 2010/07/28 20:23:19, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (tsig @ July 28 2010,15:21)
    Quote (Ptaylor @ July 27 2010,20:50)
    Off topic, but Google News has just suggested I go here for an article headed      
    Quote
    The Intelligent Design Facts Institute Launches Top Rated New Website To Defend Intelligent Design Through New Scientific Research

    The site itself is here. It's chock full of stuff that I'd never thought of, such as how evolution cannot account for the origin of life and how it's mathematically impossible anyway. Best of all is this:
         
    Quote
    We look forward to your comments, which will be published in anonymity unless you request your name to be shown. All comments will be published regardless of viewpoint, except for those which contain expletives and flaming.

    This could become a lot of fun.

    Wonder if that site will drain away all five of UDs' regular commentators(non-sock)

    I suspect that Gordon's logorrhea is sufficient for any number of blogs.

    Date: 2010/07/31 09:27:54, Link
    Author: Maya
    Gordon makes a testable (and incivil) claim:
    Quote
    If your pictures looked a lot like the Haeckel pictures, they were probably not photographs, but airbrush rendered, masked images; or the digital equivalent.

    San Antonio Rose calls him on it (civilly):
    Quote
    They were definitely photographs of embryos that showed that there are alot of similarities between different species. And they did look very similar.

    and
    Quote
    Is this the time that someone could tell me what those differences are? I’ve asked like 4 times now and I have been ignored all along. The photos in my text beek make the embroyos look very similar. What are the differences that the Darwinists are hiding?

    Does anyone have a link to the photo in the Dragonfly book to help out Rose?

    Are the odds that Gordon will apologize for suggesting that Miller and Levine manipulated their photos to deceive their readers within the Universal Probability Bound?

    Date: 2010/08/01 17:07:24, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Seversky @ Aug. 01 2010,16:40)
    Barry Arrington is an intellectual bully . . .

    I've heard others describe him this way, but I don't see it.  Barry "Free Speech" Arrington is a wannabe, not a real bully.  Just as physical bullies require, at a minimum, the combination of physical strength and mental willingness to use it, intellectual bullies need a certain amount of cunning and viciousness.  Barry is just a fucking loud mouthed idiot.

    ETA: Mom, someone hacked my account, I never use that word.

    Date: 2010/08/02 16:28:21, Link
    Author: Maya
    I thought that tgpeeler was one of the more intelligent posters at UD, but it turns out that s/he can bring the stupid with the best of them:
    Quote
    If materialism is true, then I could not know of abstract things. But I do know of abstract things. Therefore, materialism is false.

    ETA: This deserves a Babbage Honorable Mention.  "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

    Date: 2010/08/03 18:35:08, Link
    Author: Maya
    aiguy points at the 800 pound invisible nekkid emperor in the room:
    Quote
    ID has the masses because the masses want ID to put the imprimatur of science on their (Christian) theism. Once that’s off the table and ID becomes the study of extra-terrestrial aliens, they will all abandon ID and return to good old fashioned Creationism.

    Ah, AIGuy, we hardly knew ye.

    Date: 2010/08/04 09:48:11, Link
    Author: Maya
    Petrushka takes off the gloves and gives Gil a well deserved bitch slap:
    Quote
    Does this screed come with any supporting evidence?

    No doubt Clivebaby will find that far less civil than Upright Dickhead's and Gordon Mulling's recent posts.

    Date: 2010/08/04 15:13:21, Link
    Author: Maya
    ellazimm asks the dangerous questions for ID:
    Quote
    I would like to know: how, when, where, why. I want to be able to evaluate ID as a predictive and modelling theory. But I need more prediction and modelling.
    . . .
    Push the boat out a bit and give us some glimpse behind the safe facade. Run some ideas by us and see what we think. It’s a good way to test out your suppositions and see if they fly.

    Making the UD denizens confront their core hypocrisy, that they don't really want to test their suppositions and they know they're right because their holy book says so, is probably considered uncivil by Clivebaby.

    Date: 2010/08/04 16:30:30, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ Aug. 04 2010,15:30)
    "The Consensus of Scientists" is a mine of really scary tard:

    William S. Murray is a Ghostbuster:  
    Quote
    ... if demons do exist, and haunt us, how exactly is science going to account for it, if we must at all costs avoid it? ...
    Gods, demons, and whatever else must not be excluded from scientific inquiry on an a priori basis for any reason, least of all for the purposes of sticking with such a problematic, self-refuting perspective as materialism.

    I do hope rockyr is a Poe - else you scientists better watch it
     
    Quote

    These twisty arrogant “small” or “small-minded” in-your-face logically inconsistent fools are hard to suffer, and I suppose that is why they used to burn them at the stake, like Giordano Bruno. (Who was another simpering gutless fool, one of the last to be actually burned.)

    Quoting and correcting Maya, above threatens:
     
    Quote
    “In other words, ID’s explanation is limited to explaining away darwinism.”
    Actually, it’s the other way around. Not only explaining it away but barring it altogether.

    Chris Doyle describes the Apocalypse in Great Britain:
     
    Quote
    I’m surprised that Mike is questioning the influence of atheism in many important institutions. Is Mike an American? That might explain it. I’m British and there really is no doubt that schools, universities, the media, the government, businesses, etc are all fully in the grips of atheist thinking.

    And Kairosfoscus is bullying Maya in practically all of his posts.

    Veilsofmaya is not my sock puppet (nor am I hers, as far as I know).

    She's making some good points over there -- she'll get banned soon enough without Clivebaby thinking she's me.

    Date: 2010/08/05 08:52:48, Link
    Author: Maya
    Clivebaby has a man crush on Robert Marks.

    Date: 2010/08/06 15:18:51, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ Aug. 05 2010,11:00)
    Quote (Maya @ Aug. 05 2010,08:52)
    Clivebaby has a man crush on Robert Marks.

    In the same OP, we learn that    
    Quote
    He has amassed ... (a) huge set of government research grants.

    So what about ID being excluded from public funding by the Darwinian conspiration?

    (Maya, sorry about my mistake.)

    No worries at all -- I'm impressed with Veilsofmaya, I just don't want my alternatively civil behavior (parse that, Clivebaby, you bitch) here to affect her there.

    Date: 2010/08/08 08:55:32, Link
    Author: Maya
    An evolutionary algorithm has been used to generate soccer playing strategies.  One interesting result is that, without any explicit coaching logic, the system self-organized different player roles (defender, striker, etc.).

    I'm sure that Marks, Winston, Atom, and of course Gil will be admitting that their understanding of GAs was incorrect any moment now.

    Date: 2010/08/08 10:09:30, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 08 2010,09:54)
    Addressing aiguy, Unpleasant Blowhard lives up to his cognomen:
       
    Quote
    I am more than happy to consider you no more than highly-trained idiot. Moreover, if you think that I am impressed by the idea that (gasp) modern philosophers disagree with one another about a subject, then you are not even as smart as I might have given you credit for. You perhaps have the training, yet you lack the basic wisdom of a matured farm hand…

    And thereby evades responding to aiguy's simple, pointed questions:
       
    Quote
    Since you refuse to address the misrepresentation, I can think of no reason to waste my time on it.

    You go big guy.

    Another example of the civility for which UD is known.

    You are such a hypocritical bitch, Clivebaby.

    Date: 2010/08/08 10:10:11, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (sparc @ Aug. 08 2010,09:38)
    Considering where they come from it is more than obvious they will never understand the game which,btw, is called football.

    I'm reading you in America -- speak American.

    Date: 2010/08/08 12:29:59, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (fnxtr @ Aug. 08 2010,12:01)
    Quote (Maya @ Aug. 08 2010,08:10)
    Quote (sparc @ Aug. 08 2010,09:38)
    Considering where they come from it is more than obvious they will never understand the game which,btw, is called football.

    I'm reading you in America -- speak American.

    (loki)Yeah, but I bet they front-loaded the rules, didn't they? The computer didn't just design football out of the molecular chaos, now, did it?(/loki)

    Everyone knows that when you start from molecular chaos you get rugby.

    Date: 2010/08/09 13:47:32, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 09 2010,12:54)
    Rather long, but nicely outlines aiguy's argument. Here's the conclusion.

    Quote
    aiguy: So, since we do not understand what “intelligence” or “foresight” is, except for saying “it is what creates FSCI”, then saying “the FSCI in biology was created by foresight” is exactly as vacuous as saying “the FSCI in biology was created by whatever enables human beings to create FSCI”.

    And as FSCI is poorly defined, that means we are left with this:

    “The FSCI something or other in biology was created by whatever enables human beings to create FSCI something or other”.

    I've been admiring how polite aiguy is about that.  I'd insist on a clear definition of FSCI before continuing, but that tends to get people banned for incivility.  Knowing what you're talking about is considered rude at UD.

    Date: 2010/08/09 20:51:51, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 09 2010,20:20)
    Petrushka asks Gordon a short and simple question:
       
    Quote
    dFSCI

    Is that a recognized technical term, or something you made up?

    Any citations in science journals?

    Well, two short and simple questions. I'm putting a virtual beer on Gordy's reply being 300+ words long.

    No one would take that bet, unless you were willing to specify a maximum.

    Gordon's reply is actually 598 words, without ever providing a mathematically rigorous definition of dFSCI.

    Date: 2010/08/12 09:03:35, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 11 2010,21:44)
    I have pretty much sworn of the main-line hard tard at UD, preferring to view their crap through the more friendly and human sight of ATBCers.  

    But I have found over the years that Tard Attraction Disorder is cyclical - it never really goes away...

    That's bad news.  I'm getting to the point where I only read UD to mock Clivebaby's hypocrisy.  I find the "arguments" put forth by even the least ignorant of the denizens there simply sad.  Picking on those people is like tripping the kids getting on the short bus.

    I thought I was escaping just in time for the new semester.

    Date: 2010/08/13 11:31:17, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 13 2010,02:38)
    Thinking back over various POTWs, I seem to have found my calling as a straight man for the zingers.

    It's good to have some straight men around here.

    Date: 2010/08/22 13:13:19, Link
    Author: Maya
    William J. Murray gets it completely backwards:
    Quote
    If one cannot even provide a real-world example of a thing, how can anyone say science cannot investigate that thing, much less explain why?

    Um, Billy J, if you can't provide a real-world example of a thing, what the heck are you talking about?

    Date: 2010/08/24 05:20:03, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 23 2010,20:20)
    Heh. Petrushka asks Tribune7 to consider deep time moving into the future.*
       
    Quote
    We can be fairly certain that life will look different in 200 million years.

    Tribby's response:
       
    Quote
    We can fairly dispute that. Sharks and crocodiles and a lot of other species are presumed to have been around for 200 million years without significant change.

    Regarding the ones presumed not to have been you can’t point to the macroevolutionary event that caused them to come about nor can you predict how macroevolution will cause them to change nor when will it cause the change.

    The better predication would be to look at the fossil record and presume no significant change (see crocodile, shark) unless you count extinction as a change.

    But that wouldn’t be a marcroevolutionary event.

    So the world will be full of crocodiles and sharks, always has been, always will be.

    Yes, because there is absolutely no evidence of evolution in the fossil record.

    Date: 2010/08/26 04:49:50, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Aug. 26 2010,03:40)
    Quote (MichaelJ @ Aug. 26 2010,02:42)
     
    Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 26 2010,10:31)
     
    Quote
    Complex? Bats have natural variation in click frequencies. Bats that click in a frequency that their prey can't hear don't starve and thus have more kids.


    Some sock should ask Denyse what happens if you cork your bat?*




    * For all the Euros on this board, corking your bat is an American Baseball custom, if you are a cheater, ala Sammy Sosa and Pete Rose.

    Was I the only one a little disappointed when "corking the bat" was explained.

    No, you weren't.

    Reclaim the language from the oppressive baseball patriarchy!  Cork your bat however and whenever you like!

    ETA:  How do I get La Marseillaise to play in the background when someone reads this post?

    Date: 2010/09/08 14:27:42, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ Sep. 08 2010,14:23)
    Something is wrong with the server. My posts seem fine in the preview.

    I've run into that with longer URLs.  If you edit your post, you'll see that a linebreak got magically inserted for you.  Fix it in edit and the link works.

    Date: 2010/09/15 03:58:10, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 15 2010,01:12)
    tgpeeler, ex-Marine and baggage handler for a major airline, talks about gpuccio and Upright BiPed:        
    Quote
    And regarding #107, by my (very high) standards (that I myself never attain) you are both paragons of civility and intellectual honesty.

    Please use your barf bags folks, that's what they're there for.

    tgpeeler must have missed this Biologos thread where Reciprocating Bill documented some of Upright Dickhead's "civility".

    Date: 2010/09/21 17:44:47, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 21 2010,15:30)
    It's best just to smile and not get out the ruler.

    Must . . . resist . . . obvious . . . response . . . .

    Date: 2010/09/23 15:27:10, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ Sep. 23 2010,14:51)
    Oh noes - bornagain is about to witness to Aleta:
       
    Quote
    ... made me acutely aware of the need for the Christ that we all have in general. ... We could go through the apologetics in detail if you want ...

    Aleta, this is you punishment for being better at maths than bornagain.

    I'm staying off the pure tard for now (the filtered version that makes its way here brings out enough of my bitch[1] slapping urge as it is), but are they even pretending that ID is a scientific position over there any more?

    [1] Yes, Clivebaby, I'm looking at you.

    Date: 2010/09/23 16:46:03, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 23 2010,16:23)
    Quote (Maya @ Sep. 23 2010,15:27)
    Quote (Kattarina98 @ Sep. 23 2010,14:51)
    Oh noes - bornagain is about to witness to Aleta:
         
    Quote
    ... made me acutely aware of the need for the Christ that we all have in general. ... We could go through the apologetics in detail if you want ...

    Aleta, this is you punishment for being better at maths than bornagain.

    I'm staying off the pure tard for now (the filtered version that makes its way here brings out enough of my bitch[1] slapping urge as it is), but are they even pretending that ID is a scientific position over there any more?

    [1] Yes, Clivebaby, I'm looking at you.

    Maya - WARNING I am told by a "reputable source"* that Clive actually likes, and is willing to pay extra for that sort of thing... so don't encourage him!




    * Said source might be Gordon, or StephenB, or Barry A

    You know, with all the studying and writing, my brain might not be able to remember little things like safewords....

    ETA: Wow, I grossed myself out there.

    Date: 2010/09/27 11:43:14, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (dvunkannon @ Sep. 27 2010,11:13)
    Clive's fandom of Comfort seems to be in a minority, even among UD regulars. Even Barry Arrington is not on board.

    So, does Comfort use the banana as proof of god or not?  I'm very confused by his presentation, but don't actually care enough to work very hard to figure out his position.  ;-)

    Date: 2010/09/28 08:29:57, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 28 2010,07:33)
    Just as an aside, I recommend "safeword" as the easiest safeword to remember.

    All y'all are a bit too . . . advanced for me.  If "ouch" isn't a good enough safeword, I don't think I want to play the game.

    Date: 2010/09/28 10:04:35, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 28 2010,09:55)
    gpuccio explains how to calculate dFSCI and then explains why it's impossible to calculate:
     
    Quote
    Then, we can simply compute the dFSCI implied in each of the n-1 transitions, and sum those values. That is perfectly possible. After you have given the explicit pathway of transitions and intermediates which your model refers to.

    Unfortunately, I am not aware of any of those detailed models. So, for the moment, we can be happy with computing the dFSCI of a protein family and, in the complete absence of any model which can explain its origin, and in good awareness that a purely random model could never originate it, maintain design as the best hypothesis.

    Emphasis in original. And who is claiming that a "purely random model" could explain the origin of anything, anyway?
    Duh. So if they've never calculated the dFSCI for anything other then a single protein how do they know the flagellum is designed?

    Gpuccio seems to be saying that, in the absence of a model, he is justified in assuming that the protein came together ex nihilo, which couldn't happen without a designer.

    That's broken on several levels.  Hopefully some sock will point out that he's assuming his conclusion, among other logical fails.

    Date: 2010/09/30 06:48:47, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 30 2010,06:39)
    Quote (Ptaylor @ Sep. 29 2010,23:46)
    StephenB on the Fibonacci Life thread:
         
    Quote
    ...
    For me, the word cause simply means something or someone that brings something else about. What can we say, for example, of Adam’s first sin? Obviously, God did not bring sin into the world or, put another way, he did not bring it about. In keeping with that point, Adam brought sin into the world and was, in that sense, the first cause of sin. All the same, God is the cause of Adam’s power to exercise his will and, in that sense, Adam’s act is not a first cause.

    ASSF!

    Hahaha!

    StephenB insists that all finite somethings have causes that bring them into existence. It is this absolutely inviolable law that proves the existence of God - the required uncaused cause at the beginning of the chain. He also repeatedly insists that no effect has within it something that was absent in the cause. To dispute this is to REJECT RATIONALITY.

    Except, um, well, vis Adam's sin. Er, God wasn't the cause of Adam's sin, um, Adam was. Finite Adam was in this single case a finite first cause. Except his ability to be a first cause in this instance was caused by God. But God didn't cause the sin. And remember that there is nothing in the effect that wasn't in the cause. Except, um, Adam's sin wasn't in the cause. Just his capacity to choose sin. That's the ticket!

    But other than that, every finite something as a cause, and all finite somethings have God as their ultimate cause. Dispute this and you ABANDON RATIONALITY, as daft Darwinists are wont to do.

    Isaiah 45:7

    Date: 2010/10/05 13:42:48, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (didymos @ Oct. 05 2010,13:29)
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 05 2010,07:56)
    Information seems to be the phlogiston of biology.

    A while back, I said the IDiots seem to think information is some sort of semantic phlogiston and/or computational caloric.  It's yet another example of their inability (or refusal) to cope with abstractions.  Information simply must be some sort of actual, if mystical, substance.

    Exactly!  Every time I see some bafflegab on UD about information, I want to beat them with a map and then rub their faces in the dirt to show them the difference between the two.

    Really, my urges are purely pedagogical.

    Date: 2010/10/06 08:35:20, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (sparc @ Oct. 05 2010,23:01)
    Dembski must be busy with other things.

    He's preparing to debate Michael Shermer tomorrow (Thursday).

    I'll definitely watch, but I find Shermer to be a bit too nice to IDers and other creationists in his debates.  He gives their ideas far more respect than they deserve.  A little more derision, while remaining courteous to the person, is warranted, in my opinion.

    Date: 2010/10/06 08:41:26, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 06 2010,00:37)
    Quote (sparc @ Oct. 05 2010,23:01)
    Dembski must be busy with other things. His latest post: 9 words of himself the rest copied from Amazon reviews. For an impression of Don Johnson's idea you may look at one of ugliest presentations I've ever seen.

    From Dembski's copy of the advertising copy from Amazon:
       
    Quote
    Amazon.com product description:

    “This is currently the best book covering the relationship between genome and computer architectures.” – JOHNATHAN BARTLETT, Author / Publisher / Speaker / Director of Technology

    Is JOHNATHAN BARTLETT, Author / Publisher / Speaker / Director of Technology our own JohnnyB of Bartlett Publishing fame?  

    I'm betting it is.

    I may have to read enough of that dreck to write an Amazon review just to explain the difference between digital processing and analog processing.  Biochemical reactions are not digital processes.  The IDiots are confusing the map and the territory again.

    Date: 2010/10/06 12:57:28, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 06 2010,10:30)
    Quote (Maya @ Oct. 06 2010,08:35)
    Quote (sparc @ Oct. 05 2010,23:01)
    Dembski must be busy with other things.

    He's preparing to debate Michael Shermer tomorrow (Thursday).

    I'll definitely watch, but I find Shermer to be a bit too nice to IDers and other creationists in his debates.  He gives their ideas far more respect than they deserve.  A little more derision, while remaining courteous to the person, is warranted, in my opinion.

    Maya

    Are you going to watch in person, or just on the intertubes?

    Just on the web, I'm afraid.

    Date: 2010/10/08 08:58:16, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 08 2010,06:16)
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 08 2010,04:18)
    Dembski:      
    Quote
    I’m debating Michael Shermer at Washburn University in Topeka Kansas tonight at 7:00pm CST. The topic of the debate is on ID and its scientific status.

    And sadly, even though I planned to attend this momentous clash of the titans, events intervened so that I was forced to miss it. Nothing particularly noteworthy, just a long day filled with minor brushfires that had to be attended to, forcing me to make a choice between an evening in Topeka (about an hour away) or getting ready for my 7:30 AM class Friday morning.

    Did anyone attend? Is there a sweater involved?

    No sweater, and the audio on the webcast was so bad that I stopped watching.  Does anyone have a transcript?

    Date: 2010/10/08 18:30:16, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (didymos @ Oct. 08 2010,16:39)
    jpg564:
    Quote

    I visited Sequoia National Park earlier this year. I was struck by acouple facts presented at the visitor’s center. Sequoias live about as long as they have existed: about 2500 years. Also, the wood does not decay due to the high tannin levels; bugs and fungus can’t digest it. So unless it burns up, a fallen sequoia remains where it fell indefinitely. We essentially can view the entire history of this species. So the question is, what did they evolve from? There are only distinct other species of trees (Sugar Pines, Douglas Fir, etc) but no transitional forms. Did random mutation cause sequoia to sprout from another species?


    Collin:
    Quote

    jpg564,

    That is one of the simplest strong arguments against evolution that I’ve ever seen.


    Oh, it's simple alright, just not in the way you mean, Collin.

    I know it's too much to expect the typical intelligent design creationist (hi Clive, you bitch!) to check the original papers of the quote mines they're fed or to check that bibliographic references actually support the nonsense in "research" from the DI and AIG, but is it really so hard to Google "sequoia evolution"?

    Date: 2010/10/13 05:35:05, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (steve_h @ Oct. 12 2010,19:03)
    UD's intrepid reporter has a scoop: Coffee!! Fox News story: Chances are 100 per cent that far off planet has life.

    Though it does seem oddly familiar.

    You can't expect Denyse to read other posts at UD and make the coffee.

    Date: 2010/10/18 10:19:02, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 18 2010,08:08)
    Quote
    So clearly, taking random amino acid polymers and testing for a specific biological function would meet this test, and in a biological context no less.


    That line of reasoning has already been tried, and Pooch's response is that it is too abstract.

    Empirical data from repeatable experiments done on actual amino acid polymers demonstrating objective biological function is "too abstract" compared to armchair speculation about coin flips?

    It really wouldn't take much more brain damage for these folks to be incapable of voting, thereby eliminating the only real problem they pose.

    Date: 2010/10/18 19:00:32, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 18 2010,18:05)
    According to Clive, "evolutionists" are the reason why UD fails to provide evidence for ID
     
    Quote
    And evolutionists are the reason why the tango doesn’t flow on this site.

    Really?  I thought it was because Clivebaby is a scientifically illiterate, intellectually dishonest coward.  Occam's shaving kit and all that.

    Excellent, I made a comment about Clivebaby without calling him a bitch!  Oh, damn . . . hello again Bathroom Wall. . . .

    Date: 2010/10/20 15:33:49, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 20 2010,15:25)
    Quote
    He also argued that Noah’s flood likely was limited to the Middle East rather than being global in scope. However, he later retracted that claim in a statement released by Southwestern.

    This is perhaps the funniest thing I've ever read in relation to ID. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin again?

    I can't wait until the next court case!

    EDIT:
     
    Quote
    “This is the man who has gone all over the United States debating the evolutionists successfully to the point that it’s almost impossible to get one of them to have a public debate with him now,” he said of Dembski.


    What a bunch of delusional muppets.

    While I suspect that he made that statement just to keep his job, it certainly puts the final nail in the coffin of "ID is science."  You have to reject pretty much all of modern science to claim that a global flood actually occurred or that Adam and Eve were historical figures.

    Date: 2010/10/22 14:09:03, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 22 2010,13:23)
    Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 22 2010,12:07)
    Well, obviously, just because the bible says they were days doesn't mean they were really, y'know, days days.  Could have been anything.  God's like that sometimes.

    In much the same way, when the bible says the earth was "without form, and void", what it really means is "entirely covered in squirrels".

    Squirrels?

    Heretic!

    It was Wallabies ... on ecstasy!

    No, no, it was badgers.  The formless void earth was a vicious place before Yahweh showed up.

    Date: 2010/10/22 14:13:20, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 22 2010,13:21)
    Dembski is not a YEC! According to Dembski...

     
    Quote
    I am of the opinion that the days of Genesis 1 refer to God’s workweek rather than to six twenty-four hour days. I also know that orthodox Christians disagree on this question. That disagreement is not, however, a disagreement over the trustworthiness of Scripture, but rather, over its best interpretation.

    Krebs seems to think that by saying that the creation events are historical I must be saying that God’s creation days are each twenty four hours long and took place sometime in the last few thousand years. I assume that more careful readers of my comments will not make the same mistake.


    “Coming clean” about YEC?

    So a simple word like "day" is subject to so much "best interpretation" that it can mean something different each time it's used in the same book?

    What exactly does "inerrant" mean to a person who thinks like that?

    Date: 2010/10/23 10:02:34, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Robin @ Oct. 22 2010,15:02)
    [quote=Maya,Oct. 22 2010,14:13][/quote]
    Quote
    So a simple word like "day" is subject to so much "best interpretation" that it can mean something different each time it's used in the same book?

    What exactly does "inerrant" mean to a person who thinks like that?


    It means that to fully understand a given term or story concept, one may have to appeal to culture or semantic understanding, or to look at contextual clues on how the Hebrews (or Greeks) used the word in other similar settings. Of course, it also gives license to those who are dishonest or who don't care to come up with reasonable (sounding) explanations for completely laughable interpretations of biblical passages to suit their hypocrisy. Nonetheless, it is technically acceptable use of the word inerrant.

    Robin,

    Thanks for the thoughtful responses.  The issue remains, though, that exactly the same word is used later in the same book to mean a 24-hour day.  All the interpretation boils down to contortions to get a bronze age myth to conform to reality.

    I realize that there are sincere, honest people (unlike Dembski and pals) who struggle to reconcile their faith with science; growing up in a military family you meet a lot of them.  All that sincerity and honesty doesn't change the fact that it's all special pleading for one parochial sect.

    Normally I take a live and let live approach on this topic, but Dembski deserves to be called on his hypocrisy and lack of integrity.

    Date: 2010/10/23 10:04:57, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Seversky @ Oct. 23 2010,06:38)
    The Bible is held by believers to be the product of divine inspiration.  Yet, as we have seen, there are passages in the text which are susceptible to two or more possible interpretations.  That ambiguity allows the possibility of error which is in itself error if the purpose was to provide unambiguous and incontrovertible instruction to all.

    That reminds me of the Star Trek episode where the alien robot gets caught in a logical contradiction and destroys itself.

    Date: 2010/10/26 10:33:25, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 26 2010,10:11)
    The downside of course is having suck-up minions like BA^77 and Gordon "E" Mullins worship you.

    Hmm, I'll stick with the ether-sniffing lab rats.

    Date: 2010/10/28 15:25:36, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (DiEb @ Oct. 28 2010,08:22)
    The hyperbolic school of counting:
       
    Quote
    one, two, many, infinite

    Or the Pratchett version:
    Quote
    One, two, many, lots.


    ETA: I don't think any of the UDiots would appreciate Sir Terry.

    Date: 2010/10/29 06:15:54, Link
    Author: Maya
    Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 28 2010,16:50)
    Maya: you evil smelling bastard!

    *sniffs self* *checks plumbing*

    Um, nope?

    Quote
    I was just about to post something about Detritus' drill school (Night Watch).

    I'll post it anyway!

     
    Quote