AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: MichaelJ

form_srcid: MichaelJ

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.196.69.189

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: MichaelJ

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2009/06/17 16:48:03, Link
Author: MichaelJ
From PZ's blog

Sounds very much like some of Stephen B's (faulty) logic.



(I'm actually Bystander but I thought I would change to my real name which I use almost everywhere else)

Date: 2009/06/17 19:15:24, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (deadman_932 @ June 17 2009,18:07)
I'm kinda amused.

Okay, so rather than Corny continuing to flog his blog in front of the brain-addled UD-ers, we have Little Billy Dembski trying to fleece the sheep sell an actual book.

A book that likely merely contains the Baylor Polyani Center conference presentations (hence the "three Nobel Prize Winners" hype) and some spin by Dembsky and his ghost-writer...er..."co-editor."  

BUT..Granville Sewell posts something interesting in response to Paul Burnett's comment about the publishing house being run by Intercollegiate Studies Institute, an odd little 501c(3) non-profit organization.

Sewell -- by all appearances -- thinks that the "three Nobel Prize winners"  mentioned in the publisher's blurb actually support ID:
   
Quote
Sewell wrote:

"The typical response from critics to scientific arguments for ID is the “ad hominem” attack...

For some reason Paul Burnett (comment #1) did not feel comfortable questioning the credentials of 3 Nobel prize winners and a few dozen PhDs, so he decided to go after the publisher."


Uh, Sewell...who are the three Nobel laureates? Is one of them Steve Weinberg? Does he back ID? Why would you seem to think that the Nobelists and PhD's *SHOULD* be "questioned" by Burnett at all, since not all of those even back ID?

Tard.

As an aside, Burnett is spot on --- the "Intercollegiate Studies Institute" has all the appearances of a cute little Christian-conservative propaganda mill, to me:

   
Quote
" the Institute relies on the moral and cultural traditions that are part of the Judeo-Christian heritage and rooted in Western Civilization."
(From here. Read the rest of the FAQ and linked bits on the "Institute" and how one can join it to  get crappy online reading materials -- AFTER you send in those dollars, dammit. )

Billy sure likes to pump out the books. I think that this is Billy's sign of capitulation. If you really thought that you can change the world and make a best seller, you would be happy to take 3 years to produce the book. If you know that you have a finite captive audience, you are better to pump out multiple books per year and make a couple of thousand from each book.

When PZ finally does his book and it does well, I'm sure that there will be a deep head shaped dent in Dembski's desk.

Date: 2009/06/18 17:25:52, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (JLT @ June 18 2009,05:07)
Don't you get sarcastic with Gil or Clive'll put you in moderation.
 
Quote
71

Clive Hayden

06/16/2009

4:50 pm

Gaz,

——”Grateful for a quick reply, we’ve been waiting with bated breath for some time now.”

Drop the disdainful rhetoric or I will put you in moderation.


The offending comment:
 
Quote


70

Gaz

06/16/2009

4:43 pm

GilDodgen (55),

“That being said, would you kindly share with us these revelation-bearing simple mathematics about probabilities and combinatorics? If it convinced you, I’m sure it would do a number on the rest of us.

http://www.uncommondescent.com…..selection/”

Gil, are you sure you gave the right link? That just seems to lead to a rather dull and wordy thread. Can’t you just put your sub-teenager math and probabilities up for us to see here?

Grateful for a quick reply, we’ve been waiting with bated breath for some time now.

while Joseph calling somebody a BoS is A-OK

Date: 2009/06/22 03:51:53, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 22 2009,01:03)
Sod all of you. I, as Jerry, will continue.

I thought I was Jerry?

Date: 2009/06/22 23:03:54, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (keiths @ June 22 2009,20:45)
PZ is rubbing Dembski's face in this little prediction from 2004:
Quote
Where is the ID movement going in the next ten years? What new issues will it be exploring, and what new challenges will it be offering Darwinism?

Dembski: 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. Intelligent design will of course profit greatly from this. For ID to win the day, however, will require talented new researchers able to move this research program forward, showing how intelligent design provides better insights into biological systems than the dying Darwinian paradigm.

According to the IDers it has fallen over it is only because of the Nazi tactics of the Darwinistas that stops the public knowing of the fact

Date: 2009/06/26 17:30:18, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (someotherguy @ June 26 2009,13:48)
Voted for ya, Wes.  I too expect a live penguin in payment.   :D

Live? I just want a couple of penguin burgers.

Date: 2009/06/28 17:05:26, Link
Author: MichaelJ
KF reminds me of a couple of Indian lecturers (and some older Indians that I have employed). If I had to make a guess I would think that it comes from a culture that reveres the skill of being able to speak English. This is understandable as it increases your employability.
However, if your audience does not have a strong handle on English, you would be valued more for your ability to turn out flowery speeches than being able to communicate with clarity.

Michael

Date: 2009/06/29 16:28:31, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (didymos @ June 29 2009,15:59)
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 29 2009,08:42)
kairosfocus compares David Kellogg to Hitler and then asks him to apologize for it.

Gordon gets some spiritual advice:

Quote

Excession

06/29/2009

11:19 am

kairosfocus:

SHAME ON YOU!

a Christian should know and act better!

You are a disgrace to the religion. Go look up the word Hypocrite then think long and hard about the teachings of Jesus.


Yeah, I'd say Gordumb has at least a cord of wood that needs removing from his intelligently-designed-yet-oddly-wired eye.  When he's done, he can sell it and buy a clue.  Or a hooker.  That might help more than the clue, actually.

The fun part is that KF is incapable of apologizing, so we can see him explode in the oil soaked ... whatever

Date: 2009/07/01 18:05:24, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 01 2009,16:02)

StephenB responds
   
Quote
You, like your hero, Judge “copycat” Jones, are scandalously uneducated on the subject matter of intelligent design


So who's fault is that. Wasn't Behe and the others there to educate Judge Jones on the Science of ID? They were there for days giving testimony.
So either the ID crowd in giving their best shot failed (and if they failed in court why should they expect scientists to be convinced)

Also, I am convinced that nobody on the ID side has ever read any of the trial material. Most people tend to focus on the Astrology and the pile of unread papers.  

However, Behe got hammered for hours, all of it entertaining and none of it ever defended by the ID crowd.
In addition when the reality people were cross examined, it was all about coming at the subject from a poisoned POV. They were NEVER questioned on facts.

Date: 2009/07/01 22:06:47, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 01 2009,21:40)
Quote (someotherguy @ July 01 2009,21:37)
Quote (didymos @ July 01 2009,21:32)
Dr. Dr. gives us the news:

"We are now at war with Front-Loading.  We have ALWAYS been at war with Front-loading."

I could be wrong, but I think the kind of front-loading discussed here is not the same kind of front-loading that Behe and Dave Scot proposed.

it seems to be saying god did it without doing it, so it's not theistic.

or something.

I read it to mean that front loading is impossible to do in the non-supernatural realm. The designer could not have set the initial conditions in the natural world and stepped back. ID can only exist if there is an information flow from the supernatural to the natural.

This is interesting as it flies in the face of what the IDers were arguing on the other thread.  I don't think that it is a comfortable read for them in any case.

The article is supposed to show up theistic-evolutionists but I don't see how it can destroy the argument that if you believe in a god, you can believe that what is random to us is not random to him.

Date: 2009/07/05 20:00:39, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Every time you think that UD has jumped the shark, they manage to find yet another one to jump over. I find it hard that any of these guys can function in public

Date: 2009/07/05 20:07:19, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (MichaelJ @ July 05 2009,20:00)
Every time you think that UD has jumped the shark, they manage to find yet another one to jump over. I find it hard that any of these guys can function in public

ETA:
hard to BELIEVE that any of these guys can function in public

Date: 2009/07/06 06:16:04, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (didymos @ July 06 2009,03:26)
Vivid stakes out his position
Quote

For something to come from nothing it must, in effect, create itself. Self creation is a logical and therefore rationally [sic] impossibility. For something to create itself, it must have the ability to be and not be at the same tmie [sic] and in the same relationship. For something to create itself it must be before it is. Something can be self existent without violating logic, but it cannot be self created.


Several comments later:
Quote

To say that something that comes into existence from nothing ie without a cause violates the law of non contradiction AND is a form of self creation. It does not rely on self creation for its validity. One could just say it violates the law of non contradiction if they wanted to.


Dude, you really suck at non-contradiction.

True, they are in fact experts in contradiction sometimes even within the same sentence.

Date: 2009/07/08 18:35:38, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Before the departure of Davetard, I used to think that there were some reasonable but misguided people on UD. That these people kept their mouths shut against the crazies for the sake of the large tent. Since then I realised that they are all like that and I think that this whole Nazi == Darwinism thing just makes me pretty disgusted.

I was wondering though that when some of the Nazi posts started appearing via Denyse there was some mild opposition by otherwise ID supporters (I think that Dave was still around). I'm not sure if they were socks or not but is it possible that a whole crowd of real ID supporters have been turned off by this crap.

Date: 2009/07/16 16:22:03, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (blipey @ July 16 2009,09:21)
Quote (fusilier @ July 16 2009,07:57)
Hippo birfday two ewes!

Bystander's Scottish???

Thanks all, I have ceased being bystander and am using my real name (or part thereof). They say that you are as young as the woman you feel (but unfortunately my wife is older than me).

Cheers to you all with a glass of fine Australian beer (fill in your favourite).

Date: 2009/07/16 16:58:52, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (blipey @ July 16 2009,09:21)
Quote (fusilier @ July 16 2009,07:57)
Hippo birfday two ewes!

Bystander's Scottish???

Och No! Aussie by Crickey

Date: 2009/07/16 16:59:45, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 15 2009,16:49)
Hope you have a good day and one of these around.


2 dogs, 3 cats, 7 chooks, 2 donkeys and a Goose. Nothing gets wasted.

Date: 2009/07/16 21:52:11, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (keiths @ July 16 2009,21:17)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 16 2009,18:25)
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 16 2009,18:34)
 
Quote
Which is especially impressive given that Joseph was not Jesus' father.


That's the special part.

Wasn't he supposed to be 'of the house of David'?

Joesph was, but mary wasn't...?

Both genealogies (see Matthew 1 and Luke 3) go through Joseph, not Mary.  And they're inconsistent.

We have evidence that the Bible has been changed, I always wonder why glaring problems like this wasn't fixed. The culture must be very different to ours that finds that inconsistencies are unimportant to the whole message.

Date: 2009/07/17 03:13:04, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 16 2009,22:38)
Birthday? Um...er...I know I had a lolcat here somewhere. Ahhh here...

Oh. Oh, my. This is confusing:


Happy birthday, anyway, all three of you.

In this picture I most closely resemble the basketball

Date: 2009/07/22 04:13:43, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (CeilingCat @ July 22 2009,03:21)
Mapou maps out the cranks

Mapou, of "Nothing Can Move in Spacetime! By Definition!" fame gives us a list of cranks:

Stephen Hawking
Kip Thorne
John A. Wheeler
Richard Feynman
Michio Kaku
John Gribbin
Carl Sagan
John Kramer
J. Richard Gott III
Hans Moravec
David Deutsch
Igor Novikov
John Baez
Ronald Mallett
Jack Sarfatti
Kurt Gödel
Paul Davies
Albert Einstein

If only they would embrace ID.

Somebody should tell the timecube guy about UD, where all ideas are welcome as long as you agree that darwin=hitler.

Date: 2009/07/26 03:37:57, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Many Happy returns

regards
Michael

Date: 2009/07/26 06:54:32, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (deadman_932 @ July 25 2009,08:44)
The broad form that a reply to Sanford should take -- to give the fullest possible refutation of Sanford -- would be to eventually demonstrate how Mendel's Accountant is a deceptive product of Sanford's overall views.

Because Sanford believes that all life on Earth is between 5,000-100,000 years old, Mendel's Accountant essentially cooks the books to arrive at output which is intended to bolster Sanford's claims set out in his book "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome."

I think everyone here is aware of that. Mendel's Accountant and Sanford's "Genetic Entropy" book go hand-in-hand

Over at TalkRational, Febble, Vox Rat and others are going through Sanford's book. This can be useful in the future. See here,  here and here keeping in mind that the last two are currently less useful because the discussion really hasn't begun yet -- due to "AF Dave" serving as a foil for Febble. He's really putting off any in-depth discussion because (1) he's an idiot and (2) he's doing what he usually does; use a discussion for propaganda purposes rather than anything difficult like, y'know...learning. Then there's the good discussion at Theology Web. I'll look around and see what else I can find at other BB's

Anyway, all of this has to be brought together at some point to show the pattern of pseudoscience and deception inherent in Sanford's efforts. It's a largish task, but manageable when broken down into parts.

Febble has to be one of the clearest and most logical writers I have come across. afDave hasn't changed at all.

Date: 2009/07/28 21:45:56, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Even starting Noah it would be less generations because didn't people live for hundreds of years in those days?

But I agree that the response that there was superfast evolution in those days as they had to diversify from the few animals on the ark to all of the diversity we see now.

Date: 2009/08/03 07:05:14, Link
Author: MichaelJ
some notable events:

Lockout of the Baylor cafeteria.

Marines incident

Dembski getting destroyed by ERV at one of his talks

Street theatre

Date: 2009/08/04 16:34:50, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 04 2009,10:53)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 04 2009,06:43)
It seems like just yesterday that ID proponentsists were insisting that it had nothing to do with religion.

Now we have a full blown inquisition going, and no one is raising the hammer to slow it down.

I guess they could only hold their breath for so long.

Coincidentally, this began to happen around the time UD's focus switched from "Is too science!  Teach it in teh skools!" to "Jebus wants you to buy my book".

I think that the ID leaders realised that they hadn't convinced anyone who wasn't already on the religious right about ID. Also they realised that a lot of people on the religious right don't like anything that doesn't mention Jesus eleventy seven times (or rails against liberals).

Simple economics really

Date: 2009/08/06 19:10:10, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 06 2009,16:09)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 06 2009,13:57)
Quote (dvunkannon @ Aug. 06 2009,15:34)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 06 2009,16:22)
Wouldn't Front Loading counteract Genetic Entropy?

Enquiring minds want to know.

I would have expected Front Loading to be killed by Genetic Entropy, kind of like Godzilla vs Mothra.

I disagree.  God The Disembodied Telic Designer Entity is omniscient.  So he would have front-loaded The Fall genetic entropy into Adam and Eve the original genome.

God did whatever creationists need God to have did to support their current argument.  If they need God to have did something contradictory in some other debate, or at a different point of the same debate, well, God did that too.  God can do that.  He's God.

I'd love to see this quote dropped into the conversation at UD and see the reaction although StephenB problem wouldn't see anything wrong with the argument.

Date: 2009/08/09 19:37:41, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Happy Birthday

Date: 2009/08/12 18:31:10, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 12 2009,15:07)
Quote
Dear Cousin Stuart,

Nice to see you posting at UD. There must be something in those Dodgen genes that predisposes us to software engineering, and recognizing the illogical and evidence-deprived nonsense propagated by Darwinists.

Entropy?

I call sock. The writing style is too much like Gils

Date: 2009/08/13 16:44:06, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Forgive my fearfully bad memory but didn't Kevin come here indicating that he accepted evolution but we must allow for some alternative explanations.
Its a huge drop from there to supporting Dr Dino or is Kevin just another troll lying for Jesus.

Date: 2009/08/13 17:52:27, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 13 2009,17:08)
Quote (dheddle @ Aug. 13 2009,16:18)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 13 2009,14:27)
It looks like we will have Kevin Miller to kick around some more. He's scriptwriting a film trying to make heroic the life of exceptional loon and religious antievolutionist Kent Hovind.

     
Quote

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


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

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

I nominate Richard Hughes to play Dr. Hovind--Rich has that certain je ne sais quoi.

My noble brow will not pass for antipodean criminal stock.

harrumph!

I thought than Ham was the Aussie, Don't tell me that there are two from my shores.

Date: 2009/08/14 19:55:41, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 13 2009,18:20)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Aug. 13 2009,17:52)
I thought than Ham was the Aussie, Don't tell me that there are two from my shores.

Crap. I confused them.


MIA KULPER

phew!

Date: 2009/08/14 20:12:33, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 14 2009,19:59)
MichaelJ, are you related to Henry J?

yes, but we don't like to talk about THAT side of the family, especially after the incident with the goat and Sister Virtue J

Date: 2009/08/14 20:20:03, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 14 2009,10:36)
Quote
7 –> The following Sunday, the tomb is open and empty, and the former occupant, over the following forty days, appears to, eats and converses with his friends, family and followers, including making breakfast and having a fairly public meeting with over 500.

8 –> These 500 become the core of a culture-transforming movement that was unstoppable by even fire and sword.

How do you know the resurrection happened?
There were 500 witnesses to Jesus rising from the dead.
What evidence is there for the 500 witnesses?
It is in the Bible.
How do we know that the Bible is true?
It is the word of God.
How do we know it is the word of God?
There were 500 witnesses to Jesus rising from the dead.
WTF

Date: 2009/08/18 16:18:03, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Hey Dawk and PZ are coming downunder next March. I'll be heading down to Melbourne for the show, if there are enough ATBCers there for a Quorum, we could meet for a coffee or something.

Date: 2009/08/19 00:18:44, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (paragwinn @ Aug. 18 2009,23:41)
Quote (didymos @ Aug. 01 2009,01:05)
Ahahahahahahaahahahahaha!1!one!!

GilDodgen is a tard (bolding mine):    
Quote

Completely and totally off-topic:
From time to time I Google my name to check out the latest vitriol and abject hatred directed at me by Darwinists. I was amazed to discover that there is a reference to my Masters thesis, written in French in 1977, about the great French aviation pioneer and author, Antoine de Saint Exupéry. His best known work is The Little Prince. At that time I was pursuing degrees in music and foreign language and literature, and building and flying hang gliders on the weekends.
Saint Exupéry was an inspiration, for obvious reasons, so I read his entire opus in French and wrote my thesis on his life and literature.
Here is what I would like to know: To the best of my knowledge, there are only two copies of my Masters thesis — one in my personal library and one in the library archives at Washington State University.
How did this end up on the Internet?
http://openlibrary.org/b/OL167.....pe%CC%81ry
Here’s a link about Saint Exupéry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.....up%C3%A9ry




Anyone wanna try and get a copy of Gildo's thesis?

While trying to get caught up on posts here, I came across this one above and checked the out the first link regarding the Exupéry paper. It has an, uh, interesting "book cover" associated with it.

Ha Ha Ha Ha

Date: 2009/08/19 01:27:58, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (jswilkins @ Aug. 18 2009,20:27)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Aug. 19 2009,07:18)
Hey Dawk and PZ are coming downunder next March. I'll be heading down to Melbourne for the show, if there are enough ATBCers there for a Quorum, we could meet for a coffee or something.

Chris Nedin, Ian Musgrave and I will be there, forcing PZ to drink designer beer.

I don't know Chris but you and Ian are another two good reasons to turn up. However, any event with The Dawk and PZ in attendance would be packed to the rafters.

I forwarded the link to my wife saying I wanted to go (more  as a joke as we can't really afford it) but not only did she say yes, she is keen to listen to the talks herself.

Date: 2009/08/19 17:45:36, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 19 2009,12:44)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 19 2009,19:27)
Quote


4

William Dembski

08/19/2009

11:09 am

Sal Gal: “He definitely did not present it as that.” Quite right, he did not present it — as in portray it – as a targeted search. But in his articulation, it was a targeted search and our critique applies.

Squatney: I would re-read the paper. I know your side has quibbled about our characterization of Dawkins’ algorithm (which he did not clearly lay out in THE BLIND WATCHMAKER) as to whether it locks in correct characters or allows for their random alteration after they’ve been achieved. As I showed here, it doesn’t really matter.


and he sends you to the 16 march 2009 post "Dawkins’ WEASEL: Proximity Search With or Without Locking?" where he does not show anything of the sort.  In that post he claims that Dawkins manipulated the code for the video in order to make it look 'unlatched'.  of course this is what spawned Gordon Mullings to have an apoplectic fit in which he spewed out the character count equivalent of 7 dissertations, and the content count of the back of a cereal box.

Dembski has found new lows!  for this we should rejoice!  but i do believe i would rather see more flash animation than him attempting to do what he cannot possibly do, that is use science to justify his religious beliefs.  Stay Clowny, b-b-b-b-b-b-bill!!!!

One wonders why Billy didn't cite Mullings and I'm sure Gordo hisself will be wondering the same.

After all Billy boy and him are peers and teh new way of ID for thrith in science and resurection of culture needs all the logos of men like Mullings and his mission to save No Free Information for the likes of Jerry etc.

Expect a new cancer cure from cutting edge Dembski genetic algorithms....if he can figure out what they are.

If you have a tumor on you hair ID tells you chances are better than 10-150 that it's designed and a dilute solution of peroxide will remove the hair tumor and your finger prints too if you don't use gloves.

Read all about it in "Hair Dressers Monthly" or tune into "Days of Our Lives" for a charged look at "Intelligent Design" in action, or heavy petting...whateva.

Dense can raffle free copies of Billz book for the first creative use of Billies new paragim.

............yawn.

I'm sure that GUM of TOOTHY will be wondering just that and not connect that DrDr never reads the blog. I also wonder if the moderators will be dragged over the carpet for letting the riff-raff in,

Date: 2009/08/21 22:42:28, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Gunthernacus @ Aug. 21 2009,20:24)
GillyD on the hoax thread:
 
Quote
I was extraordinarily blessed by public education, in a small town called Pullman, Washington (in an era gone by, the 1950s and 1960s). My teachers were almost all terrific. I remember:

My junior-high science teacher, who spent extra time after school explaining things to me that I did not understand. My high-school French teacher who gave me a love of foreign language and literature. My high-school math teacher who inspired me. Our choir director, whose choirs I accompanied on the piano.

All of these teachers had very high standards, and for that I am grateful.


From GillyD's post, "The Atheism Delusion: The Destructive Power of Materialist Indoctrination ":
 
Quote
I was an atheist, brainwashed by the establishment, into my 40s. I got a triple dose of indoctrination: from the public schools, from the secular environment in which I grew up (a small college town, surrounded by intellectual university types), and from the university itself.

Tard.

Atheist until his Forties? I can understand somebody becoming a deist of a theist at that age but you would have thought that an normal person would have developed enough common sense to avoid becoming a creationist at that age.

Date: 2009/08/24 17:21:22, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Happy Happy Happy
Joy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Happy
Joy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Happy
Joy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Happy
Joy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Happy
Joy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Happy
Joy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Happy

To Blipey!

Date: 2009/08/24 23:30:07, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 24 2009,21:20)
Quote
36
bornagain77
08/24/2009
6:00 pm
Dave,
To be honest with you,,I have debated atheists for several years now,,,I usually have been polite to the point of fault,,, in return I have for the majority of times been maligned, cussed, ridiculed, threatened with death and all sorts of evil response,,,all for sticking to the truth of the evidence and proving evolution wrong with the best of what ability I have been given,,,Though you may take me for being rude with you, I am actually trying my very best to wake you from the deception you are in,,, for I figure a few hurt feelings by you now will be far better than the consequences of being separated from God eternally,,,Maybe I am wrong to be this way with you,,,every one is different,,,but truly I am not meaning it personally,,,


first of all, what in the feck is ,,, about?  this sombitch is crazier than a damn shot she-hawg

second, Dave Wisker's got a girlfriend, dave wisker's got a girlfriend neener neener neener

Wasn't his debating style cutting and pasting some rubbish and then either running off refusing to answer questions or to start abusing everybody.

Date: 2009/08/27 01:06:35, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 26 2009,22:06)
Seventhded ( Onlookers!! : now with more FSCI'd goodnessytude )

It's even in Fortran

Date: 2009/08/27 16:26:32, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 27 2009,15:36)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 27 2009,15:04)
I can't decide - pompous arsehole or arrogant fuck-wit?
StephenB to R0B:
     
Quote
Obviously, you are unaware of the metaphysical foundations for modern science. Normally, I would recommend a book, but in this case, I think it would be futile.

The comment is worth reading in it's entirety just to see how deep the hole is that StephenB has dug for himself.
   
Quote
In any case, why would irrational Darwinists be impressed when I expose their irrationality?

Expose it to who StephenB? It's UD. A standing joke in the reality based community.

I really, really would have liked to get StephenB to "discuss" things with me at TheologyWeb, but he did everything he could to avoid that. It would have been nice to have him in an arena where he wasn't protected by his fellow UD-ites.

Eh. You'd think they'd have the ethics to actually emerge from the piss-stained panties of Clive every once in a while.

OMFSM, how can you go through life being so ignorant. Even if he was home schooled has he never seen a documentary in his life?

Date: 2009/08/29 19:16:13, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 29 2009,18:49)
BarryHole gets one in filed under "Intelligent Design".  

not Humor

not Street Theater

not materialist-baiting

this really does justify "intelligent design" for this ignoramus

Quote
29 August 2009

Dinnertime Design Detection
Barry Arrington

Last evening I was talking to a friend about how my dad had to learn morse code when he was in the navy, and he related a funny design detection story (not that he put it in those terms).

My friend had a cousin (we’ll call him Bill), and when he was a teenager Bill developed a nervous tapping habit, or so everyone thought.  One evening Bill’s family had an older couple over for dinner, and Bill was tapping away when both guests got red in the face and exclaimed “Bill!  What are you doing?”  It turns out Bill had been learning morse code and tapping on the table for practice.  The problem:  He was practicing with four letter words, and no one knew until the family invited two retired Western Union operators to dinner!


Thus, the God of the Bible.  

ALL SCIENCE SO FAR

So thereby proving that design detection doesn't work unless you know about the designer (Samuel Morse in this case).

Date: 2009/08/31 00:04:48, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 30 2009,22:24)
Quote (RDK @ Aug. 30 2009,21:41)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 30 2009,19:30)
DO'L:
   
Quote
It all sounds a bit hysterical to me, and well below Dawkins’s usual standard of writing.

Words (almost) fail me.

As if she's ever read a paragraph of anything written by Dawkins.  And I mean actually read, not glance over the first couple lines and then go right back to jacking herself off with Dembski's hand.

The best was when she read the cover of The Selfish Gene and then ranted about how genes don't have feelings or somesuch.

Carlson, find me a link, babe. That was some classic TARD, right there.

A couple of years ago she was on Australian radio debating a local sceptic. D'OL was basically
"Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins"

Sceptic - Have you read blah blah by Dawkins?

D'OL - I haven't read any Dawkins because I find him irrelevant and not a deep thinker.

Date: 2009/09/01 19:29:57, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Quack @ Sep. 01 2009,06:50)
Quote
I have often advocated a boycott at UD by ID critics as the undiluted stupidity of commenters like Gordon, upright biped, BA^77  et alis would stand out more starkly without sane commenters giving the impression that there are ID arguments worthy of rebuttal.

Why not try an experiment on a smaller scale? I suggest nobody responds to nul's threads or comments. And, since, as Oleg points out, he is congenitally unable to concede points, the saving of wasted time is also a bonus!

I've often been thinking similar thoughts. It would be an interesting experiment to leave the UcD and TT crowds to themselves for, say a month or so and see what would happen. I believe we might get some laughs out of that too. (After all, the purpose of UcD is to "serve the ID community.")

I think that poking them with sticks is the best course. Before UD became more open, I always thought that most IDists were reasonably intelligent but misguided. Now anybody looking at the threads can see that ALL of them are Batshit crazy.

I think that if you did a study of the posters at UD and removed the anti-IDists and the obvious Poes that the number of real posters at UD has dropped compared to six months ago.

Date: 2009/09/01 20:09:50, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Best wishes for the day.

Michael

Date: 2009/09/01 21:00:22, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Maya @ Sep. 01 2009,18:00)
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.

These guys are at their funniest when they have to defend DrDr.

They are like bad contenstants on theatre sports:

Clive - your scenario is that you are an IDist and somebody has ripped your leaders argument to shreds. You have 4 lines to create the lamest response you can think of.

Date: 2009/09/02 16:42:31, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Happy Birthday and Happy Tibet Democracy day.

Date: 2009/09/02 16:59:25, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 02 2009,09:15)
wesley it's too late to send you my firstborn but i can arrange to have the firstborn of others sent to you for your ceremonial nefariosities

ETA on other notes, how is that gordon mullings never has heart attacks?  seems like tard that great must stress the machine that produces it.  that latest screed is some seriously hysterical horsefeathers.  there is no reasonable naive person in the world who would take that poor dumb bastard seriously so perhaps that is a gift.

i would like to see him fight a bathtub full of ice

or better yet

BARRET BROWN  why don't you do a story on Gordon E Mullings of Montserrat the mad ID scientist preacher????

that would be faaaaaaaaaantastic.  there are plenty of web crumbs

I think an article on KF would be a little too much like making fun of the mentally ill.

Date: 2009/09/06 18:01:10, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 06 2009,09:49)
Quote
If the blind-watchmaker thesis is correct for biological evolution, all of these artificial constraints must be eliminated. Every aspect of the simulation, both hardware and software, must be subject to random errors.

Of course, this would result in immediate disaster and the extinction of the CPU, OS, simulation program, and the programmer, who would never get funding for further realistic simulation experiments.
Someone propose the following thought experiment to Gil:

Create a simulation that runs on a virtual machine. I'm sure he understands the concept. The virtual machine includes the OS, hardware drivers, and programs. All of this will reside in memory, but this is the only feasible way to run his kind of simulation.

To make it possible, the virtual machine would be somewhat less complex than Windows. Perhaps a few thousand bytes. I think the early Apple and Radio Shack computers implemented Basic in under 4K. I think you could easily make a VM that requires much less. A VM would consist of an interpreter and code, and both would be subject to mutation.

Since abiogenesis is not the issue being explored, the starting VM would be a self replicator. It would divide, producing imperfect copies of itself. The division and mutation process could affect both "children."

The VMs would exist in a sea of memory, perhaps a turbulent sea that sloshes around, separating the individuals so replications don't always sit on other individuals. Although this could happen. Perhaps individuals need a virtual membrane.

My first thought is that something like this has probably already been done. I don't follow the details of the various simulation programs, but I'd be surprised if someone hasn't tried this.

My second thought is that Gill wouldn't accept this, because the "real" OS isn't affected.

It does remind me of an related project. The GAs are based around machine code. You started with a population random byte arrays and the processor attempts to read the byte string as instructions.

Usually you have a target (such as finding the square root of a number loaded into a register) but you could mix this with another game from the eighties "Core War" where each individual attempts to kill the other members of the population by moving around memory and putting stop codes in other individual's code. You would change the code by putting in random mutations.

In this scenario you don't need to code the reproduction code as the programs should develop the ability to reproduce to protect the "genome" against being killed by competitors or by random mutations

Date: 2009/09/07 00:02:23, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 04 2009,21:24)
Quote
Bradford: object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. I wish to emphasize that the subject matter to which the law refers- objects, motion, direction, speed and force- were all commonly observed phenomenon prior to Newton's formulation.

It was well known that objects tend to come to rest, not keep in motion. If the horse stops pulling the wagon it will eventually come to rest. That's the observation. It was careful experiments by Galileo that teased out what we call inertia, Newton's First Law of Motion. You think it's intuitive, but like the round Earth, it's simply the result of familiarity with the concept.

Gee, that's one of the things I remember from high school physics that it used to be *obvious* that everything eventually stops.

Date: 2009/09/08 20:47:37, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I think that you could for almost any subject without compartmentalizing. You just need to remember by rote all of the stuff. I think that knowing how oil formed and why it is found is such and such a strata can certainly help, but a person could just as learn that oil is found in these conditions.

When I did mechanical engineering we had people who just remember the equations but wouldn't have the faintest idea on how to derive the equations which I think is a similar mindset.


What these people will never do is advance knowledge.

Date: 2009/09/09 21:26:43, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Quack @ Sep. 09 2009,16:20)
Quote
Yet another outlet for IDCists to dissipate their energy (as opposed to doing science):  A blog "satirizing scientism" that's about as funny as syphilis.

Pox on you, evoswine!

So lame - they do humour worse than they do science

Date: 2009/09/12 17:07:22, Link
Author: MichaelJ
DLH doesn't need to do no steenking calculations. Jesus told him so.

Date: 2009/09/19 02:09:55, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (sledgehammer @ Sep. 18 2009,17:11)
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 17 2009,21:36)
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?


By the Durston/Axe method of calculating functional sequence specificity in protein configuration space, namely:

(negative base 2 log of the ratio of the number of sequences with a specified functionality, to the total number of possible sequences)

- any protein or enzyme that is longer than 250 aa can have over 500 bits of "Functional Information" (by their definition);
-even if it is a near duplicate of another extant sequence, even if different by only a single amino acid-
as long as it enables a novel, specifiable function (like digesting Nylon).

 Since evolution can easily produce just such a sequence, It appears that Dembski and Co. have specified themselves into a proverbial corner.

Isn't his default position that everything is 500 bits until somebody proves that it isn't

Date: 2009/09/22 02:45:26, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I tend to give these guys the benefit of the doubt but after doing a bit of reading on his blog I am 100% convinced that the Kirk is outright lying.

Date: 2009/09/22 16:33:49, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Turncoat @ Sep. 23 2009,07:13)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 20 2009,16:49)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 20 2009,14:44)
   
Quote (DiEb @ Sep. 20 2009,14:03)
2: For his interview, Dawkins needed the program to run for ~ 2000 generations. This could be achieved by the combination (10 children, 4% mutation rate) But I suppose that Dawkins just fooled around a little bit with his program to get an optimal number of runs, i.e., the program was running during the length of his interview…

Is that correct? Dawkins seems to be showing all the children, not just the parents. It's slower because it takes time to display on the antique system he's using. [...]

I think the number 2485 comes up at the end of the video as the number of individuals. If that is the case, Dawkins likely did have to find fairly particular parameters in order to terminate in the short time of the video sequence, and the slow display system likely did have an impact on that. I think I posted some numbers here before on the likely parameter space the video run's parameters were taken from.

My previous comment regarding Weasel2 was wrong. I should have used Wolfram's MathWorld rather than Wikipedia to get the mean of the negative binomial distribution. Wikipedia explains the r parameter incorrectly. The mean number of trials required for an uphill step is (1 - p) / p, not 2 * (1 - p) / p.

The mean number of trials for Weasel2 to reach the target is about 2900. In simulation, 12% of runs require 2485 or fewer trials.

My apologies for not double-checking my work prior to posting here.

Don't give in so easily. Don't admit a mistake until you have written 20 3000 word posts and then hide it in the middle of a 15000 word post

Date: 2009/09/24 01:19:59, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Sidewiki doesn't work on Chrome!

Date: 2009/09/26 17:25:14, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I think that at the end of the day it is bums on seats. You don't know what is going on inside his head but a large part of it would be that Ken Ham is a crowd puller.

The moment that they sense that their congregations are dropping because of their archaic ideas a lot of them will flip.

I think that we saw this with global warming. I get the sense that a few evangelical leaders flipped from "God wouldn't allow global warming and it is our duty to rape the planet" to "God requires us to be good stewards of the environment" because people starting wandering off.

People will shop for the religion that fits their predisposed ideas and the combination of people laughing at creationists and other religions accepting evolution may create a market share for people who think evolution is ok but Obama is still the anti-Christ.

Date: 2009/10/06 15:07:31, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (BillB @ Oct. 07 2009,02:56)
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 06 2009,16:59)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 06 2009,05:42)
 
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 05 2009,18:56)
   
Quote (sledgehammer @ Oct. 05 2009,18:06)
     
Quote (Turncoat @ Oct. 05 2009,15:57)
The latest at Bounded Science:
             
Quote
Resolving a moral dilemma

I made a promise to Bob Marks that I would not divulge my correspondence with him regarding drafts of the paper that IEEE SMC-A published last month. But I did not know that he and Dembski would resort to trickery to get the paper published, and, after considerable agonizing, I've decided that the better course is to break my word.

False attribution of partitioned search to Dawkins is the not the full extent of the academic dishonesty in the article.

This is the first I've heard of sneaky tactics or trickery in the path to publication.  Any details you can share? Give us dirty laundry!  We like dirty laundry.

Another blog entry is on the way. Omitting the names of the two evolutionary algorithms, as well as neglecting to cite the relevant literature, was a trick to keep the editors and reviewers from scrutinizing the redundant and/or worthless analysis Dembski and Marks provided. If there had been explicit mention of evolutionary algorithms, the editor-in-chief might have handed the paper off to a different associate editor, and the associate editor might have lined up better-informed reviewers.

I had already blocked out to have a section on the neologism issue in my response, but hadn't really taken it to the academic dishonesty conclusion. I was thinking more in terms of how it was another way that poor scholarship was expressed.

I'm a bit worried that lodging academic dishonesty complaints will fire up the old "expelled" propaganda mill. I really will listen to arguments against doing it.

I agree that a complaint would present an opportunity for them to cry conspiracy but it would also be a shame to let them get away with academic dishonesty ... tricky one.

The alternative I suppose is to refute the paper from a technical standpoint through academic journals, and try and hint at the possible dishonesty through that means.

Whatever happens there will be claims of a conspiracy to expell ID (Even though the paper isn't about ID) and the paper will be hailed as peer reviewed research supporting ID.

I can't see the reason to tip-toe around. Think about the undecided middle. If you do a technical criticism, the undecided uninformed may just read it as taking DrDr seriously (and this may include IEEE themselves). Without background how are they to know whether you are critiquing details or are calling the paper a load of old bollocks.

I'd say call it dishonest scholarship, the IEEE would probably not publish them again. Also it is a simpler concept to understand for somebody randomly googling Dembski.

Sure they will play the martyr card but still both stories are out there, otherwise there is only Dembski braying that he has a published paper.

Date: 2009/10/08 17:03:49, Link
Author: MichaelJ
The US is really turning into 2 nations isn't it. The Barrys and Clives of your country have their own history, science, TV channels, web sites etc. UD is one of the few interfaces and even there reality has a hard time to poke its head through.

Date: 2009/10/09 16:50:10, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 10 2009,06:51)
New socks will emerge. This thread makes Barry look so unhinged I suspect a 404 / server burp is on the way. Any sort of reasoned dialogue with them makes them look assclowns, and it needs to happen for that reason.

I think that they are oblivious to how stupid they look. Stephen has had the same discussion before and it made no difference then and it will make no difference now.

Date: 2009/10/13 15:47:39, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 14 2009,06:35)
I wonder if the heat from cities is really all that negligible on a planet wide scale, or is that a significant factor?

I think the argument runs that a lot of weather stations in the US were out in the countryside originally and eventually the nearest city has grown to be near them so that the readings are now affected by the Urban heating effect.
This argument in itself has been refuted and also ignores all of the other ways that climate has been measured.

Date: 2009/10/16 22:46:57, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I saw Vox's 'Irrational Atheist' book in our library. It surprised me that this drivel would find it's way into a small Australian regional library.
It was right next to "The God Delusion"

Date: 2009/10/17 01:26:19, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Reg @ Oct. 17 2009,04:36)
In "Freud down, Darwin next?" David Coppedge tells me something I never knew before:
 
Quote
Sigmund Freud had immeasurable impact on modern culture. ...  His theories (based largely on Darwinism) brought new words into popular vocabulary–id, ego, super-ego, the unconscious.

Freud based his theories "largely on Darwinism"? How in the name of the sweet baby Jesus did Coopedge come up with that?

Anything that is not based on Jesus is based on Darwin dontchaknow

Date: 2009/10/30 22:54:10, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 31 2009,12:48)
Here is a complete list of publications of Gil "the professional scientist" Dodgen (according to ISI Web of Science):

[1] E. Trice and G. Dodgen, The perfect 7-piece checkers database, ICGA Journal 26, 229-238 (2003).  Abstract.

That's actually not that bad by ID standards.

Second billing too.

Date: 2009/10/30 22:59:53, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (MichaelJ @ Oct. 31 2009,13:54)
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 31 2009,12:48)
Here is a complete list of publications of Gil "the professional scientist" Dodgen (according to ISI Web of Science):

[1] E. Trice and G. Dodgen, The perfect 7-piece checkers database, ICGA Journal 26, 229-238 (2003).  Abstract.

That's actually not that bad by ID standards.

Second billing too.

For my mechanical engineering thesis, I pretty much just wrote a program around an algorithm that somebody else developed. As Gil doesn't seem to have a clue about anything really, I wonder if this is the case here -- somebody came up with the method and told Gil to code it.

Date: 2009/11/05 00:09:55, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 05 2009,09:37)
Playing along for fun, wouldn't being in an open star cluster be better than being part of a spiral arm?

How about a Lone Star?  Even better?

Just think, instead of the Lone Star state we could be the Lone Star solar system!  By Jove I like that idea.

Imagine being above the galactic core or travelling at 0.99c

Date: 2009/11/07 03:01:17, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I wrote a forth interpretor in Z80 assembler for my Amstrad 64k. Do I win the geek prize?

Date: 2009/11/17 00:11:04, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Didn't Qwok start as a one of the good guys? The first I remember of him was when he did a review of Behe's book and was pwned by the IDiots for not actually reading the book. I remember at that stage quite a few people defended him.

Date: 2009/11/20 03:52:46, Link
Author: MichaelJ
The interesting thing I always think is that people like Joe think that we must convince them of the validity of the science. Now I know the people here like an argument but the fact for Joe is that ID is losing.

There was a surge of interest prior to the Dover case but the poor showing of ID dried that up.

Is there any sign that ID is being accepted by anyone who isn't already a creationist? Even Dembski knows this, he doesn't even try anymore. Most of his books are about God and his latest "Paper" was chock full of errors that have been previously pointed out to him. Dembski doesn't care, he can ignore the experts because he makes enough money out of people like you who will support him no matter what he does.

Date: 2009/11/20 03:59:42, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I'll admit that his ideas are warped but I am sure that he will eventually cotton onto the facts.

Date: 2009/11/20 14:56:26, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I think that creationists look at life through blurry glasses. With these glasses on the thialacine and the wolf are almost alike. Take the glasses off (compare bone structures internal organs) and you can see that the thialicine and the kangaroo look more alike.

Now Darwin did this and quipped when he was in Australia that there must have been a second creator. Darwin doesn't have the blurry glasses on and he saw that though superficially there were similarities between Australian and other animals, they are in fact very different to the Animals on other continents.

You don't need fossils, you don't need DNA, you just need a keen mind to see that Bible literalism is bunk.

Date: 2009/11/20 15:09:50, Link
Author: MichaelJ
The other case of the blurry glasses is flood geology. Way before Darwin, the geologists and civil engineers while trying to make predictions about where to mine or where to build roads/bridges etc. realised that flood geology doesn't make sense. Using no dating methods just using their eyes and brains they saw that the strata were millions of years old and created through a uniform process.

Now, real scientists can tell the story of the planet with a great deal of accuracy. We can go anywhere and see when there was a volcano, a sea, a desert etc.

They have had 200 hundred years - Creationists have yet to get out of their armchairs.

Date: 2009/11/23 17:28:23, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 24 2009,07:28)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 20 2009,14:56)
I think that creationists look at life through blurry glasses. With these glasses on the thialacine and the wolf are almost alike. Take the glasses off (compare bone structures internal organs) and you can see that the thialicine and the kangaroo look more alike.

Now Darwin did this and quipped when he was in Australia that there must have been a second creator. Darwin doesn't have the blurry glasses on and he saw that though superficially there were similarities between Australian and other animals, they are in fact very different to the Animals on other continents.

You don't need fossils, you don't need DNA, you just need a keen mind to see that Bible literalism is bunk.

Darwins wrong. The creatures are alike in thousands of points of the physical body and different in minor points.
By the way in south America he got right what today they say he got wrong. in saying some camel shaped creature was a camel while today they say its just a convergent look alike to a camel.

In fact marsupials inside or out look 95% the same. Just a few details of the head, teeth, and reproductive organs. All within the ranges of other creatures not said to be different.

In fact snakes can bear their young live or by way of eggs. Yet clealy they are the same kind.

It's strange how creationists like to prove your point for you. I was saying how creationists fail to do any detailed set of analysis and instead sit in the armchair with the blurry glasses.

So what does Robert do? Does he get 100 points of comparison between wolves and Tasmanian wolf and compare then with 100 points of comparison between the Tasmanian Wolf and a Tasmanian Devil and show which is closer. Does he then formulate a hypothesis as to why God decided that Marsupials are better adapted to Australia than placentals. Does he look for similar environments to see if the hypothesis works? Does he examine the fossil evidence that shows where and when this sudden change occured? He might not agree with the dating but shouldn't wolf fossils be found in Tasmania under the marsupial fossils?

No, he just waves his magic wand and says that the thousands of scientists that do take the trouble of looking through the evidence, are wrong.

I know it is painful in the US at the moment but Creationism will eventually die.

Date: 2009/11/25 05:36:33, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 25 2009,19:54)
Why is it so important to the fundies that climate change (let alone AGW) isn't happening? Would it somehow reflect badly on Jeebus? Can someone please explain?!?

Pick one or more of the following:

1. Because the whiny Liberals believe in it.
2. It would cause them to curtail their lifestyles which is unAmerican
3. Its not in the Bible (ie God wouldn't let it happen)

Date: 2009/11/25 14:17:19, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 25 2009,13:03)
Here's a piece of friendly advice for you, Robert:  when your arguments don't even reach the "random YouTube commenter" level of coherence, it's probably time to rethink your whole approach.

He's gone. Did you break another one?

Date: 2009/11/26 01:10:40, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 22 2009,22:45)
Mung finally mentions the 800-pound gorilla in the room in Sal's thread:

Quote
My complaint about your model was that it makes ID supporters look stupid, a complaint I think you should take seriously, considering that I am one myself.


Is there an amendment to Poe's Law? That any purported creationist that criticizes another creationist for using bad science is an obvious Poe. Creationists only ever argue over interpretations of the scriptures.

Date: 2009/11/26 17:17:24, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I stated above some reasons for Climate Scepticism but I think that it is the excuses that they used, but it all falls under something that I always think is a little odd.

There were just under 50% of Americans who voted for the right, which as an outsider surprises me as a lot of the policies of the right, only actually benefits a relatively few on the right.

They might jump up and down about the financial meltdown but generally they will happily support laws that enable big companies to do what they like without hindrance.

I wonder how much of the evangelical's beliefs are posthoc rationlisations of successful lobbying efforts by big business.

Date: 2009/11/27 02:58:41, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 27 2009,14:38)
Over at Panda's Thumb , Dan had an interesting set of comments:

   
Quote
"The Discovery Institute alone spent $4,334,124 in 2007.  (Compensation of President Bruce Chapman was $167,486.)

The Institute for Creation Research spent $7,057,626. (Including $194,004 as compensation to officers with the last name “Morris”.)

Answers in Genesis spent $16,956,626 … of which nearly 1% ($162,188) went straight into Ken Ham’s pocket.


As others observed, that's a lot of moolah (eh, a tad over 28.3 million) for producing zero actual science per year.

Thanks to Dan for pointing out the latest take of the scam artists.

To be honest I don't think that the DI and the ICR are particularly well funded. It might sound okay for funding of an additional lab but when it has to pay for everything (rent, admin etc) it wouldn't go far.

Happily I don't think it would also go far in funding their PR machine and pretend science and it is nice to see that the DI is the bottom of the bunch.  

Also I am sure that  Ken Ham and Bruce make a lot more money. When they sell a book or give a seminar, I'm sure the lion's share goes into their own pockets.

Date: 2009/11/28 15:53:41, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Imagine I wrote a book about a movement that has a Journalist who can't write and never checks sources. The story also has an information specialist who can't define information theory properly and always shoots himself in the foot.
I'm sure that everybody would think that it was highly unrealistic and cruel and it would never get published.

Date: 2009/11/30 03:57:00, Link
Author: MichaelJ
definitely a tinnie short of a slab

Date: 2009/11/30 14:32:12, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Can anybody explain the motivation behind the truthers? I could understand it as a left wing conspiracy theory but the right wing loved Bush at the time.

Date: 2009/12/02 20:24:59, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 03 2009,02:04)
From "Is backwards or forwards time travel really possible?"
   
Quote
2
Gods iPod:
Yes. And I can prove it from the Bible alone :)

   
Quote
5
Gods iPod:
Denise, I’d love to share my theory here, but since I am fairly certain that I am the only person that has ever seen this in the Word, at least among the living and posting thoughts online, I am keeping it to myself for a future book.

I know, sounds like a cop-out crackpot*. I would be open to sharing it with you privately.

For those that missed my first post. I believe there is a crystal clear example of time travel in the Bible. So clear that when I explain it to you you’ll slap yourself for not having seen it before. I have shown it to about a dozen people, and the reaction is the same each time**, and no one needs to be “convinced” It’s just obvious.

Time travel is possible because there's an example of it in the bible. ALL SCIENCE SO FAR. And he is the only one who has ever seen it although "it's just obvious" and "crystal clear". Right.


* fixed that for him

** they very carefully back away?

Could it be that using historical markers from within the text that 2 gospels have Jesus being born in two different places and quite a few years apart.

That a pretty good piece of time travel. Not to mention that the resurrection gospels has Jesus, the women and the apostles doing all kinds of different things at the same time.

Date: 2009/12/03 05:35:29, Link
Author: MichaelJ
nything.

Date: 2009/12/03 14:37:48, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Maybe Robert means that we are hiding all of that evidence. Like we stopped Robert showing his detailed studies on how marsupials are the same as wolves.

Date: 2009/12/05 05:22:08, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 05 2009,18:03)
What will be interesting if the CSC case proceeds will be the discovery process as CSC gets subpoena power to request all AFA<->DI emails.

The insanity is that DI is shooting itself in the foot by not appearing to be an actual third party. The emails between the AFA and the DI would be interesting

Date: 2009/12/05 12:34:32, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I'm an engineer and I like the term empirical. Empirical as far as I remember means measurable. The world is full of data and as we create new instruments we find more and more data.
Since before recorded history man has tried to interpret this data. Initially, everything had a god behind it but as we got more and more data we could interpret this information and give it natural causes rolling back God(s) to smaller and smaller gaps.

Now to me God has basically two forms. One is an active God who gets involved intimately in the world. The second is a God who may have "got the ball rolling" at the start but has not been involved in the world since.

The second God we can never detect and never disqualify and will need to be taken on faith forever.

The second God will need to fit into one of these gaps and already the gaps are so small that he is looking rather odd. If he poofed creatures into existence he certainly did a bad job of it as many of the designs are extremely jury rigged. Man has been here for a very short time so he has created a very big universe a very long time ago just for us.

Now Dembski, Behe etc will tell you that the data already shows the signs of a designer. But repeatably they have demonstrated that they can only do this by ignoring a lot of the data. The recent debate between Meyer etc demonstrated this where data discovered over the last 9 years has pretty much demolished any of the IDists arguments.

To me the clincher against the second type of God is that we should find some non-random attributes to what we see as being random. Does any category of human win more/less lotteries, survive cancer, miss tornadoes better than any other kind of human?

Now the current bet is that you are some kind of creationist and as I have said this can only be achieved by ignoring or misinterpreting data.

Date: 2009/12/06 01:45:07, Link
Author: MichaelJ
John,

I might have misinterpreted your argument but I can't see why there can't be a god who is a meddler. I agree with Dembski and Behe in this. These guys are dishonest turds but say someone did find a biological structure that had NO possible evolutionary pathways? Or something less subtle such as the stars lining up and saying "Dawkins is wrong".

Date: 2009/12/06 05:20:34, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 06 2009,17:03)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,01:45)
John,

I might have misinterpreted your argument but I can't see why there can't be a god who is a meddler. I agree with Dembski and Behe in this. These guys are dishonest turds but say someone did find a biological structure that had NO possible evolutionary pathways? Or something less subtle such as the stars lining up and saying "Dawkins is wrong".

John wasn't denying the possibility that a meddling, trickster-type god could exist; rather, he was speaking of whether or not this "god"-thingie is something us puny humans can use science to investigate.

We can study god, we are already doing it in a negative way. Over the last couple of hundred years we have knocked out a whole raft of possible gods.
If there is any positive evidence that will give us a whole raft of information about god.

Date: 2009/12/07 13:23:17, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 08 2009,03:48)
Quote
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.


I'm dazzled.

Inquiry, you do realize that this is what you're actually saying?:

Quote
When a new species is created, it doesn't result in a new species.

I think that he means biblical 'kinds'. So, harking back to the other discussion what 'kind' is a tasmanian wolf? A Kangaroo kind or a wolf kind and please show working.

As we have quite detailed fossils of the evolution of a whale from a land beastie, what kind is a whale? Is it a cow or a fish?

What does the fact that Inquiry requiring a detailed video of a species changing 'kind' have to do with his original question. As far as I can see all he is saying is gap in knowledge == God.
The worse thing is that he seems pretty ignorant on the science, but then if he wasn't he wouldn't be a creationist.

Date: 2009/12/08 05:05:17, Link
Author: MichaelJ
What kind is tiktaalik? You could flip a coin but in any case the distance between it and a fish or it and an amphibian is smaller than the difference within some of your kinds.

Date: 2009/12/08 23:01:23, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Well Robert, waving your hands and saying that the differences are minor when the science shows detailed analysis and show that the differences are not minor means ...

You Lose...

Science is not a debate. Science is data and evidence, you have shown neither except for assertions, so

You Lose...

Until you get out of your armchair and do some work you are a  Loser.

No wonder atheism is growing. People like you say that it is either creationism or atheism. When creationism fails to answer the data people take you at your word.

Date: 2009/12/09 14:33:48, Link
Author: MichaelJ
These guys need to go back to kindergarten

Date: 2009/12/13 13:59:11, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I have some questions:
Is it normal for a professor to have so many publicity shots of themselves?
Is it normal for a scientific paper to be so jokey?

Date: 2009/12/14 22:01:31, Link
Author: MichaelJ
It's strange. Marks seems to be a narcissist but he is keeping a relatively low profile in the ID world. It seems that only ATBC knows that he is a creationist.

I wondered is they planned this. Get Marks to author the papers and get them published because he is unknown.

Date: 2009/12/15 03:10:51, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 15 2009,18:05)
Quote (George @ Dec. 13 2009,09:28)
Robert, while I'm here, I'll add that your arguments make baraminologists look like freaking geniuses.  At least they try to crunch a few numbers to justify their definitions of a "kind".  Have a look at Creation Science Quarterly (can't be arsed to provide you with the link).  There's a paper there by Todd Woods who identifies the family Canidae as a "kind" with no inclusion of Tasmanian wolves or any other marsupial.  This was based on analysis of a number of morphological characters, not just the "'cause it looks like one" and "it's got 'wolf' in the name" criteria.

Now don't get me wrong, baraminology and created "kinds" are just so much rubbish.  But your brand of rubbish makes theirs smell oh-so-sweet.  If you want to do anything other than display your own foolishness, such as having a coherent discussion, you'll need to step up the level of your argumentation and the evidence you provide.

These creationists would be wrong. not right about everything although farther along then 'others".
I wrote a essay and made my case there.
Remember its not about words but about rejecting the conclusion of evolutionists that convergent evolution explains the fantastic and prolific instances of creatures in different orders looking the same but said to be unrelated. Marsupials are just another case. i focus on them as they are more known.
My evidence is excellent. In fact convergent concepts are my evidence. I then put in a twist.

Evidence I see no evidence. You have done nothing more than so "is not" to anybody who has presented evidence.

Quantify the differences ...

Otherwise you are a loser

Date: 2009/12/21 19:29:34, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 21 2009,20:35)
How the ID world works, Part 1:

GrannyTard:  
Quote
I am a Canadian free speech journalist

But you have no free speech, at least on UD.

To be fair has she ever personally banned anyone? I think that she is probably pretty oblivious to what is happening at UD and buys the line that people are banned for rudeness rather than to hide embarrassing arguments.

I do think that she is a loathsome bigot in almost every other area.

Date: 2009/12/23 16:40:52, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (FloydLee @ Dec. 24 2009,06:51)
Quote
But when it has been said that this is going to happen while some of you are still alive...


Not "...this IS going to happen while some of you are still alive", but instead "...this COULD happen while some of you are still alive."  Very big difference.

That's the point that has now been fully established by rationally examining the actual text and context of the 1 Thessalonians Rapture text.  The biblical evidence is clear at this point unless anybody has anything else to offer.

Quote
As far as I am concerned, unless you can prove it is true, my claim that it is false stands.


I would ask why "your claim that it is false stands", given that Chay was the only person who brought up any kind of rational point in support of your claim that the 1 Thessalonians text was a lie.  Now that Chay's specific point has been critically examined in light of the clear biblical text and its context, and visibiy refuted on both counts, I see no rational reason to consider the Rapture text a lie.

Floyd Lee

The clear text meaning in any translation was the expectation that it would occur within the current generation.

I've seen the apologetics to this as well and it is only achieved by giving certain words meanings that are shared nowhere else in the Bible.
I think it is convincing to somebody who is desperate to hang on to a literal interpretation of the Bible but to the rest of us it is just funny.

Date: 2009/12/26 04:45:46, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (didymos @ Dec. 26 2009,18:20)
Gawd, StephenB is one thick son of a bitch:    
Quote

Should I ask the question yet a fourth time? How can you do science absent the law of causality? If one thing can come into existence without a cause, why not a thousand things, why not a million things? How can you interpret evidence reasonably if you can’t know which things were caused and which things were not caused?


There's this thing called 'observation', Steve.  You do it, and are able to figure out whether or not something has an identifiable cause, or likely does based on the presence of a pattern or somesuch other observed regularity or similarity to something else you've observed.  Then, you keep doing it, and are hopefully able to figure out various laws and processes. This works pretty well, given that cause-and-effect seems to be the rule for the most part...which we know because that's what we observe. Now here's the tricky bit:  if you can't identify the cause of a given event you...keep observing until you (or some other individual) can figure out what's going on (or at least get a rough idea).  If it turns out there is no observable Cause X for Event Y and/or your best theory tells you there ain't one to be found, well...you make note of the exception...and keep fucking observing anyway.  Yay! Science is saved from certain doom!

Without going to the site and feeling nauseous , I think that he is talking about ultimate cause. As in, Science can't give the answer to the ultimate cause of the universe therefore baby jesus is true.

Date: 2010/01/02 16:08:55, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 03 2010,02:32)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 02 2010,11:16)
 
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 02 2010,01:40)
Re. RDK's post above, for your convenience a working link:
       
Quote
Though her standards are usually not too high it may have not been the brightest of Denyse O'Leary's ideas  to join Examiner.com because it allows comments

The Examiner authors are able to delete comments.

Funny, that's what I guessed... AFAICT, would have been like a 2nd home to her.

does anybody else get the impression that the photo was try 200 of "Now Denyse try and smile naturally"

Date: 2010/01/06 02:46:39, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (tsig @ Jan. 06 2010,16:24)
Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 06 2010,00:38)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 06 2010,00:47)
I thought Lenny went to work for Domino's.

My bad.

He cheesed them off and they panned him.

I thought he got into a dick waving contest with his boss and she fired him.

What happened to Lenny's Pizza delivery man?

Date: 2010/01/07 05:23:05, Link
Author: MichaelJ
The thing is that before any of the dating methods and before Darwin people could figure out that the world was far older than 6000 years.

We go camping at the Wombeyan caves. These caves with stalagmites and Stalactites formed from marble. I'd like any creationist show me how you can form a deep coral reef. bury it, cook it by a nearby volcanoe. Massive caves slowly eroded by water and the limestone features metres high being created.

This is a process that takes millions of years, any quicker and it wouldn't work.

Date: 2010/01/07 15:58:00, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 08 2010,06:43)
MUST Read:

http://www.westword.com/1997-05-01/news/god-s-own-party

Barry 'Censorship' Arrington's less than illustrious past.

It doesn't say much for him that he is now reduced to moderating UD

Date: 2010/01/08 00:38:21, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 08 2010,15:23)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 07 2010,15:43)
MUST Read:

http://www.westword.com/1997-05-01/news/god-s-own-party

Barry 'Censorship' Arrington's less than illustrious past.

Thanks, that sheds a lot of light on Barry.  I especially like this bit:      
Quote
But Palmer and Burton saved their harshest words for Arrington, who they said "bullied and physically threatened those who disagreed with him and who causes controversy whenever he speaks."

The thin-skinned Arrington, after winning the election, slapped Palmer and Burton with a lawsuit, asking for a public apology and $10,000 because they'd called him a bully. The suit, which has been inching toward a settlement, had an immediate chilling effect on Arrington's foes.
I don't like the idea of filing libel suits, but since Barry does and since he said this about Cochrane:      
Quote
Cochrane is impatient with the “dignity criterion,” because it prevents actions that he deems beneficial, for example medical experiments on human guinea pigs that might lead to advances in medicine.
and also this:  
Quote
In Cochrane’s conception of morality, the strong dominate the weak and defenseless to the point of killing them on a whim (abortion) or using them as objects (medical research subjects).  And don’t bother him with your slave morality and its concepts of inherent human dignity.  For Cochrane, imposing one’s will on another is, by definition, “good.”
I'm having to re-think my position.  (Oops, there goes my career in ID.)  I wonder how Dr. Cochrane feels about Barry's remark.  I'd say it's worth at least $10,000 and a public apology.

But can't you only sue if it hurts your reputation. I'm sure that being rubbished at UD enhances a reputation.

Michael

Date: 2010/01/08 17:13:22, Link
Author: MichaelJ
So are Tasmanian Devils really Satan's minions?

Date: 2010/01/08 18:05:37, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 09 2010,07:56)
From Josh at SciBlogs - Bill Dembski Friday Meltdown!

Dembski Kisses Jesus Out Loud


Quote
Billy Dembski is concerned. His latest book, The End of Christianity, was attacked by a Baptist minister as a work of theistic evolution, and Dembski defended his honor by charging that windmill:


Go and read the whole thing!

Read the original review as well. It must have hurt Dembski that the reviewer had never heard of him.
Also the second last comment is good with a YEC taking him to task for being dishonest

Date: 2010/01/09 19:01:03, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Jkrebs @ Jan. 10 2010,05:47)
This is good: more Chesterton from Barry:

 
Quote
All the terms used in the science books, “law,” “necessity,” “order,” “tendency,” and so on, are really unintellectual, because they assume an inner synthesis, which we do not possess. The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, “charm,” “spell,” “enchantment.” They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit because it is a MAGIC tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched.


So there you have it: it's all magic that things happen as they do - no science needed with it's tedious and erroneous explanations.

ID, on the other hand ...

Isn't this another form of hyperskepticality that KF talks about.

Date: 2010/01/10 05:36:28, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 10 2010,16:42)
The loudspeaker in the ceiling is back!  
Quote


2

Nakashima

01/08/2010

3:19 pm

Mr DonaldM,

“way earlier”? I thought the difference was about 20 million years. If 20 million years is way earlier, please keep that in mind when discussing the Cambrian “Explosion” which happened across 50 million years. The start of that ‘explosion’ must have been way, way, way earlier than the end.

Nonsense. The best information we have now is that the cambrian explosion (no scare quotes I) happened over 5 million, but no longer than 10 million years. Nakashima, you can have your own opinions, but you can’t have your own facts. Editors.

DonaldM opened this vein.  Would he be "Editors" or can any highly ranked tard tack a comment on to a message?

I thought it was 3 days?

Date: 2010/01/11 14:40:53, Link
Author: MichaelJ
A sock should as Dense how she could make statements about Gould's thinking without reading what he had read. Also has she read any books on evolution?

I heard her on radio a couple of years back. She was ranting about Dawkins and his book and then admitting she had never read it.

Date: 2010/01/11 15:00:19, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 12 2010,02:21)
David Tyler (Mod)  
Quote
Many of the claims of Darwinians (for example, that over 99% of species are unrepresented in the fossil record) are inferences from their gradualistic presuppositions. Those of us who have not bought into the Darwinian mindset are therefore totally unimpressed by their conclusions.


But who is this Mr Tyler, a new (to me) moderator/poster at UD?
Well, Larry has the answer.
 
Quote
David Tyler is a Young Earth Creationist who belongs to The Biblical Creation Society. Tyler believes in the literal truth of Genesis. It's no wonder that he has some doubts since there's nothing in Genesis about peppered moths.

Yep, another creationist. No sir, ID has nothing to do with Creationism, nothing at all....

Ask him what he thinks of DrDr's book on Theodicy?

Date: 2010/01/13 00:51:50, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 13 2010,14:00)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 12 2010,17:10)
You'd think the LeaderTards would have a quiet word and tell him "You're not helping", but the beauty is they have no such awareness!

i've been enjoying this particular quality of Tards in other fora.  We have observed it so often at UD (big tent!) that it might be easy to forget that in general people who are at odds with reality tend to be quite forgiving of the baggage carried by anyone that says what they wish to hear.

I used to think the same but I think that this gives them too much credit. I think that they all have cognitive difficulties and don't comment on Joseph because they don't understand the argument

Date: 2010/01/23 18:02:16, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (khan @ Jan. 24 2010,07:29)
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 23 2010,17:16)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2010,10:56)
   
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 22 2010,22:12)
Just in: Eating right and exercise(?) solve all health problems!!!

JoeTard, MD

     
Quote
If people eat right and take care of themselves then health care won't be an issue.

Can I say how much I hate that crap? Some of us drew the short straw in DNA.

I wonder if maybe my genes are worth a fortune:

I measured 1.86m tall weighing around 63 kilos at 20, in 1950. That's been my matchweight ever since. All attempts at eating more to gain weight have been unsuccessful. I've always had a good appetite, and eat till my tummy aches.

My weight is a little less nowadays and I try not to stuff myself like I used to since that makes me uncomfortable.

I have two brothers, one older and one younger than me and they are of a similar build. There must be a reason. I suspect my brain is burning most of the energy.

I have inherited: cartilage degeneration, carpal tunnel syndrome, ulnar nerve entrapment.  Also migraines, but they went away after menopause.

Really want to smack those (including my idiot sister) who tell me that diet & exercise will 'cure' me.

While no doubt diet and exercise can make us feel better it is annoying that there are those who can think it can solve everything.

Similarly, The right approach and attitude is a great part of success** but this doesn't mean that sitting at home wishing for a sports car (ala 'the secret') is going to make it happen.

** Ever since I have started my own business, Marketing has fascinated me and a common theme of successful salesmen is not all just being gifted it is just being out there. A guy who won the award for best realestate salesman in the state told me that the industry average is 100 prospects per sale and his attitude is to hunt out those 100 prospects over a day or two rather than take weeks like other sales people. Richard Wiseman (I think) also did a study of 'lucky' people and found out that their luck took a lot of hard work and a few failures.

Date: 2010/01/23 18:20:01, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Happy Birthday to you both

Date: 2010/01/25 15:12:03, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Happy Australia day to all fellow Aussies. We are just off to the beach followed by the traditional BBQ

Date: 2010/01/25 16:45:51, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 26 2010,06:58)
Would anybody care to ask O'Leary what her proposed alternative is?
 
Quote
“a problem that has proved a conundrum for the past 30 years.”

One reason I got interested in this issue is that in virtually any viable field other than Darwinian evolution, if a problem has “proved a conundrum for the past 30 years,” people would be looking at other viable solutions.

Same old. Same old.

So unlike most of her mates she is okay with Geology, Cosmology, Vaccines, Climate Science and early US history?

Date: 2010/01/25 22:47:27, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 26 2010,13:23)
This might get interesting. idnet.com.au posts a thread "This is science??" with:        
Quote
The Royal Society, the foremost British science body is hosting a conference exploring extraterrestrial life. Given that there is zero evidence from any scientific study ever that there is any extra terrestrial life, why is this considered science when even discussing ID would never be sanctioned by the Royal Society?

These folk hate the idea that the idea that there could be intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. However, the central conceit of ID - we're not saying who the designer is - has to allow for the possibility of an extraterrestrial designer. You know, though, that inside they are saying to themselves "but is really just us, we are special and made in the image of Yahweh and there is no one else".

They then go on to backslap each other, erm, shoot themselves in the foot by saying that Stein really gotcha'd Dawkins  when he got him to say that ID could be true to the extent that alien seeding of life forms is an intellectual possibility. "Aliens - preposterous - the man is a fool".

I wonder what they make of Avatar?

PS - I see Gil has followed up with a B-D, 1-3 hybrid argument - link.

The difference between ET and ID is that nobody except kooks are saying that ET has been found.

If the fathers of ID have not been so slimy, I'm sure that there would be discussions around god's fingerprints on the universe. Around how we would study it, whether it could ever be science (rather than god of the gaps). I really think that the ID crowd have poisoned their own well on this subject.

Date: 2010/01/26 20:08:18, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (khan @ Jan. 27 2010,10:27)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 26 2010,19:58)
Ouch - the stupid hurts! O'Leary:
 
Quote
What I don’t understand is, if ecology is that fragile, how come life has existed continuously on Earth for about four billion years?

That much stupid should be painful, to the disseminator.

Hasn't she also somewhere said that humans have increased biodiversity on the planet due to all of the types of dogs we have bred.

Date: 2010/01/28 16:26:10, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I'm not a biologist but from my understanding, Lenski's experiment just displayed what was already known.

Now Behe says that the probability to get from point a to point b is a gazillion to one. What he overlooks is:


1. Evolution is not goal orientated and there could be a bazillion proteins that could perform the same function. He should take these into account.

2. Proteins are not binary as a near hit can have a partial effect.

3. there are a bazillion ways to go from a to b. Behe only looks at a single path straight from a to b.

Date: 2010/01/30 03:33:19, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Gunthernacus @ Jan. 30 2010,11:44)
porkies = pork pie = lie

I worked for a while with an Englishman on a construction crew.  Of course, most work days ended with a beer or three.  A pigs ear before heading home to the trouble-n-strife.

you mean a pigs ear before hitting the frog. We used to have a butcher's at the beach first.


frog == frog and toad == road
butchers == butchers hook == look

Date: 2010/01/31 17:47:21, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 31 2010,11:03)
StephenB:
       
Quote
If you don’t understand that the distinction is between the forces of nature and purposeful behavior I cannnot help you.

Stephen's dimwitted argument was lovingly explored here (beginning with a remark from Diffaxial to Jerry). As he is often wont to, he fled the thread once boxed around the ears, then used a flashy thingy on himself in order to believe that nobody has responded to his questions.

Well he is right nobody answers his Questions. Stephens standard debate goes
A list of bad assumptions - then a list of questions for the evil atheist to answer. The problem is that we question the bogus assumptions and Stephen sees this as changing the subject or rephrasing the question. So he always wins because we wont answer his Questions.

Date: 2010/02/04 04:23:41, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 04 2010,13:34)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 04 2010,13:25)
Casey does the Time Warp again!

Has anybody been following the News and Views at the DI's website?

Yeah, I noticed that too. The EN&V site has it that the article "...was to give you an alternative viewpoint on many of Ken Miller’s arguments and to help you critically evaluate his claims." However the PDF itself is a continuation of Casey's many-years-long whine about the Kitzmiller case.

Rather than wade through the dreck I did a quick word count - sure enough "Dover" comes up 13 times; "testimony" 15 times and "jones" 6 times. That was enough for me.

Get over it Casey - your side lost, and it was fair and square.

Edited to add a figure.

I'm not surprised really. It was probably the last time the NYTimes rang for an interview.

If I was at all talented, I would write something to the American Pie tune

... that was the day that ID died
   that was the day that ID died

Date: 2010/02/06 15:34:40, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 07 2010,04:19)
StephenB proves ID is science. ID answers questions!
 
Quote
By this standard, we can easily make sense of one of the many questions that the methodological naturalists cannot answer or even dare approach.

For the MN’s, a burglar [or an ancient hunter constructing a spear, or an ancient engineer building Pompeii] that is motivated by a material brain is a natural cause, while a burglar/hunter/engineer motivated by an immaterial mind is a supernatural cause, except of course that, for them, immaterial minds don’t exist, so never mind the supernatural cause after all. How can those who embrace such a proposition keep a straight face?

For ID, everything falls into place. A burglar, by definition, is simply an example of an intelligent agent of the human variety.

Got that? It's all so simple with ID!

I don't get it. What is it that we are afraid to ask or answer?

Date: 2010/02/12 06:48:48, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Robert is still here and not saying anything new. He does mention that we should let the people decide. Well I think that they have. There are two Facebook Sites. One pro-Evolution and One-Pro creation each trying to get a million fans. The evolution site is beating the creationist site 5 to 1. Compare this to the general US public where 40% of the population believes in Creationism of some kind.

I think that this is pretty clear that given exposure to both arguments, evolution comes up trumps.

Date: 2010/02/18 05:47:25, Link
Author: MichaelJ
To me "free will" is a meaningless concept. I think that free will as proposed by the UDiots can not be defined without God.

Date: 2010/02/20 22:34:06, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 19 2010,09:57)
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 18 2010,18:17)
I don't know about indoctrination, but I recall "learning" some things in basic science that I've since had to unlearn. I'm pretty sure that in grade school general science, we were taught that life came in two categories - plant and animal. Protozoans were labeled as a phylum of animals, and bacteria were labeled as plants. Oh, and fungi were described as plants that lacked chlorophyll. (I recall being startled on learning that fungi are closer related to animals than they are to plants.)

Also while in school, the number of chemical elements was 103 (well, either 102, 103, or 105 depending on which book I had at the moment), and now (at latest report that I've seen anyway) there are 117 elements that have been reported as having been detected, with atomic number 118 being the last one added to the list (number 117 is still unreported). (On a side note, an earlier reported detection of number 118 got retracted, and at that point the number of "known" elements went down instead of up.)

Henry

Part of the problem is that a large part of the populace seems to think that scientific facts are immutable. We do try to teach students that science is going to change conclusions as new data emerge, but most of them don't seem to get it. Apparently they would like to believe that scientists, like those who rely on "revealed truth", never change their minds.

It sounds like High School in Australia is very different. In Physics (I didn't do Biology, I was allergic to essays) we spent as much time, if not more, on history as much as learning the (then) current science.
So the idea that science changes seems natural. Also you could not get the creationist idea that science is always wrong just that a theory stands until more data comes in and a better theory takes it's place.

Date: 2010/02/25 04:34:20, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Shouldn't that last line read

Moreover, I will make it to the ultimate victory of ID in that  sweater.

Date: 2010/03/03 15:17:19, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I'm only going by what is captured in the august pages of this thread but wasn't Stephen recently saying that as the human mind is not material human design is supernatural design or was that another IDiot.

Date: 2010/03/03 19:39:31, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Just heard Dawkins on the local ABC radio about his new book. Just got me wondering if anybody else is heading to the convention in Melbourne (or Melbawrn as the Americans pronounce it)?

Date: 2010/03/03 22:13:45, Link
Author: MichaelJ
So in other words part of the definition of Specification is that which only an intelligence can produce, another nice circular argument

Date: 2010/03/04 23:53:08, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Pretty embarrassing for FL. He has ended up on a thread that he ran away from.

Date: 2010/03/05 00:54:47, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 05 2010,06:34)
[quote=midwifetoad,Feb. 02 2010,11:31][/quote]
Quote
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 29 2010,19:52)
There is now a Creation Letter Project in opposition to the Clergy Letter Project.

They're not doing badly. In two months they've had 11,000 visitors and 43 clergy signatures. :p


Late to the game on this, but I just saw FL's comment on the subject.

Seems to me that since the Creationist Letter Project is allowing just any ol' Tom, Dick, or Apologist sign on, perhaps there should be a simple Evolutionary Theory Letter Project on which anyone who affirms an understanding of evolutionary theory and process and can sign. It would be interesting to see just how many people would.

There is a facebook page trying to get 1000000 members by June

Date: 2010/03/05 15:54:38, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I think that the guy has serious problems and feel a little guilty about poking fun at the guy

Date: 2010/03/06 02:25:58, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Benny H @ Mar. 06 2010,12:13)
UD is flatlining. The last post there to have more than 100 comments was two weeks ago.

The other measure of UD falling off the map is that we seem to have been stuck on page 159 for ages. What happened to the days when I would log on in the morning and find 2-3 new pages of this thread.

Date: 2010/03/06 16:33:39, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Maya @ Mar. 06 2010,23:59)
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.

... because there is OBJECTIVE MORALITY AND every effect must have a cause AND it is impossible to be able to imagine something that doesn't exist AND it says so in the Bible which must be true because the Bible is the word of God

Date: 2010/03/10 15:42:54, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 04 2010,03:16)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 03 2010,09:10)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 03 2010,10:38)
Incumbent Geraldine “Tincy” Miller, lost to George Clayton. Both call themselves conservatives, but Miller was not a safe vote for the radical religious right.  Clayton  is the Academic Coordinator for North Dallas High School. He seems to be similar to Miller- more pro-teacher in fact.

I dunno about Clayton. According to this article, Clayton said  
Quote
"It's seems to me you can't be taught the one [evolution] without the other [creationism]. It's an impossibility to talk about evolution without mentioning creationism."

OH NOOES

Shit!

The jury is still out on this as I heard one interpretation of his statement to mean that children should be taught about the culture war not that creationism is an alternative to evolution.

Date: 2010/03/11 14:40:14, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 11 2010,01:40)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 09 2010,15:54)
Some crackerjack commentary:

 
Quote
God naturally intended the men e.i. husbands to earn a living for their families. God is still all about the family being one man and one women, in marriage. Parenthood, specificially motherhood is a high noble honor that is spat upon in this country. In the workplace I see good men underpaid and discounted. Even the pink hand of gayness is exulted. But I will love God and love His version of living b/c its the only one worth living.


Thankyou, lindapolver999.

IF ANY WOMANDS IS READING THIS, WHY ARE THEY NOT IN THE KITCHEN AND WHY CAN THEY READ? WHAT A WASITE.

ALSO, LOUIS' PINK HAND GETS MENTIONED!

I assume that "londapolver" is the commenter, and it sure sounds like that is a woman's name.  How dare she learn how to read!  And speaking up before men...verboten according to some passages in the bible.  Of course, maybe some man wrote it for her, which would excuse her complete misunderstanding of marriage in the bible, which was one man, many women - even if some were concubines or slaves.

No, women CAN comment after getting permission from their husbands. The big problem is that her internet handle should be her husbands name. So Leanne's handle would be mrsMichaelJ or wifeofMichaelJ and of course each post will need my prior approval.

Hang on I'll just shoot upstairs to tell my wife these rules, I'm sure she will be impressed

Date: 2010/03/11 14:44:21, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I would just like to retract my last comment. I'm going to take a little break from posting now as it is hard to type with two broken thumbs

husbandofLeanneJ

Date: 2010/03/20 18:24:25, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I disagree, I think that Dembski used to be much more severe. Most of the socks here would have disappeared after one or two comments.

Date: 2010/03/22 19:22:02, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 23 2010,01:22)
Quote
So information is not free.


More to the point, "information" is a label applied to a process. Information is not a thing, any more that "running" is a thing. Except to Platonists.

One of the speakers at atheistcon made the point that there is this kind of theology that has the habit of turning a verb into a noun and thereby proving god.

Date: 2010/03/30 20:10:11, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 31 2010,08:17)
Gee, BarryA has been strangely silent on the Hutaree arrests.

The responses will be
1. They weren't real Christians
2. If they weren't white and Christian they would have been left alone.

I think that the UD crowd is getting very boring and repetitious, I'm only here for the ATBC humour

Date: 2010/03/31 13:54:54, Link
Author: MichaelJ
While we are on human physiology can Robert please explain why God gave us a body more suited to running around on all fours causing most of us to have bad backs and knees.

Date: 2010/03/31 13:57:46, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (MichaelJ @ April 01 2010,04:54)
While we are on human physiology can Robert please explain why God gave us a body more suited to running around on all fours causing most of us to have bad backs and knees.

Speak of the devil*:

Design Flaws

*For some Christians PZ is the devil

Date: 2010/04/03 21:20:02, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (FrankH @ April 04 2010,06:33)
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:33)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:52)
So, how bout that challenge Joe?
I am ready-

Any time you want to start posting positive evidence for your position I will read it and respond.

Have you ever posted "positive evidence for ID" Joe?

I would like to see it.

As for "positive evidence for evolution", I give you this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/full/nature04637.html

Yes Joe, this is Rocket Science and yes, it takes study to grasp it.  There are no quick or easy solutions.

I've just read "The Greatest Show on Earth", Joe should start with that.

Date: 2010/04/07 02:25:11, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Is it Happy Paul Nelson day or Merry Paul Nelson day?

Date: 2010/04/18 18:44:32, Link
Author: MichaelJ
FL should realise that if he quotes a creationist he should check the facts as they invariably lie.

I see that FL has run away

Date: 2010/04/21 00:36:05, Link
Author: MichaelJ
"Who honestly cares if you are personally convinced or unconvinced?   I can't say I am. "

You should care. Dembski has not managed to convince anybody except those of a particular religiosity. Everybody else who has heard of him thinks that he is a crook.

Now, the ranks of Christians (especially the right wing Christianity) are thinning especially amongst the young, you can see it very strongly on the internet. While there are vocal creationists, I think that they are far out numbered.

Date: 2010/04/22 15:40:49, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (nmgirl @ April 23 2010,04:42)
From Gil

"The problem with most Darwinists is that they have no real-world experience in any hard-science discipline with real-world accountability (such as engineering), in which a proposed solution or mechanism must first pass the beverage-out-the-nose test, and then be empirically verified to be capable of what is claimed for it."

so trying to find a cure for aids or vaccines against swine flu or anitibiotics that will cure mrsa or cdif or tb is not "hard science"  I think saving the human race from anitbiotic resistant bugs is about as real as it gets.

This ignores the fact that though we have a concentration of creationists in engineering most engineers are "darwinists".

These guys need to make up their minds when they are a brave downtrodden minority or when they are the majority

Date: 2010/04/23 17:04:56, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Robin @ April 24 2010,05:06)
[quote=JLT,April 23 2010,13:31][/quote]
Quote
StephenBS:
   
Quote
There are many other ethical practices that a Christian could execute that would normally be out of range for an atheist, including the act of loving his enemies, refraining from lust, fulfilling his moral obligation to worship the Creator, and pursuing his final end.

The problem is not in identifying the moral obligations that atheists cannot fulfill but rather in finding atheists who will acknowledge them as moral obligations.

Why would that be, do you think? A conundrum.


I don't think I understand Stephen B's comment at all. Is he really insisting that there are no atheists who love their enemies and/or refraining from lust (as if any fundamentalist/evangelical Christians ever demonstrate such abilities...) or is he insisting that being an atheist means that such behaviors can't be considered "good"? Both of course would be erroneous statements as there are plently of examples of atheists who do love their enemies and who refrain from lust and who define such behaviors as "good" based on their negative impact on others. So what is Stephen B getting at?

He obviously has never talked to an Atheist or at least listened to what one would say.

However, if he was interested in really finding out other peoples point of view and learning something he wouldn't be an IDiot and we wouldn't be talking about him.

Sort of like catch-22 really

Date: 2010/05/02 03:59:42, Link
Author: MichaelJ
So if there is a paper on Biology who does the peer review? biologists or theologians

Date: 2010/05/02 04:31:18, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (sparc @ May 02 2010,19:00)
Quote (utidjian @ May 02 2010,03:11)
I figured I would take a peek at ratemyprofessor.com to see if Dembski had an entry... and he does:
William Dembski at SBC

Loved this entry:
 
Quote
You could NOT design a worse professor.

(bolding mine)

Last entry was in March of 2007. Perhaps he hasn't been teaching much in the past three years.

-DU-

Why is he listed under "Finance" department?

Wasn't he going to give a seminar in ID finance or something?

Date: 2010/05/02 04:33:00, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (DiEb @ May 02 2010,19:10)
From Bio-Diversity's Author Guidelines:

 
Quote
To facilitate review, manuscripts should be prepared as MS Word documents (in Times or Times New Roman 12 pt with 1.5 line spacing) with numbered pages, complete with all elements (figures, tables, equations, etc.) that should be present in the final published PDF file.


They don't expect many mathematicians to publish there, I suppose...

What do mathematicians normally do?

Date: 2010/05/02 06:07:43, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (utidjian @ May 02 2010,19:56)
Quote (DiEb @ May 02 2010,04:36)
Quote (MichaelJ @ May 02 2010,04:33)
 
Quote (DiEb @ May 02 2010,19:10)
From Bio-Diversity's Author Guidelines:

   
Quote
To facilitate review, manuscripts should be prepared as MS Word documents (in Times or Times New Roman 12 pt with 1.5 line spacing) with numbered pages, complete with all elements (figures, tables, equations, etc.) that should be present in the final published PDF file.


They don't expect many mathematicians to publish there, I suppose...

What do mathematicians normally do?

LaTeX/TeX (it really depends on their age, I presume)

It isn't easy to generate mathematical formulas in Word - and they look like crap.

Agreed, for math there is little substitute for TeX/LaTeX. Word has always sucked for doing math. Many of my physics colleagues use Word for physics though. I prefer LyX (basically a GUI for LaTeX.) Are mathematicians still using plain TeX/LaTex?

I suppose I could go down tha hall and ask some of our new professors but... not too many of them here at 6AM on a Sunday :P

-DU-

Gee, I amost got a little tear in my eye. I remember using Latex 25 years ago. It suppose it was pretty common in unis but we worked in a large firm.
This was pre-PC when word processors could only do bold, italic and underline.

When our group started producing multi-font multi-sized reports with embedded diagrams we were like kings

Date: 2010/05/02 06:57:32, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (olegt @ May 02 2010,21:40)
LaTeX is alive and well in physics.  In my field of condensed matter, experimentalists often submit their papers in MS Word, but theorists almost invariably use LaTeX.  Nature Physics accepts both.  The preferred format for arXiv submissions is TeX or LaTeX.  

And it's not just equations, even fonts look more professional in TeX-generated documents!

But I doubt that there are many biology journals that accept TeX, so no surprise that BC is Word-oriented.

If having a well formatted document is important I think Word is a pain. I've had the pleasure of formatting some dissertations for some friends and no matter how careful I am with the initial styles setup, I make a minor change to a heading in the body and for some reason the appendix will go into a bold font or something similarly weird.

Date: 2010/05/05 00:25:01, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 05 2010,12:34)
This is a routine down in the IkonBoard text parsing module:

Code Sample

sub chomp_url ($$) {
   my ($obj, $the_red_sea) = @_;
   return $the_red_sea   if    $the_red_sea =~ /^<img src=/;
   return $the_red_sea unless length($the_red_sea) > 70;
   return $the_red_sea unless $the_red_sea =~ m!://!;
   # Fix up 'dem pesky ampersands
   $the_red_sea =~ s!&amp;!&!g;
   $the_red_sea =~ s!(?:(\?)|[&;])s=[\w\d]{16,32}(?:&|;|$)!$1!g;
   my ($moses, $did_indeed) = split /\:\/\//, $the_red_sea;
   my @miracle = split "/",$did_indeed;
   my $worker = substr($miracle[1], 0, 7,);
   my $maybe  = substr($miracle[$#miracle],length($miracle[$#miracle])-7);
   return $moses.'://'.$miracle[0].'/'.$worker.'....'.$maybe;
}


A busted URL seems to be 140 characters to the break. The 70 character bit in the above seems a bit suspicious in that light. Anybody got a comment?

ETA: Never mind... that just truncates URLs for viewing. Something else must be doing the damage.

Who named the variables?

Date: 2010/05/07 22:23:29, Link
Author: MichaelJ
The church is blaming everything except themselves for the loss of kids from SRE.
I'm not surprised at the numbers dropping out. 10% of Australians go to church and a lot of parents send their kids to SRE because they think it will do them some good to learn ethics and morals. On the other hand some Christians take their kids out because some of the SRE teachers are truly awful (think afdave)

Date: 2010/05/14 03:18:14, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (didymos @ May 14 2010,10:00)
Quote (REC @ May 13 2010,16:44)
Cornelius, in typical fashion, decides to horribly misinterpret Douglas Theobald's nature paper, mis-arguing both the methods and conclusions.

After being corrected, Cornelius argues: "The paper doesn't say that, but the data does." Which is kind of calling the author a liar.

The author himself just posted, correcting him.

LOL.

Link

That deserves a full-quoting:
Quote
Hi George,

You've got pretty much everything backwards regarding the results from my analysis. My analysis does not test whether fusion hypotheses or strict tree-like evolution are better. The point is that UCA is the winner *regardless* of whether there was a fusion event or rampant HGT. In fact, the model selection scores clearly show that the Class II models (which include fusion scenarios) are the best. I did not directly address this issue, as it's not the point of the paper, and would require more sophisticated models to really nail down -- but if you read the supplementary material I show evidence from my data for the archaeal-bacterial fusion for the first eukaryote.

You also claim that "the entire analysis is based on sequence alignment scores", but that is incorrect. Have you read the methods?

Talk is cheap -- you can always criticize the models I used. But do the criticisms hold any water? The data speaks for itself, and the best models are the best models -- the model selection scores do not depend on my opinions, desires, or beliefs. The great thing about this methodology, is if you think you have a better model, with a well-defined likelihood function, that can explain the same sequence data, then you are of course able (and encouraged by me) to do the analysis, to throw it in the mix and see how it fares against the rest as judged by the model selection criteria.

Cheers,

Douglas Theobald


LOL indeed.

Great takedown. I wonder if Douglas new that one of Cornies big things is how we all look at the same data but get different results depending on our worldviews.
Douglas is basically saying okay model your world view and stick it into the program and see how it measures up.

If Cornie was honest he would pony up. Instead he saw the game was up and deleted the post.

Date: 2010/05/14 23:12:26, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (skeptic reborn @ May 13 2010,13:12)
Louis, sorry for the diversion but even though I realize the conservative/liberal labels aren't equivilent to ours over here, isn't the Cameron/Clegg partnership somewhat hard to rationalize?  Just curious.

I think the problem is that Clegg is a decent man and thinks that the Tories got the most votes and deserve to run the country.
Although he did have some meetings with Labor, so it is interesting to contemplate what compromises that the Tories will make that Labour would not.

Date: 2010/06/10 18:09:38, Link
Author: MichaelJ
For evolution they want mutation by mutation changes before they would even consider it true but they allow all of the unsupported assumptions by William Lane Craig to stand without question

Date: 2010/06/11 02:24:57, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 11 2010,16:39)
Interesting that this thread alone has been in existence for about 3.5 years, has 12,117 views, and thus has an average annual view rate of nearly 3,500 views/year. The Biologic Institute seems to be playing in "Low Expectations Theater" mode.

Wes, so if he gets 97k for 40,000 views then you must be a millionaire

Date: 2010/06/18 19:24:51, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Censoring posts on the we don't censor posts thread. is it no wonder the irony meters keep blowing.

Date: 2010/06/19 19:29:59, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I imagine that the Jesus section of the the book is just as groan worthy as the science section. I wonder if any of these guys read any real Biblical scholarship so they can get rid of the more obvious howlers.

Date: 2010/06/19 22:01:46, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (olegt @ June 18 2010,02:00)
Sal reminisces fondly:  
Quote
I'm really not complaing about Matheson. Personally I hope Matheson turns into anoterh Abbie Smith. He'll be a rich source of future quotations.

Yes quotes such as

"You Sal Cordova. You cottage cheese dripping pussy"

Date: 2010/06/24 06:53:36, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (dvunkannon @ June 24 2010,21:20)
Quote (Raevmo @ June 24 2010,02:27)
Clive in the next post:
   
Quote
So, the obvious truth is that morality doesn’t evolve; it may improve, but improvement implies a steady standard that is not changed, for if all were changed, there would be no improvement, no judgment could be made comparing two things to themselves. This seems obvious to me.

Let's strip the "argument" to its bare bones:

- It's obvious that A
- Maybe not-A, but not-A implies A, for if not-A then A.
- Therefore B
- Obviously

Clive, even if we accept the necessity of a standard, that doesn't make the standard absolute, perfect, or divinely inspired. The Farenheit scale is a standard way to measure temperature, and can be used to detect absolute changes in the temperature of two bodies even when the relative difference in temperature stays the same. But Farenheit was not divinely inspired.

These guys have no sense of history do they. 60 years ago said that the natural law was that the races should not mix. 200 years ago, slavery was part of the natural law.

If their current natural law was universal and unchanging there would have been no slavery, no WWII, no crusades.

Date: 2010/06/24 16:28:26, Link
Author: MichaelJ
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

Date: 2010/06/24 16:36:18, Link
Author: MichaelJ
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

Date: 2010/06/24 22:22:56, Link
Author: MichaelJ
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

Date: 2010/06/25 17:38:06, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Alan Fox @ June 26 2010,08:09)
Quote (Maya @ June 25 2010,02:58)
 
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.

 
Quote
Sidewiki is a feature of Google Toolbar, which is only available for Internet Explorer and Firefox.
says Google. Why is it not available with Chrome, I wonder. But please everyone post comments on Sidewiki, making sure you are commenting on the main page.

It is now available for Chrome!

Date: 2010/06/25 19:22:38, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Alan Fox @ June 26 2010,08:48)
Quote (MichaelJ @ June 25 2010,12:38)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ June 26 2010,08:09)
   
Quote (Maya @ June 25 2010,02:58)
     
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.

     
Quote
Sidewiki is a feature of Google Toolbar, which is only available for Internet Explorer and Firefox.
says Google. Why is it not available with Chrome, I wonder. But please everyone post comments on Sidewiki, making sure you are commenting on the main page.

It is now available for Chrome!

What, When?

Click on the spanner and select extensions and search for SideWiki.

Date: 2010/07/12 23:09:15, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Wow good going the IDers are taking a pounding, it is great to see somebody calling Sal a liar without the comment disappearing.

Date: 2010/07/15 16:30:32, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 16 2010,07:17)
Quote (fnxtr @ July 15 2010,12:15)
There was a brief flurry of "what are you reading" on the local PT bathroom wall. I'll repeat my recommendation of anything by Iain (M.) Banks (science fiction like "The Algebraist" or "Against a Dark Background", or more reality-based stuff like "Espedair Street"), or Gregory Benford.

Aye, There's a cat here who posts a GCU Grey Area. "Use of weapons" - great twist!

Unlucky Handmaiden's tail, I'm not reading you.

I actually enjoyed the handmaidens tail, but I read it a long time ago.

Date: 2010/07/15 16:45:49, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I think that the stats that kids are leaving the church in droves speaks for itself.

I think that the internet has a lot to do with it. While we will always have the FL, Slimy Sals etc, once these kids get onto the internet they figure out that they have been lied to.

One of the problems is that like abortion and GW denial, creationism is seen as part of the right wing ideological package.

Date: 2010/07/15 16:48:27, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Thanks, it's still my Birfday in the US which is cool as everybody here has stopped being nice to me.

Date: 2010/07/17 17:47:27, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Aardvark @ July 18 2010,06:33)
bornatard77 on why pi is equal to pi:

 
Quote
To me this order that we find imposed on the universe is no small wonder,, for example exactly why should the space-time that I experience always give me the correct value of pi and not some other value that is at variance with other people’s measurement for pi?


Wasn't pi=3 in biblical times?  Maybe he's [not] on to something...

Should mention to those who know more physics than the physicists that the value of pi changes depending on the local space-time curvature.

Date: 2010/07/19 02:35:36, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (fnxtr @ July 16 2010,09:17)
Trying to parse what you meant by that last sentence, MichaelJ.  

You mean "it's unfortunate that if you're conservative you're expected to swallow all this other crap too"?

Or "these things give the right a bad name"???

Sorry, I get a case of the O'leary's sometimes.

I was trying to say that I don't think that creationism is not always about religion but more about group identification.
I think that if a handful of key people came out and said that creationism is a joke then the stats would change.

Date: 2010/07/19 17:00:43, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ July 19 2010,19:02)
Also, jesting with AtBC's name (After the Asylum Closes) is spot on. As I see it, the Bar represents the place where we get the source for our entertainment, and then come here to talk about it. And that Bar is Uncommon Descent.

Lets see in an asylum you will find:

inmates that hear voices (check)
inmates that have paranoid fantasies about the government suppressing information (check)
Visitors are kept under strict supervision so as not to upset the inmates (check)
inmates constantly repeat the same conversation over and over (check)
some inmates communicate unintelligibly (check)

Yep it's an asylum.

Date: 2010/07/19 17:01:31, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ July 20 2010,05:40)
Quote (sparc @ July 18 2010,02:34)
BTW, why can't Sal mention Nature without putting "the prestigious scientific journal" or even "world's most prestigious scientific journal" in front of it. This time even capitalized:    
Quote
the Prestigous Scientific Journal Nature
.
(Spelling mistake in the original)

I have noticed that a few times.  Maybe it because even Slimy Sal could not bring himself to say Prestigious Journal Biocomplexity.  :D

Wasn't it because he had a letter or something published in Nature at one stage?

Date: 2010/07/24 20:11:29, Link
Author: MichaelJ
StephenB runs away in the end saying a poem. Gaz is good but you guys who go over there are patient. I usually view UD from the protected shield of ATBC. I usually end up kidding myself that there is a bit of exaggeration about the tard levels. But really StephenB brings up his laws about causality and non-contradiction again. Gaz (as others have done) bring up how this falls down at the quantum level.
But the bafflegag that occurs from the ID crowd.

I can't even parse VividBleau:

"Great we are making progress. If there is no LNC you have no way to assert that the evidence that quantum phenomena have no cause eliminates the contrary."

I think that he is saying that if there is no LNC then Gaz is not contradicting it so then LNC is not contradicted and so the law exists.

Date: 2010/07/28 21:36:13, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 29 2010,07:54)
StephenB is living in the past:
 
Quote
—Petrushka: “Haeckel’s drawings are not defrauding any children.”

Thank you for your honest answer. In your judgment, the Darwinists who knowingly publish Haeckel’s bogus drawings are not lying, they are telling the truth.


He reminds me of a gutter journalist who whatever you say jots down the worst possible interpretation instead.

It would take more to correct the misrepresentations then you'd care to spend. Why bother. He probably knows perfectly well how wrong he is, but some thing wrong in the brain with that one I think.

I bet if you tried to asked Stephen to name 2 textbooks published in the last 20 years that has the drawings you would be instantly banned.

Date: 2010/07/29 17:50:07, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 30 2010,06:06)
Quote (Robin @ July 29 2010,15:27)
StephenB is such a swell guy:

 
Quote
Meanwhile, my quesion[sic] for you persists. Are Darwinists who knowingly use [used] Haeckel’s drawings lying or are they [were they] telling the truth.

If you are not up to answering this question, I can do it for you.

One of StephenB's most persistent tics. If you decline to walk the Socratic garden path he has laid before you, he provides answers himself, obviously out of frustration over having been thwarted.

Weird.

Are the creationists who knowingly say that modern textbooks are using the drawings lying or are they telling the truth?

Date: 2010/07/31 00:32:19, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Is he really that dumb

Date: 2010/07/31 00:52:39, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Is it just me of is Cornelius Hunter getting crankier. Quoth Corny

"David:

===
'And so there is no excuse for lying in the guise of science. But lie they do.'

To “lie” is to knowingly state a falsehood. So, Dr Hunter believes that Johnson and Losos know that their claims are false, but are promulgating them anyway. He’s not saying that they are mistaken, but that they are deliberately bearing false witness, which is a heinous sin.

I wonder how Dr Hunter can know this. What power has enabled him to see into the souls of Drs Johnson and Losos and discern their cognitions and motivations?
===

Good point, maybe they're just insane.
"

I can imagine the spittle dribbling through his beard when he wrote that.


Linky

Date: 2010/07/31 17:41:57, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (REC @ Aug. 01 2010,05:34)
jadavison said...

Cornelius

Will you please remove my weblog from your links. I find your behavior and tactics embarrassing and I want nothing more to do with you or your clientele. If you don't remove it, I will alert the world that you refused me!

jadavison.wordpress.com

Thanks.

I love it so!!!

Wow JAD ejecting himself from a blog. Is this the first sign of the apocalypse?

Date: 2010/07/31 20:42:25, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Joe G @ Aug. 01 2010,00:08)
Let x = $10 and y = $20

The set {x,y} contains $30

the power set { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } also contains $30.

$30 = $30


Does anyone disagree with that?

If you disagree can you provide a valid resource that agrees with you?

the fact that you are discussing set-theory and decide that the test for set equilavency is based on adding the items of the set shows how dumb or dishonest you are.

Date: 2010/08/01 19:00:07, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Beelzebub667 @ Aug. 02 2010,08:55)
Typical small-time shady operation.  Look, they know their mice are unusably flawed, but instead of doing the truly honorable thing and sending everyone who has already wasted their time and effort with it a new, fixed mouse, hassle free, they want to recoup the losses of their incompetence.

No so much shady but incompentant. You think that you would at least spend some time testing the production mice before shipping.
These sound like pretty major flaws

Date: 2010/08/02 18:32:26, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 03 2010,07:28)
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."

Funny then how God has human emotions and I doubt that few Christians can think of God without seeing a grey bearded patriarch.

Funny isn't it that during the early iron age where the middle east consisted of waring tribes that God appeared to be a uber-warlord.

I'm not as edumecated as most of you but I can't see how abstract!=real. To me abstract art works because of the imperfect wiring of the brain.

Date: 2010/08/05 01:09:42, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I went to his blog and what an absolute train wreck. Are you sure that he isn't eight years old?

How about "The Four Fundamental Entities of Intelligent Design" where he thinks that plasma is another Entity apart from energy or matter. This almost cost me a keyboard.

Date: 2010/08/05 18:40:21, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 06 2010,00:16)
Here we go:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/08/darwinianism-and-evolution.html

Vox Day = Corny.

What is it about these rightwing nut jobs? They paint themselves as rugged individuals who think for themselves but they all have exactly the same bag of beliefs

Date: 2010/08/06 03:15:28, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 06 2010,09:44)
Will somesock do me a favor and get a straight, unequivocal answer to this question:

Denyse, have you ever actually read a single one of Charles Darwin's works?

I mean, not like an Amazon book review, or a bashing on Uncommonly Dense, but the actual work itself, cover to cover.

If somesock could get an honest answer to that, I'd like to see the same question posed regarding the works of Richard Dawkins.

Thanks in advance.

ETA: Methinks it is like a Kwok.

I heard her on Australian Radio once with Robyn Williams (a science reporter). She was railing on about Dawkins for five minutes before she was asked if she had actually read the God delusion. She answered no that she thought there were better books out there to read.

Date: 2010/08/07 19:33:37, Link
Author: MichaelJ
One problem is that we Australians rip out coal to sell to Chinese to burn to make power to make goods to sell to the US. Where does the CO2 get booked on this map?

Date: 2010/08/16 01:18:06, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Seversky @ Aug. 16 2010,14:53)
Quote
3: If the mind is reducible to the chemical constituents of the brain, then human autonomy and consciousness are illusory because our free choices are determined by the dual forces of chance and necessity.

Ummm, point of order:  if the outcome of any decision-making process is truly a question of chance to any degree, it cannot be absolutely predetermined, which is what is being proposed as the only alternative.

Therefore
 
Quote
u r doin it rong

Whereas God gave us free-will even though every thing is predetermined by said God.

Date: 2010/08/21 20:33:54, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Aug. 22 2010,06:59)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Aug. 19 2010,16:49)
 
Quote (dvunkannon @ Aug. 19 2010,14:36)
     
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Aug. 19 2010,15:25)
New game: guess the poster!  The following wordle is from a thread from a year ago...


Too easy, it has Lewontin, GEM, and TKI in it.

(the file name of the .jpg was also a bit revealing)

Perhaps I should have named it GordonMullings.jpg  Almost nobody knows that GEM of TKI is Gordon Mullings, otherwise he would not  freak out when he is referred to by name.

OMG, troy outed him on Corny's spin-off:
 
Quote
In honor of a new contributor to this blog, Gordon E. Mullings, one might even call such attacks on Darwin strawmen soaked in the oil of ad hominem and ignited to poison the atmosphere, or something like that.

GEM will hit the roof which is a shame as it is more fun to see him slowly come to a boil as his arguments are demolished

Date: 2010/08/25 18:50:01, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 25 2010,20:26)
Is Denyse losing her audience?  

Her latest post, about the End of the World was written Tuesday and so far has attracted two responses, one clarifying the likely end of the world and the other saying, "Great Post!"

Her next latest post, a Coffee!! post about Bats being more dangerous than mothballs(sic) was also posted Tuesday and so far has attracted no replies.

Her next next latest post, Memory treatment is possible was written Monday and has 1 reply, which says "Cool Story."

Even Cornelius is doing better than that.  I know the average UD poster has not suddenly gotten a lot smarter, so I am forced to speculate that the problem is on O'Leary's end.  And I don't want to think about that.

Thong.

I just had to look and what struck me first was how literally she takes everything:

"The information race between bats and a favoured prey, moths, is described as an arms race (it is actually a race to interpret clicks. Neither party is armed, and certainly not the moth.)"

Somebody mentioned this about JoeG and I wonder if this is part of their disease. It would explain why they don't have a sense of humour.

The second thing was this quote:


"As is characteristic of legacy mainstream media, the story must all be interpreted dogmatically through Darwinist theory. But what’s missing from this very interesting account is how – exactly – the information race could evolve. “Natural selection” is increasingly evoked as a mere incantation, in the face of ever-growing awareness of complexity that are beyond its powers. That is, natural selection must be the cause because we “know” it is true."

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.

Date: 2010/08/25 20:42:13, Link
Author: MichaelJ
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.

Date: 2010/08/26 08:24:37, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Wow sounds like the false defiance of a six year old caught with his hand in the cookie jar. I think that Clive is still smarting from his venture from behind the UD skirts.

In the word salad Clive failed to mention why he rescinded.

Hey has the comment disappeared?

Date: 2010/08/26 08:27:09, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Mispoke -- I realise that the Clive quotes are from other places.

Date: 2010/08/26 17:28:51, Link
Author: MichaelJ
You 'Merkicans are very confusing. I come here get the impression that it is a rabid religion obsessed country but I watch your TV and it is the complete opposite.
One show that I'm watching at the moment is "Modern Family" which has premarital sex, a gay couple with an adopted Asian daughter. A divorce. The fathers are definitely not respected.

All the shows like this and fairly liberal. What do the wing nuts watch? Are there shows that don't get exported?

Date: 2010/09/02 02:35:58, Link
Author: MichaelJ
So when is BarryA or Dense going to write the Darwinism leads to this thread

Date: 2010/09/02 17:09:42, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Bundberg or Bacardi?

Date: 2010/09/02 17:10:32, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (MichaelJ @ Sep. 03 2010,08:09)
Bundberg or Bacardi?

BundAberg (I'll have to ask for one of those edit button thingies

Date: 2010/09/02 19:18:58, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Happy very belated Birthday

Date: 2010/09/04 01:31:09, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Seversky @ Sep. 04 2010,14:20)
The usual suspects at Uncommon Descent revel in the story of "Darwinist" gunman James Lee.  Kairosfocus, predictably, waxes logorrheical about this crime being a sign of the malign influence of evolutionary theory on society at large.

Strangely, I don't recall Gordon and the rest (hi, Clive) making a similar argument about Christianity following this story:
 
Quote
BOULDER, Colo. -- A 24-year-old ski lift operator who fatally shot the general manager of the Eldora ski area was determined to kill co-workers who weren't Christian, according to court records obtained Thursday.

The documents, filed Wednesday in Boulder District Court, said witnesses told authorities that Derik Bonestroo walked into a building at work, fired a gun into the ceiling and said: "If you're not Christian, you're going to die."

General manager Brian Mahon was shot and killed Dec. 30 at the ski area west of Nederland, Colo., in Boulder County.

Witnesses said when Bonestroo asked Mahon's religion, Mahon said "Catholic" and Bonestroo shot him twice: in the chest and head.

He wasn't a real Christian,  Dontcha know

Date: 2010/09/12 21:24:30, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Manly he-men like Rock Hudson would be shocked about the way broadway carries on now.

Date: 2010/09/17 17:40:07, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 18 2010,07:30)
http://kevinwrites.typepad.com/otherwi....on.html

Quote
That's right, I'm working with Kirk Cameron...

I thought that he wasn't a YEC. Doesn't matter honesty wasn't one of Kevin Miller's strong suites.

Date: 2010/09/21 00:19:47, Link
Author: MichaelJ
At the Australian Atheists Conference a lot of the ex-creationists do describe that deconverting is like finally growing up.

Date: 2010/09/21 02:20:51, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Point 1 is crap as they do nothing but question evolution.
Point 2 if you kicked out all of the IDers who deny that the universe is billions of years old and that the scientific interpretation of the fossils is correct you would have an almost empty room.
Point 3 and Point 4 nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean

Date: 2010/09/21 05:29:19, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 21 2010,18:47)
Why Gil Dodgen really doesn't believe in evolution:    
Quote
My mathematically oriented interests — software engineering in general, computational number theory, and artificial intelligence — were major factors in convincing me that Darwinian chance-and-necessity orthodoxy is an irrational, totally unsupported, Himalayan-sized dung heap of hopeless speculation.
Children's fantasy books had nothing to do with it.
Link

I still think the real reason was that Gil's father was reeeaall smart and probably had scientist friends who were reeeaaalll smart. I don't think that Gil could cope with not being the smartest man in town so when the creationists came around and told him that these guys are really dumb he fell for it, hook line and sinker.

Date: 2010/10/07 17:12:20, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (DiEb @ Oct. 08 2010,07:55)
Without much fanfare, Dembski and Marks published there paper The Search for a Search a couple of weeks ago.

While it is better than there draft, it just does not work. Rob (I assume, it is R0b) wrote an interesting critique (here his pdf), and I planned to write a letter to the publisher (but I haven't followed through yet).

At least, I updated thoughts on this for RationalWiki. The article need much polishing, and I haven't included everything I wanted yet, but I would rather enjoy some feedback! So, please do have a look at:

The Search for a Search - Measuring the  Information Cost of Higher Level Search

Does anybody else get the opinion that Dembski has lost interest in the mathy stuff. He pops out books on theology faster than short "science" papers.

Date: 2010/10/07 17:16:17, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 08 2010,04:13)
Jeez, I hate to interrupt the Wedding Bells*, and maybe this should have its own thread, but Son Of Behe announces he's now an atheist....

Hilarity ensues

Behe Jr Now Atheist

added in edit:  Scooped by PZ!

* Not since richardthughes and FTK almost gave us our first ATBC wedding!
No, I was NOT going to cry!

I wasn't surprised that one of his kids becoming an atheist. What surprises me is that a man who's main meme is that the science establishment is overly dogmatic forbids the other children from talking to the atheist son.

Date: 2010/10/08 16:37:59, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I'd ask him why if he believes in Academic freedom why does he keep his son in the basement for disagreeing with him.

Date: 2010/10/11 20:52:44, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Bettina must get the award of non-sequitur of the week

Date: 2010/10/12 02:04:38, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 11 2010,13:09)
O'Dreary leads with her chin:
 
Quote
But I’d be curious to know why atheists are attracted to science fiction (not necessarily with happy results, by any means), and why there is so little good science fiction out there from a theistic perspective. Any thoughts?


The Genesis book of the Bible qualifies quite nicely.

It would blow these guys minds to find out that atheists are no more unhappy than the rest of the population.

Date: 2010/10/12 02:31:08, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 12 2010,13:12)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1516009/

 
Quote
Some lies just have to be told.

It's got me curious. In this movie who is doing the lying? I couldn't quite tell and the production company has done some Christian movies. Not that Christian necessarily means Creationist.

Date: 2010/10/12 02:35:51, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Sorry just did a bit more googling and it is a creationist movie

Date: 2010/10/13 02:25:26, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (JAM @ Oct. 13 2010,10:08)
Corny jumped the shark today, claiming that "And Miller did not explain the great number (more than a thousand) genes unique to the human genome."

What a liar!

http://tinyurl.com/2aa67zk

Corny jumps the shark so often that the shark is getting head spins

Date: 2010/10/20 15:52:00, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Poor Bill,

Obviously the ID biz doesn't pay enough to tell the college to FO. He must be worried about being Expelled.

Date: 2010/10/21 00:36:46, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 21 2010,00:36)
The world is a worse ummm better ahhhh . . . place without DaveTard.

Surely there must be some slimetrail trace of him somewhere?

He pops up from time to time on Global Warming sites.

Date: 2010/10/23 01:57:15, Link
Author: MichaelJ
With all due respect to Robin, I think that from quotes I have seen that Dembski was pretty close to being a theist except he believed in a literal Adam and Eve and God caused the changes in creatures not evolution.

I think that all that happened was that was that he was threatened with expulsion and said whatever he had to say.
Why say "ordinary space-time" if it doesn't mean 7x24 hour days. Also the global flood makes no sense in an OEC context.

Now Dembski is trying to rapidly backpedal and try and force what he said to fit into an OEC context, in the hope that his colleagues don't read blogs

Date: 2010/10/26 20:26:07, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 27 2010,06:59)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 26 2010,15:48)
This is how I imagine* FtK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU3xatin1yY&feature=channel

*Cue comedy machine.

Wait. She promised "other fun hand motions."  Is that behind the paywall?

I can't somehow imagine FTK smiling

Date: 2010/10/28 02:19:08, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Happy Birthday, I'm part Czech but not part supermodel

Date: 2010/10/28 22:27:18, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Happy Birthday. I met some Texans in the 1980's when Aussies where the flavour of the month. The line that has stayed with me is when one of them said to us "Y'all sure talk funneh"

Date: 2010/11/08 17:50:26, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Do any of these clowns wonder why Dembski never talks about EF and CSI any more? Dembski himself basically came out and admitted that without perfect knowledge you can't calculate the EF of even the simplest systems, that you will get false positives and false negatives.

He did retract it but only we all laughed at him again.

Even though Joe likes to ignore all of the evidence all he is saying is that scientists don't know everything therefore God.

The EF probably would not apply to alien technology. How do you know a crystal is a crystal and not an unpowered alien computer?

Date: 2010/11/08 20:09:33, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Biologos must be becoming as bad as Judge Jones to Luskin. They put a big hole in the Evolution=atheism=Nazi theory.

I bet Casey's current wet dream is to be called to the new congress after they have dealt with those pesky Climatologists.

Date: 2010/11/08 20:21:42, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Biologos must be becoming as bad as Judge Jones to Luskin. They put a big hole in the Evolution=atheism=Nazi theory.

I bet Casey's current wet dream is to be called to the new congress after they have dealt with those pesky Climatologists.

Date: 2010/11/11 02:50:30, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 11 2010,03:35)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 10 2010,11:21)
Joe G:
 
Quote
And my back problems are most likely due to jumping out of perfectly good airplanes.


Oooohhh!!! I can take him on that one anytime. I'm a former paratrooper and currently a skydiving instructor.

Joe, let's talk about skidiving. No googling allowed!

First he said he hurt his knee while being a fighting hero in Iraq, then it was his back that was hurt in combat there, now he says his back was hurt from skydiving.

Joe is living proof of the adage 'a liar need a good memory' to keep his stories straight.

Do we have any pilots here?  Joe also claimed to be a pilot qualified to fly multi-engine aircraft.  That would be interesting to quiz him on.  I wonder how he passes the FAA medical requirements with all of his debilitating war injuries?

He also said that he hurt himself as a military contractor in Iraq.

Date: 2010/11/15 23:35:42, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 16 2010,13:03)
I still say there's a plant in the DI.  Someone is the ultimate poe by getting a job there and convincing them that these ideas are good ones.

"Hey, this looks like a discrimination case, we should sue."

I say Luskin, nobody could be that dumb

Date: 2010/11/18 23:45:38, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Michael Heath at Dispatches was saying he thought Dembski was the winner.

In any case, the real winner will be anybody from the school that still has an open mind.

Date: 2010/11/19 22:20:38, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 17 2010,03:59)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 16 2010,10:38)
Maybe the right will become disenchanted with the DI. It is obviously they're looking to fabricate something that isn't.

The rightists don't mind James O'Keefe, or using thugs. Why would they mind the Discotutes.


PS: The cross complaint was a really fun read. The AFA, and DI are screwed!

Unfortunately for the right they need a group like the DI. Fortunately for us they are so incompetent. The danger is if somebody could come along and do the sneaky stuff competently.

Date: 2010/12/02 03:20:39, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 02 2010,15:25)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 01 2010,22:46)
Having lost the last popularity contest Quark Expeditions put on, I immediately signed up to try it again, this time for a trip to the North Pole. Vote early, if you please...

I was numbah ... Five!  Three, sir!  (five actually - what's with you people...Vote!)

Maybe we can get the UD crowd to vote - just don't tell them he's coming back!

Good luck.

Number 6

Date: 2011/01/02 18:50:26, Link
Author: MichaelJ
This is the problem with modern society. Anybody can see that this guy seriously needs help but unless he asks for it himself or he actually does something illegal nothing will happen.

My brother-in-law is the same. He has been caught by police trying to commit suicide a couple of times but is always released the next day. Nobody can do anything until he actually asks for help.

Date: 2011/01/09 19:16:55, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,11:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 08 2011,20:10)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,19:31)
 
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 06 2011,10:01)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 05 2011,20:11)

   
Quote
Tell me how many people have been slaughtered by Atheistic Countries, or none Christian countries? You seem to think that those who follow God are the problem. I also have a problem with Religion, and there are many Religions, but there is only one true God, only one that we can have a Relationship with.


What an ignorant question that completely misses the point. What country or countries have ever slaughtered people  in the name of atheism? Any? No. Not a one. In fact, I can't think of any single person who's ever been killed in the name of atheism. Yet billions of people have been slaughtered in the name of Christianity alone. Try again, IBIG.

Here is the post that started all of my posts about killing in the name of Atheism Ogre. Yes this was about Atheism Ogre you are wrong. You want to change the subject, because you are wrong. So, you can't handle being a miserable?

Let me ask this question, is the current war between the Palestinians and Israel and religious war? Or is it a battle over land?

That's right IBIG, you still can't say that atheists killed people because they were religious.  There were additional factors, unlike all the instances of Religious people killed other religious (or non-religious) people.

The history has been explained to you, you don't want to get it or think that it makes all the deaths by Christians OK.  That's not our problem IBIG.

Christians (and other religions) have killed waaaaay more than any atheists have ever even tried to.  You can't get away from this fact and it makes everything else, pretty much moot.

Then you can't say that Christians killed because they were Christian, there were other factors. Don't you see the silliness of your argument.

I'm sorry but you have no idea what actual history really is. You and your ilk revise history to you liking.

Stalin killed 21 million Christians, because He didn't want anyone to practice their Christianity, or any religion. You don't know what you are talking about. I believe if you were a dictator of a country, that you would outlaw all religions, and would eliminate those who broke your law by imprisonment or death. I really believe that you have that much hatred against the practice of ones faith.

I don't agree with you that Christians (and other religions) have killed waaaay more than any atheists have ever even tried to. Why do you back that up with actual verifiable numbers, and remember you have to demonstrate that these Christians were true Christians and not (wolves in sheep's clothing) "False Christians" out to devour.

IBIG - Do you have a reference for the 21 million people killed for practicing Christianity? I have no doubt he killed that many people, but I hadn't heard it was because they were practicing Christianity.

That's what  gets me about these guys, they will happily make shit up then accuse Atheists of not having morals

Date: 2011/01/09 20:15:12, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 10 2011,10:29)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 09 2011,19:16)
...

That's what  gets me about these guys, they will happily make shit up then accuse Atheists of not having morals

Well, many Creationists believe that slandering and lying or committing any other sins is permissible, automatically pardoned, and aggressively encouraged if it's done for Jesus.

It is ironic that Creationists hoop and holler about how following a literal interpretation of the Bible is the primary requirement of salvation while possessing this attitude.

I did some fact checking and although Religion was suppressed but not forbidden. A lot of religious leaders were arrested but this was mainly because they were supporters of the old corrupt regime and acting against the state.

I think that the big losers during Stalin were the peasant farmers, intellectuals, ethnic minorities and non-Christians. Some links:

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

So we have that people by and large were not killed in the name of Atheism, most died due to appalling economic policies and being seen as enemies of the state. Not that this would stop ImaBIGliar from continuing to use this.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989....in.html

Date: 2011/01/10 17:50:11, Link
Author: MichaelJ
If it wasn't about religion nobody would have seriously entertained creating the state of Israel post world war II. Could you imagine a group of people saying I want this country for ourselves because we lived here 2000 years ago?

Date: 2011/01/12 16:14:47, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 13 2011,04:15)
Anyone seen David Mabus recently?  How's his campaign to nuke us all going these days?

Anyone still think that people who make threats are harmless?

I wonder if he has enough presence of mind to realise that the police might be taking threats seriously at the moment.

Nah, he probably took the right meds by mistake.

Date: 2011/01/14 00:00:34, Link
Author: MichaelJ
IBIG is back. He must have forgotten to show the reference where Stalin killed 20 million for practicing religion.

Date: 2011/01/18 17:16:54, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 17 2011,20:37)
While y'all are spending your time watching Vince Torley overestimate his standing in the world, something much more life affirming is going on in Barry Arrington's life over at First Things.

Long story short, Barry was out on New Year's Eve with his wife, imbibing in intoxicating beverages, close dancing, and what not.  And, what should he see?  Two same sex couples at the same event!  And, even worse, they were acting completely normal!  No Castro Street drag queen flamboyance or nuthin!  And no passive-aggressive tut-tutting from the assembled personages neither!  

Barry despaired!  Has his side lost the culture war?  Will he be forced to spend the rest of his days surrounded by gay couples acting like, well, everyone else?  What will he do? But, as luck would have it, he read the article "Moral Awakening" and the clouds parted.  He felt renewed. In the end, in the face of humanity, he was able to rise above it all and retain his prejudices!

What a heart-warming story!

I posted to to the first things site:

Barry likes to think in absolutes but I am sure that a spritual ancestor of his would have had the exact same thoughts 50 years ago seeing a mixed race couple dancing. Social Conservatism is just society minus 50 years. Social conservatives of their various times  fought against desegregation, civil liberties, women voting, freeing of the slaves.
Barry's spiritual descendant of 50 years will be convinced it was those evolutionists who were against civil liberties for gays.

Date: 2011/01/19 04:26:57, Link
Author: MichaelJ
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]

Quote (yrobotsy99 @ Jan. 19 2011,13:14)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 18 2011,22:12)
The same note again.  Can't you even try to be creative?

Fuck, you're crazy, stupid, and dull.  Why don't you go back to frightening small children, you buffoon?


The MadPanda, FCD

madpanda. you cease to exist today....

In what timezone?

Date: 2011/01/19 12:48:22, Link
Author: MichaelJ
IBIG has run away again

Date: 2011/01/21 02:25:42, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Oh IBIG is back. You said that Stalin killed 20 million people for practicing Christianity. Can you show the reference please or were you just making things up?

Date: 2011/01/25 23:58:22, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 26 2011,09:26)
While you people have all been yammering on to Kris/IBIG/Ftk or wishing happy birthdays or whatever you haven't noticed the growing excitement at UD - it's looking more and more likely that Darwinism is about to fall!

Doesn't the article actually debunk their pet idea that science is an atheist conspiracy.

The fact that younger scientists are more religious could be part of an actual process where scientists tend to lose  their religion as they get older. From what I have heard a lot of theologians do as well.

Date: 2011/01/26 00:37:43, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Wow I read the other Denyse story:

Drag the rotten carcase etc...

and even the parts she quotes don't say what she think she says and none of them say that evolution is wrong.

I'm not a scientist but it totally flabbergasted me. Denyse even says after one of the quotes:

"Hmmm. No idea what he is talking about except that the “neo-Darwinians” (now the bad guys) made the mistake of assuming “a creative rather than selective view of natural selection”. In other words, they thought natural selection could create information and it can’t."

Date: 2011/01/27 21:01:55, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I believe that you could create a theological position that supports Abortion (As somebody wrote somewhere recently "If men had babies, abortion would be a sacrament").

However, I can't see why these same people support capital punishment. Isn't this taking away the possibility that they may repent and be born again and saved?

Date: 2011/01/31 06:13:14, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I believe that Christians will be a minority within a generation, even in America. There is just too much information out there now that we didn't have when we were growing up.

I think that the main problem is Christianity itself. The big problem is that God is omni-everything. If you are omni-everything, how can you have a personality - especially one that resembles a 3 year old. It doesn't do a good job of explaining suffering either. If you are a white American with affluent parents and blessed with low libido and a high boredom threshold it is a cinch to get into heaven compared to someone who has drug addicted parents who abuse you and force you on the street at 10.

I personally think that the Eastern religions* make a lot more sense as the whole idea is to evolve our souls to be able to get to the next level of existence and suffering is part of the process. Rather than good and evil you have ying and yang which are more like complementary forces that are necessary for the universe to function.

* My mangled understanding of it in any case.

Date: 2011/01/31 06:20:12, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (vvrobotsvv @ Jan. 31 2011,11:43)
http://www.atheistmedia.com/2011....al.html



WRONG






Dear PZ... I spoke with God yesterday.... Do you want to know what he told me?



CLOBBERING TIME

dawkins - got you...


who's the WINGNUT?

richarddawkins.net/videos/579240-the-truth-about-the-lunatic-religious-right-in-america?page=1


THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION - JAN 1, 2011

OMENS OF DEATH:



an example and warning of the fate of those who try to divide people....


freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24191

I say bring back the mini-vac.

I understand that this started because JREF wouldn't give him $1m. Was he just as incoherent then?

Date: 2011/02/05 16:01:08, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 06 2011,04:29)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 05 2011,10:23)
StephenB:
         
Quote
If you are going to try to escape from all these materialistic implications by...saying that the mind and brain are, in effect, the SAME THING, then you need to explain how one can influence the other. How does the mind change the brain if it is the same thing as the brain?

Now there is an indication that Stephen just DOESN'T get it, if ever there was one.

I guess it must be another of the  axioms of Right Reasontm that a thing absolutely can not change itself.  Right up there with "nothing can be and not be at the same time".
Undressing  and quantum state superposition are forbidden in the Land of RRtm.

Does that mean that Windows and linux have a soul as well? They change their code on installation based on what hardware is there (Apples are of course soulless)

Date: 2011/02/09 19:18:58, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 10 2011,09:09)
I've looked at Open Office. It has a database, but it doesn't look much like Access to me. I'd lurk around people who have Office Professional and don't need the Access portion.

Wont work unfortunately as the products are licensed as a group, a better bet is somebody with an old computer that they are going to toss and get the license from there. Products such as produkey will show the license number. The problem is then getting a hold of the install disks.


I think that OO is the closest you will get to MS Access without paying cash. The other alternative is to get sql server express and c# express and learn yourself some programming

Date: 2011/02/10 14:49:00, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Cubist @ Feb. 10 2011,15:58)
Quote
All coded languages are observed to originate from an intelligence, no examples to the contrary can be given

This statement is accurate as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. All that need be done is add one word, like so:
All coded languages are observed to originate from a human intelligence, no examples to the contrary can be given
I wonder why ID-pushers always leave out that one word?

Or ... DNA is an example of a coded language that didn't originate from intelligence.

I can assume my conclusion just like any creationist

Date: 2011/02/11 15:31:28, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (judgmabu7 @ Feb. 12 2011,03:31)
see....


You little fuckers are going to learn SHUT YOUR TRAPS, especially concerning things of a PROPHETIC NATURE....

So hows that prophesy stuff going for ya?

Date: 2011/02/11 17:02:12, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Raevmo @ Feb. 12 2011,07:11)
The crap Sal is spouting about diffusion equations in population genetics is just so annoyingly wrong.

Oleg, please be a bit harsher on that clown. At least point out that (1) Kimura is not the pioneer of diffusion equations in popgen, but Fisher (1922) and Wright (1931) were, as Kimura of course acknowledges. (2) The (deterministic) selection part of the equation dominates the (random) diffusion part when Ns>>1. (3) He's a lying SOB with wet dreams about Jeebus taking him in the arse.

Did Sal flunk his physics studies at John Hopkins by now? It's hard to imagine that such an idiot would be able to get a degree in physics.

I think it is like the lack of sense of humour. I'm sure that he can pass by memorising equations and following procedures but fails miserably when he has to make intuitive leaps.

I think other than pure ignorance, this is the only reason a creationist can remain a creationist

Date: 2011/02/13 19:10:59, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 14 2011,05:59)
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 13 2011,20:27)
Is BA77 refering to near autoerotic fatalities as proof for the christian god?    
Quote
29
bornagain77
02/12/2011
10:44 pm

Bruce David, I would be very careful if I were you to just how far you wandered away from Christ, for as appealing as other spiritual paths may seem, and the gloss of truth they may possess, the fact is that non-Judeo-Christian cultures have an extreme rarity of the extremely pleasant Near Death Experiences commonly reported in Judeo-Christian cultures.

More so, if there was a god, he should be universal, right? Every human being ruled by the same god, whatever they believe in. So NDE should be universal as well, right? If there is an afterlife, it can't be restricted to the particular beings that believe in it specificaly, whatever the form.

So why more oh so arousing NDEs among judeo-christian cultures? Could it be that this whole NDE stuff is nothing more than a culturaly induced hallucination? Or just plain lies to confort relatives?

Anyway, BA should ask David Caradine about hot, steamy NDEs...



ps: I used to have this hypothesis that at the moment of death, the human brain starts a sensory "loop", in which time stretches and gives an illusion of eternal life, at least until all brain tissues are deprived of oxygen and finaly die out. Very gradual sensation.

Then I stopped magic mushrooms altogether...

Obviously the non-Christians are seeing hell.

Date: 2011/02/14 21:29:42, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 15 2011,04:38)
My avatar looks uncannily like me...

Mine looks nothing like me as the photo was taken before I started drinking

Date: 2011/02/15 01:57:58, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (xjustice9000 @ Feb. 15 2011,16:20)
you talk about wanting to hear and see both sides, but that is all BS... here is the other extreme - the absolute negation of the atheist position


http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=30227

love how he links to another of his posts on another sceptical post. The post contains usually interesting sceptical you-tube videos. In this case one of the videos has a panel discussion that discusses how crazy the guy is.

Still when is this judgement day? It is getting a bit tedious

Date: 2011/02/16 22:57:40, Link
Author: MichaelJ
So every item in the list is a screed against evolution or atheism. Wasn't there one ID breakthrough to write about?

Date: 2011/02/20 01:34:51, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (prong_hunter @ Feb. 20 2011,11:55)
After more than a year IBIG has been silenced by reason and logic and truth.

"That which is not forbidden is compulsory."

Abiogenesis is guaranteed.  And it's patented.

IBIG cannot respond intelligently, only unintelligently.

One thing I found pretty interesting. IBIG appeared in the latest AIG thread at Pandas, but when the discussion got onto discussing the Bible he disappeared (Leaving Heddle and FL to defend the book). Almost like he isn't as happy making shit up about the bible as he is about science.

Date: 2011/02/22 05:03:15, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 22 2011,08:25)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 21 2011,16:54)
http://www.google.com/trends?....&sort=0

It's not Austin's fault.  Trust me, know one I've ever heard here talks about ID.

You obviously aren't listening to the Austin Danish speakers.

Date: 2011/02/22 15:46:39, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I don't read is as Dense is getting Alzheimer's, I think that she is just incredibly lazy. I think she has just graduated to not even reading all of the words in the title of an article.

Date: 2011/02/25 15:27:00, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 25 2011,23:48)
I imagine Frill and his dad ~ this here

 
Quote
The killer awoke before dawn, he put his boots on
He took a face from the ancient gallery
And he walked on down the hall
He went into the room where his sister lived, and...then he
Paid a visit to his brother, and then he
He walked on down the hall, and
And he came to a door...and he looked inside
Father, yes son, I want to kill you


Frill vacillates between admiring him and wanting to wear his skin.

I agree with seversky that this pattern seems to repeat in the world of people and emotions

 
Quote
For some people, a major personal crisis can come as a rude awakening to just how fragile is the little world we take for granted and, indeed, our hold on life itself.  Having been violently ejected from their zone of unwarranted complacency, people will grab on to any lifeline that is thrown to them and hang on like grim death.  It is also why such converts are so vehement in defense of their new-found faith.  In a sense, it is all they have.


but i cannot for the life of me understand why it is so.  what is wrong with the void?

I still believe that Frill, though smarter then average, was the intellectual runt of the litter living in a university town. Remember how he flounced out of UD when people questioned him on the use of the sim program. I think this shows how sensitive he is about his intellect.
Being born-again enables him to be smarter than dear old dad

Date: 2011/02/27 14:48:12, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 28 2011,02:16)
Quote (xjustice2 @ Feb. 26 2011,13:40)
well, then we're GOING TO KICK SOME HEADS IN....

Okay, so, it has been almost 24 hours since this statement was made. Anybody had their heads kicked in?

I've got a bit of headache does that count.

Date: 2011/03/03 15:31:54, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2011,02:38)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 27 2011,21:30)
Quote (how2debateevolution @ Feb. 27 2011,03:07)
I just registered with the forum and no matter where i try to post i am told that i am not allowed to post there.

is this forum a read-only forum?
i am surprised i can post here.

anyway, i think i'll be moving on elsewhere.



mike
----------------------------
http://howtodebateevolution.com/

Bonus LULZ at Mike's website at the moment.

Edit: Bonus!

http://www.freak-search.com/en/thread/4287670/how_to_debate_evolution

I guess this cat gave up.

You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried - A guy creates a blog on how to debate evolution and he doesn't bother to debate evolution. I even went back to his site and the lead article has 5 comments debating the proposition and nary a comment from him.

Date: 2011/03/05 20:10:48, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 05 2011,15:37)
StephenB  
Quote
The strongest evidence for Jesus’ miracles in the New Testament comes not from Christians who reported them but rather from their enemies who, try as they might, could find no way to deny them.
Picture the Pharisees as they try to explain away miraculous healings by attributing them to the forces of hell. Consider their duplicity as they bribe Roman guards to explain away Christ’s risen body with the ridiculous story that the apostles stole it while they were asleep–as if sleeping guards would know.
That's exactly the reason why we find so many independent reports about what happened around 30 AD from un-beleavers in tons of non-chrsitian publications and we indeed don't have to refer to the bible to prove that faith is reason.

We know that Harry Potter existed through the efforts of Voldemort to kill him

Date: 2011/03/08 05:42:58, Link
Author: MichaelJ
This stuff amazes me more than their bad science. Isn't StephenB a lawyer, shouldn't he have even the slightest clue about evidence?

Date: 2011/03/11 16:34:48, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 12 2011,02:25)
It's been fashionable in my part of the world (Vancouver Island) to consider the 100-mile diet, i.e., only eat things that grow within a hundred miles.

Nice idea, but not only would my neighbours and I have to give up oranges, bananas, coffee, tea, cocoa, and similar exotica, we couldn't even make bread, unless it was corn bread, or made somehow from potato flour.

So, paradoxically, while we have become a global village in the sense of commerce/trade/necessities, the village itself is so gigantic that its individual members are like the guy in the Total Perspective Vortex.

"What then, must we do?"  

I dunno. Don't buy Nike's.  Yeah, look for fair trade products.  Walk or take the bus when you can.  Share information, like what a scam CFL's are. Knowledge is power.

The problem with the eat local things is that in the end you have more people driving smaller trucks making more total stops so it may not be greener. For instance you might have an orchard 50 miles away that used to get visited once a day by a large more efficient truck. It now gets visited 10 times a day by smaller less efficient trucks.

It might in fact be greener visiting a Walmart.

Date: 2011/03/13 21:31:04, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 14 2011,12:16)
I see Vividbleau has brought the latest overtly religion oriented'Question: How Can We Know One Belief Selected for By Evolution is Superior to Another?' thread to a sudden stop (for now) by clever use of Teh Godwin:        
Quote
Bruce

“To use an analogy, earthly existence is like being in a play, say Macbeth. In the context of the play, much happens that appears evil, but when the play is done, the director claps the actor who played Macbeth on the shoulder and says, “Well done. You played your part well and served my purpose admirably.” It’s kind of like that.”

Bornagain’s term “madhouse” is most appropos.

Lets insert Hitler for Macbeth. Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews, millions of Christians and gays. What he did only apeeared to be evil. Furthermore he gets a clap on the shoulder and is told “well done, you played your part perfectly and served my purpose admirably”!!!!!!

Acoording to your logic not only does Hitler get an atta boy so do the millions who suffered torture, starvation, gassing and other unspeakable crimes against their person. Way to go everyone you get atta boys as well!!!

For the survivors and their families who might take an offense to these heinious crimes against humanity you say

“The problem is, you take this temporary physical existence, which is not our true home nor our permanent abode, much too seriously.”!!!!!

This is a disgusting philosphy.

Vivid

This sort of makes sense if you believe in reincarnation and believe that it suffering is part of your soul's evolution but if you get only one shot of life what is the point of all of the children growing with abuse and starvation and dieing a hideous death. At the end of which they go to hell because they weren't a Christian. Damn cruel.

Date: 2011/03/14 22:00:38, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 15 2011,02:45)
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 13 2011,22:51)
Can y'all guess who wrote this?
 
Quote
The Toxic, Anti-Science Nature of Darwinism

The mechanisms of living systems are based on the most sophisticated computer program ever written.

Attempts to deny this obvious fact relegate those who support materialism to the lowest level of illogical speculation. This is the antithesis of true science — the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.

Arguing with people who cannot perceive obvious truth is an exercise in futility. They will go to their graves, hopelessly lost, and their lives will not only have been meaningless, they will have been less than meaningless, even toxic, because the anti-scientific lie they propagated most assuredly must have poisoned many lives, as mine once was.

My qualifications in making these assertions are impeccable, because I was once a victim of the nihilism of Darwinian anti-logic and anti-science. Somehow, only by the Grace of God as far as I can figure, did I finally escape from this hideously irrational, soul-destroying, science-destroying plague on humanity.

OK, I actually find this a little bit scary.

To my ears, 'toxic' is ratcheting up the rhetoric that we are used to from GIL of FRIL. We're edging over into the zone of "your philosophy is deadly, therefore I am justified in killing you." Granted, Gil's weapons of choice might be limited to crashing a hang-glider into your house, throwing checkers at you, or playing Gershwin really badly.

I've always thought that it will be Frill that we read about in the paper rather than Mabus. There will always be the neighbour who say's "I was gob-smacked, 'e was always so quiet and polite and playing that loverly music. Although my 'erb did say that no good would come from someone who wore frilly shirts and played Checkers."

Date: 2011/03/17 16:22:13, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2011,05:11)
telic Thoughts is now interesting / educational, due to this new cat, 'Reciprocating Bill', who is posting there:

http://telicthoughts.com/id-the-....2%80%9d

I can think of lots of problems with dualism.

I like the knot analogy. It would also suit the UD arguments about information existing outside of a medium and having zero weight etc.

Date: 2011/03/21 22:31:56, Link
Author: MichaelJ
"But it was these human beings who, in their pride, chose to cut themselves off from God’s presence. Our first parents chose to arrogate to themselves the power to decide what is good and what is evil."

But God when he created humans could have  tweaked their brain chemicals so that they would have chosen differently, so it all comes down as God's fault in the first place.

However, as the brain structure controlling behaviour doesn't sit well with the IDiots, you could blame a poor upbring on why they made a poor choice.

Date: 2011/03/26 23:25:42, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I note the absense of the frill (the self confessed computer genius) from the CSI thread. I note that he has started a thread about how lame darwinists are in their attempts to refute Behe (without any examples).

Does he actually ever do anything substantial? Maybe a sock should tell him that he is needed on the CSI thread.

Date: 2011/03/27 18:31:51, Link
Author: MichaelJ
If he was at all honest he would start with the Bible and find that the Christian view of Satan, devils and Hell does not exist in the Bible and is largely an invention of the Dark Age.

He also needs to deal with the fact that the various Christian sects have a very different view of how to avoid going to hell.

Lastly he needs to deal with the fact that according to mainstream Christianity a lot of people who don't deserve it are going to end up in Hell.

Date: 2011/03/28 01:54:05, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 27 2011,09:35)
Solidarity with the women of Libya!

 
Quote
As al-Obeidi spoke she was tackled by hotel staff and government minders dragged her out of the hotel.

Her story could not be independently verified, but the incident is being reported as an indication of the crackdown on dissenters ordered by Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader.

At a hastily arranged press conference following the incident, Moussa Ibrahim, a government spokesman, said investigators had told him that the woman was drunk and possibly mentally challenged...

Before she was dragged out of the hotel, al-Obeidi was able to tell journalists that she was detained by a number of troops at a Tripoli checkpoint on Wednesday.

She said they were drinking whiskey and handcuffed her and that 15 men later raped her.

"They tied me up ... they even defecated and urinated on me," she said. "The Gaddafi militiamen violated my honor."

Al-Obeidi, who appeared in her 30s, wore a black robe and a floral scarf around her neck.

She had scratches on her face and bruises on her body. She said neighbours in the area where she was detained had helped her escape.

She said that she was targeted by the troops because she is from the eastern city of Benghazi, the stronghold of rebel fighters battling Gaddafi.

The Associated Press news agency reported that waiters called her a traitor and told her to shut up.

She retorted: "Easterners - we're all Libyan brothers, we are supposed to be treated the same, but this is what the Gaddafi militiamen did to me, they violated my honor."


Denyse O'Weary is fond of saying that we do not diss the Koran enough - but where have they been as people in the Middle East/North Africa struggle for democracy, and Middle Eastern/Northern African women struggle for equality? Oh noes, it might raise our gas prices!

I think that this confuses their fundie little hearts as they should applaud the action but they can't admit that Obama did something right.

Date: 2011/03/28 16:16:00, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 29 2011,04:42)
This may be slightly off topic, but I notice most of the UD load time is take up by Google ad servers reading the page and trying to come up with some appropriate ads.

I pity them.

I wonder what brand of irony meters that Google uses in their servers.

Date: 2011/03/28 16:42:20, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 28 2011,10:57)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Mar. 27 2011,18:31)
Lastly he needs to deal with the fact that according to mainstream Christianity a lot of people who don't deserve it are going to end up in Hell.

I beg to differ: According to mainstream Christianity, everyone deserves to end up in Hell, because everyone is maximally disgusting and sinful and evil JUST BECAUSE. So sayeth the lovely, life-affirming doctrine of Original Sin, don't'cha know.

I think that these guys would say that they deserve hell because they had the chance to join the one true version of Christianity ™.

But how about a kid born on the Pakistan/Afganistan border? Is it his fault that he never became a Christian?

Date: 2011/03/29 02:36:39, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Raevmo @ Mar. 29 2011,16:17)
Gil is a fucking liar:
 
Quote
I was once in Moran’s camp, but fortunately I am also a mathematician and engineer, which he is obviously not.

Mathematician my well-formed ass. From past posts (link?) we know you are incompetent at high school-level maths, Gilly boy.

ask  him to help out on the Mathgrrl thread

Date: 2011/03/30 01:42:32, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Call me paranoid but before Mathgrrl, UD was on its last legs.

Remember the long list of Dense posts with no comments. I wonder if the order came down from DrDr to release the ban hammer for awhile to get some hits.

Date: 2011/04/06 03:39:58, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Leftfield @ April 06 2011,08:33)
Neal Tedford on scientific procedures:

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


Waterloo!!!!!

Interesting given that one of the Mythbusters is a skeptic who has on occasion said that ID/Creationism is a load of crap.

Date: 2011/04/09 00:00:02, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Doc Bill @ April 09 2011,05:40)
Ohhhhhh!  They've opened up comments on Pauly's Opus Flatus 2!

Count so far is 4 comments, all creationists, total content zero.

Not bad for seven year's work.

Actually 3 comments. 2 are from Paul Nelson. I wonder how many are being held back.

Date: 2011/04/17 06:20:11, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (REC @ April 17 2011,14:54)
F Me!

Headline:

Quote
Galaxy started forming stars only 2 million years after the Big Bang?

News


Quoted text:
Quote
We have discovered a distant galaxy that began forming stars just 200 million years after the Big Bang.


Accuracy in reporting

BTW, what's with all the 'earlier than previously know' stories.....do they think they're working there way down to 6000 years (or 60, given O'Leary's precision reporting)?

Isn't is an example of science is wrong again, therefore Jesus.

Date: 2011/04/18 15:49:44, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (sparc @ April 18 2011,13:39)
Trough a comment on the Beckwith post at PT I've learned that Behe is still posting at UD. Unfortunately, they didn't add the viewer counter to his pages and he doesn't allow comments comments. Since I couldn't find any link to his blog on the first two AtBC topic title pages and a search for "Behe" in "posts and or all topic titles" of all open forums didn't find any recent comment I got the impression that he is currently completely ignored. Even those UD News clowns don't link to his posts.

I saw that and wondered whether Behe himself posted to Pandas Thumb as he found being ignored was worse than having your ideas reamed

Date: 2011/04/24 04:56:53, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I think that Kwok performs a valuable service. It reminds us that we are not like IDiots. Kwok is our Frillboy but we don't tolerate him just because he is on our side

Date: 2011/04/26 17:11:11, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Don't ever ban Mabus. I haven't laughed so much in ages.

Date: 2011/04/28 17:58:33, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I think that for them to say that many people find science and religion compatible is a truth statement and PZ and Co have said that they have no problem NCSE/BCSE saying this and even pointing to some very notable examples.

The problem is when they say that they ARE compatible because this is an opinion and a lot of people don't share this opinion.

For some reason the accommodationists have missed and keep missing this very simple point

Date: 2011/04/28 18:30:26, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 29 2011,08:42)
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 28 2011,17:39)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 28 2011,17:33)
I stepped in it this time.

I disagreed with PZ... and publicized it.  Oh boy is the shit about to hit me full in the face.

So, do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do you?


I know for a fact that I can out shoot him.  (Of course, one of his kids is in the army... tanks as I recall.)

I'm not worried about it.  I care about my principles and I used to respect him, but this last thing just shows the personality cult he's got.

What's stupid is that I agree with him on 90% of the things he says, it's that 10% that bugs the heck out of me.

I think that PZ is a cartoon of PZ and becoming more cartoon-like as he goes along. Having met him in Melbourne*, I think that in real life, he like most atheists just get along with 99% of people.

I disagee with a lot of what he writes but I also think that he is wildly successful. Some people need a gentle guiding hand, but other people need to be mocked. Quite a few people have said that they deconverted after being made angry by PZ and researching to prove him wrong.






* Should I be like Kwok and mention it in every post?

Date: 2011/04/28 19:14:15, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 29 2011,09:06)
Quote
The main question is: should NCSE or BCSE endorse religious views and diss out prominent atheists just so they can reach their goal? Where's the neutrality?


Disrespect goes in both directions. I think Dawkins is a respectful writer, but PZ is quite abrasive.

As I wrote in another thread, I think that for some kinds of people abrasive works.

Date: 2011/05/03 06:33:50, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 03 2011,19:32)
Why Bully Arrington is not my lawyer:          
Quote
Now consider the case for Christ. In the months and years following the crucifixion Jesus’ disciples proclaimed that he was alive. I believe them, because, again, no one in their right mind would declare to be true that which can easily be proven false. The religious leaders of the time had a keen interest in stamping out the Christ cult. They hated Christ and his followers with a burning passion. All they had to do to bring Christianity to a screeching halt was to produce Jesus’ body. Having every interest and motivation to produce the body, they did not, which leads inexorably to the conclusion that they could not.

Reply one:
Mr. Arrington, Jesus was executed about this time of the year.  The temperatures in Jerusalem have been in the 60s and 70s lately.  Assume that "months and years" after his execution the authorities heard that Jesus's followers were saying that he was alive.  What condition would the body be in after months or years at 60 degrees F?

Reply two:
Executed criminals were not allowed to be buried in Roman controlled Jerusalem.  They were commonly dumped where they would be eaten by dogs.

What would have been left to show of a body that had been eaten by dogs?

Reply three:
Let's assume that the Joseph of Aramethia story is true: Joseph had Jesus's body taken down from the cross and placed in a tomb.

Jesus was executed on a Friday.  Passover started at sundown Friday.  It ended at Sundown Saturday.  Which means that one minute after sundown on Saturday, Joseph could have ordered his servants to get that stinking body out of that tomb and dump it in the dog park where it belongs.

What would the girls find in the tomb many hours later on Sunday morning?

I rest my case.

ETA URL for Bully Arrington

Bigger question. How do we know that they hated Jesus with a passion?

Date: 2011/05/03 17:09:35, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 04 2011,00:00)
Quote (Dr.GH @ May 03 2011,14:44)
There seems little reason not to think that there was some Rabbi named Yeshua ben Yoseph who got caught up in the then raging social and religious debates in 1st century Jerusalem- and killed by the Romans. That event did nothing to abate the internal conflicts between Jewish political factions and externally with the Romans. A generation later, an opportunist named Saul organizes a new religion out of the post 70AD revolution rubble, one that leans heavily on a convenient martyr. A few centuries later, the fragmentation of Rome's frontier added more politics, and new theologies.


Falk, Harvey
1985 “Jesus the Pharisee” New York: Paulist Press

Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hover, The Jesus Seminar
1993  "The Five Gospels: What did Jesus really say?"  New York: Scribner

Jenkins, Philip
2010 “Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years” New York: HarperCollins

Maccoby, Hyam
1986  "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity"  San Francisco: HarperCollins/Barnes and Noble

___
2003 “Jesus the Pharisee” London: SCM Press

I would add Life of Brian, 1973.

Sorry, I just Kw*ked myself.

I think that this is the simplest solution and the one that I like but given the lack of contemporary evidence and of the other theories could be also true.

Date: 2011/05/03 18:25:25, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Ptaylor @ May 04 2011,08:37)
Awww - Upright BiPed hearts StephenB:  
Quote
StephenB “wins” just about every time he touches his keypad.

I, for one, am glad he spends his time here.

I can't imagine a nicer couple.

Yes wins in a heavily moderated blog where he doesn't dare to step outside.

Cue "Brave Sir Robin"

Date: 2011/05/03 21:54:43, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (utidjian @ May 04 2011,12:38)
Quote (Kristine @ May 03 2011,08:38)
 
Now that Al Qaeda has embraced teh internet, Brillo Face doesn't have quite the influence that he once had. I'm surprised that Al Qaeda isn't tweeting, considering that they've launched a magazine for jihadettes!


Ah hehheheh... the English language version has an article titled Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom by AQ Chef LINKY

There was an idea presented in the movie Middle Men that went something like: With a little bit of research they could figure out what kind of porn terrorists like to watch. Using that information they made up some porn content specifically targeted for terrorists. Then they tracked purchase patterns and usage. Then tracked where those internet connections were made. Then sent a missile to that location.
All fiction of course but an interesting idea.

I noticed that OBLs hideout was claimed to have no internet connection nor landline phones. Which would be kind of unusual for a large residence just about anywhere in the world these days. That is to say... the lack of them would make them stick out.
Many third world countries have really crappy land line phone service (if at all) but they still have cell phones. Pakistan has both services.
I wonder how they dealt with cell phones... perhaps have them all turned off and/or impounded whenever entering the grounds of the mansion? Only problem with that is... a bunch of phones going dead whenever they get in the vicinity of the mansion would also stick out.

-DU-

It shows how effective the intelligence services got once they got off their collective backsides. I heard one quote yesterday saying that if a terrorist took a cell phone into Afghanistan that they had a life expectancy of 60 days.

This has made me think, has there been any terrorist attacks in a non Moslem country recently? Is this because of better intelligence or lack of interest?

Date: 2011/05/08 23:46:49, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Seversky @ May 09 2011,03:54)
Quote (Seversky @ May 08 2011,07:59)
DeNews O'Leary, upholding the high scientific standards at UD, discusses the acrheological evidence for the existence of the Biblical King David here.

The thread keeps getting better.   Barb comments:

 
Quote
It is one thing to state that you don’t believe something because there is no evidence that would lead you to believe it.

It is quite another to have that evidence placed firmly in front of your face and then deny it exists.

The former is an argument from ignorance, and the latter is just plain stupidity.


I couldn't have put it better myself.

I've read the Bible unearthed but am no means an expert but reading the comments in the original article reminds me of reading an article on the DI site.

Date: 2011/05/15 05:02:47, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (xjudges89 @ May 15 2011,09:54)
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Kristine]<br/><br/>AE Mods....

YOU LITTLE SHITS DIE TODAY....

What time zone?

Date: 2011/05/16 01:01:18, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (MichaelJ @ May 15 2011,20:02)
Quote (xjudges89 @ May 15 2011,09:54)
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Kristine]<br/><br/>AE Mods....

YOU LITTLE SHITS DIE TODAY....

What time zone?

So are there any little shits missing?

Date: 2011/05/16 01:02:22, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (xjudges88 @ May 15 2011,20:39)
AE mods - you little shits die today...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTmXHvGZiSY


MORE THAN A MILLION DOLLARS....

ATHEIST GENOCIDE - YOU LOST THE WAR



http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=11419

We lost the war? Why wasn't I told?

Date: 2011/05/16 01:11:53, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Atheistoclast on PT claimed that he made the complaint. Not that he isn't known as a lying SOB.

Date: 2011/05/18 01:46:17, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Who will see it first? I'm on the east coast of Aus but aren't there a couple of Kiwis here?

Date: 2011/05/21 01:42:07, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Ptaylor @ May 21 2011,16:04)
Right - it has just gone 6:00 pm on the 21st of May in my time zone. Nothing yet, but I'll let you know if anything happens in the next hour - if I can.

4:44 here. I'm about to scoot into town so I can grab some wallets from the empty piles of clothing.

Date: 2011/05/26 01:54:49, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Seversky @ May 26 2011,13:58)
And again, over on UD, junkdnaforlife indulges in a little (slightly premature) gloating:

 
Quote
the glory days of atheism are long gone. gone are the days of the eternal universe and the jello cell glob. now time has a beginning and the cell is digital code. All they have left is neo-darwinsim. what is left of the glory days when atheism was the cool high school quarterback is the residual media mess. Instead, atheism is now the shirtless fan watching the game in the stands covered in paint making a lot of noise.


Apart from having a problem finding the Shift key this character seems not to have noticed that, in biology, evolution is the only game in town and it's the rather forlorn little band of IDiots who are left jeering from the sidelines, largely ignored by the real players.

Strange that if you look at PZ's blog every atheist event seems to sell out almost immediately.

Date: 2011/05/30 03:52:51, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (ooojudge @ May 30 2011,11:20)
Sunday Sacrilege pz's blaspheming head

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1756

Hows the predicting biz going? No so hot by the looks of it

Date: 2011/06/02 03:32:44, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (OgreMkV @ June 02 2011,12:31)
FTK, honestly, why are you here?

Is it because she finds it better to be disliked as a person rather than being patronized as a woman by the patriarchs on her "side"?

Date: 2011/06/02 21:44:41, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 03 2011,12:05)
Quote (Ptaylor @ June 02 2011,18:22)
PZ Myers links to this as a variation on The Courtier's Reply. I think it encapsulates the recent MathGrrl debacle very well.

Calling all socks..

The puns on that site are making me very kransky

Date: 2011/06/02 23:26:23, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Ftk @ June 03 2011,06:47)
Quote
And you know it's true.  :)


hmmm...not at my church of about 1500.  I should video them coming out next Sunday...lol.  I've seen a few tankers, but Im jealous of the grand majority of them...pretty damn fit.  Not saying you're wrong...I have no idea....just commenting on my church in particular.  Must be the over abundance of work out centers on our side of town.  

Im 46.  You seem to have a few advantages, but maybe the mud will slow you down.  Or, maybe my extra weight will be of some advantage as well.  I'm still in.

I went to California in the mid-80s. Growing up on American TV two things surprised me. One was that it was very white. Except for the occasional cleaner, I only ever saw blacks if we took a wrong turn off a freeway.
The other thing was that on average the ladies were definitely not models, the majority were round and very heavy on the makeup. Understandable given the low cost of bad food.

That was 25 years ago and I understand that Australia is going to overtake the US on the total-porkiness scale.

Date: 2011/06/03 06:09:58, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (paragwinn @ June 03 2011,17:41)
Quote (MichaelJ @ June 02 2011,19:44)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 03 2011,12:05)
   
Quote (Ptaylor @ June 02 2011,18:22)
PZ Myers links to this as a variation on The Courtier's Reply. I think it encapsulates the recent MathGrrl debacle very well.

Calling all socks..

The puns on that site are making me very kransky

you may wish to feel differently after encountering this form of kransky.

I've seen them on spicks and specks. They are a hoot even if they are a little scary

Date: 2011/06/18 22:34:00, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Seversky @ June 19 2011,11:41)
I see they're back to the Problem of Evil.  Again.

It'll all be Adam (and Eve's) fault for trying a fruit diet.  Again.

There'll be no satisfactory explanation of why an omniscient being didn't see it coming a mile off and why an omnipotent being didn't do anything about it.  Again.

There'll be no moral justification for punishing not just the original offenders but all their descendants in perpetuity.  Again.

There'll be no explanation of why God lied to Adam and no discussion of what that implies for everything else God is reported to have said.  Again.

Finally, and much more fundamentally, there will be no discussion of why a necessary being, such as the Christian God must be to be an Uncaused First Cause, would ever create a Universe and populate it with beings with whom he wants to enter into a loving relationship. Again.

Christianity must be the only religion that has formed a group (Apologists) to explain away the contradictions in their holy book.

I give their type of Christianity a decade before it dies out as a significant political and cultural force. It is too hard now to hide competing ideas from kids

Date: 2011/06/19 21:00:52, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Ptaylor @ June 20 2011,11:24)
DeLeary's been busy - 5 posts by News and 2 by O'Leary dated 19 June. Few of them seem to be noteworthy  - anyone have any insight/guesses as to what motivates her?

She gets paid

Date: 2011/06/20 03:33:04, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 20 2011,14:20)
It's right there in post 12 Joe:

 
Quote
Creationists come in many denominations. I happen to be a Muslim who is not a follower of the Nation of Islam. I know of Hindu Creationists. Islam, Judaism, and Christiantity all share Abraham and they all share Genesis.


Nothing about 'we' posting there Joe, just you.

Hindu Creationists share genesis? What has he been smoking?

Date: 2011/06/23 16:34:43, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ June 24 2011,06:31)
Two new docs for you guys to check out:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/SpOILed-The-Movie/216288371729865

http://www.facebook.com/sexandmoneyfilm

I found on the first link I couldn't ask the question that if they could drill everywhere they wanted what percentage of the US total consumption would this additional oil represent?

I guess once again Kevin Miller has no problem whoring for others.

Date: 2011/06/24 18:55:50, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ June 25 2011,09:04)
Your suspicion/paranoia about what you will find is laughable, Kristine. Prepare to be massively disappointed with the lack of scandal. I have all of the interview transcripts on my computer, and I would gladly make them available online if they were actually my property. Nothing at all to hide.

Even if nothing extra is found there are enough lies in the movie that an annotated version would be embarrassing enough. How about we include a door stop interview with Kevin and ask him how as a committed Christian he knowingly lied about Steinberg.

However, a number of people who were interviewed have blogged about it and we know there is a lot of stuff that ended up on the cutting room floor.

Date: 2011/06/24 20:09:28, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Amadan @ June 25 2011,10:09)
I think a few musical cut-scenes would be a good way to get across some snarky commentary about the original content.

[Rubs hands eagerly, reaches for rhyming dictionary]

How about a take off of Python's Brave Sir Robin but calling it Honest Sir Kevin? You could show scenes of the movie and then say what really happened.

Date: 2011/06/24 20:13:46, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Wouldn't you love to be a lawyer and have to come up with the following:


That certain feature-length motion picture ("Picture") entitled "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" and all collateral, allied, ancillary, subsidiary and merchandising rights therein and thereto, and all properties and things of value pertaining thereto (as used in this paragraph, the term "Picture" shall mean and include the Picture, all of the aforesaid rights and the rights set forth in subparagraphs (i) through (iii) below), including, without limitation: (i) All rights of every kind and nature (including, without limitation, copyrights) in and to any literary, musical, dramatic or other literary material of any kind or nature upon which, in whole or in part, the Picture is or may be based, or from which it is or may be adapted or inspired or which may be or has been used or included in the Picture, including, without limitation, the Screenplay, the characters and all other scripts, scenarios, screenplays, bibles, stories, treatments, novels, outlines, books, titles, concepts, manuscripts or other properties or materials of any kind or nature, in whatever state of completion and all drafts, versions and variations thereof (all of the foregoing herein collectively referred to as the "Literary Property"); (ii) All physical properties of every kind or nature of or relating to the Picture and all versions thereof, to the extent now or hereafter in existence, including, without limitation, exposed film, developed film, positives, negatives, prints, answer prints, special effects, pre-print materials (including interpositives, negatives, duplicate negatives, internegatives, color reversals, intermediates, lavenders, fine grain master prints and matrices, and all other forms of pre-print elements which may be necessary or useful to produce prints or other copies or additional pre-print elements, whether now known or hereafter devised), soundtracks, recordings, audio and video tapes and discs of all types and gauges, cutouts, trims and any and all other physical properties of every kind and nature relating to the Picture in whatever state of completion, and all duplicates, drafts, versions, variations and copies of each thereof (all of the foregoing herein collectively referred to as the "Physical Property"); (iii) All rights in and to all copyrights and renewals and extensions of copyrights, domestic and foreign, heretofore or hereafter obtained in the Picture or the Literary Property or any part thereof. The sale will be “AS IS, WHERE IS without warranty except for the transfer of title through Trustee.” The Picture may be subject to certain distribution and manufacturing rights held by Vivendi Entertainment. Vivendi Entertainment maintains an inventory of manufactured compact discs and has continued to distribute the Picture for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate of Premise Media Distribution, L.P.


Bibles?

Date: 2011/06/24 21:19:21, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 25 2011,11:41)
Some of the commenters at TalkRational Forum seem to strongly disagree with trying to bid on "Expelled".

Each stage in the religious antievolution movement's evolution is a progressive camouflaging of their motivations. The *only* protection for keeping science in the classroom and the religious antievolution arguments out is continuing to prove that, yes, it really still is just religious antievolution and not some form of science or advancing "academic freedom". It's possible that there is no "Wedge Document 2" awaiting in what's up for auction, but I'd be irresponsible if there were and I hadn't tried my best to get it. Besides which, there is no intention of restricting access to "Expelled". If anything, we want to provide more information in it, i.e., add in the true stuff that Miller and Stein cut out.

With the hard core IDers we will look bad no matter what happens but I think that for those who are less rusted-on googling expelled and finding 100 satirical you-tube videos can only help.
Buyers will come in four camps
1. Us to use for education
2. Creationist organisations as a money stream.
3. Somebody like Ben Stein or the DI who wants to bury it or to stop 1 happening
4. insane

2/ I was wondering how much money is left to make out of it? Most of the people who want to see it will have seen it or bought the DVD. There probably already unsold stock already in the distribution channels.

Date: 2011/06/24 23:04:32, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (OgreMkV @ June 25 2011,13:24)
Meh, Miller is a liar.  We all know that.  Either he has the transcripts/notes (in which case he's stealing and if he doesn't turn them over to whomever buys the movie, then he's guilty of breaking several other laws including contract law and bankruptcy law as well) OR he doesn't have the transcripts/notes in which case, he's just being a tool.

Not necessarily. As an IT consultant I have copies of most of the code I've written and notes of meetings etc. I'm just not allowed to break confidentiality.

I assume that this is the case with Kevin.

I have been on projects where I have been asked to remove all traces. This wasn't a trust issue more to protect people if our computers get seized by the guv'mnt.

Date: 2011/06/24 23:07:39, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 25 2011,12:28)
I essentially don't expect any monetary return on value from "Expelled". I think I've seen it in program listings once in the past several months, and as Kevin Miller helpfully noted, there's an existing distribution agreement that's ongoing (and didn't stave off bankruptcy for Premise Media, so it can't be delivering much). The value of the materials associated with "Expelled" lies elsewhere for me and hopefully many others interested in fending off religious antievolution encroachments disguised as "academic freedom".

I know that we aren't interested but I was more wondering if somebody might bid $50k thinking that there is enough life in it to return an income of say $20k a year for the next few years.

It would be ironic if  you guys made a steady income from the original movie.

Date: 2011/06/27 04:04:07, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ June 27 2011,12:56)
DeNews:

Quote
Speaking of fake environment issues, …
News

… like this one, here’s a doozy from the archives:

   On the first Earth Day, in 1970, some scientists predicted that pollution would make “breathing helmets” necessary in ten years’ time.

Prophecy above may be used as a substitute for the usual Sunday apocalypse. Of course the prediction was fulfilled. It “shows environmental concern.” Such predictions are always granted Fulfilled status.


So pollution is a fake environmental issue?  DeNews may want to read up on the Big Smoke of London in 1952, that started concerns over air pollution.  Thank God an IDiot such as DeNews is not in charge of government policy.

Though I was young I remember that the 70s were when public outcry first forced the government to introduce pollution controls?

Date: 2011/06/28 16:32:13, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ June 29 2011,01:38)
If Susskind has read Kuhn, then I'd like to hear him justify his analogy in light of the relationship Kuhn draws between science and philosophy, b/c I would call Susskind's statement is a gross oversimplification.

Discussion of the philosophy of science doesn't work if the data contradicts your position, otherwise why would you have to lie to make a movie supporting your position.

Date: 2011/06/29 16:59:30, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (utidjian @ June 30 2011,01:26)
So um... if Premise Media went bankrupt on a venture that cost $3.5M and netted $8M .... then it appears it was mis-managed. Presumably there are businesses and people that didn't get paid what and when they were supposed to be paid by Premise. The former owners (until yesterday) of Premise get out of paying off those debts. Premise gets auctioned off and the proceeds from the auction are used to pay off the creditors.
The winner of the auction is the former financial backer of Premise (but not the owner?)

Something still seems awfully fishy here.

To complete this, could Ruloff hire Manning as CFO to manage his "new" property?

-DU-

.. but Premise media wasn't just a one movie company. It could have gone broke from it's other projects.

If there wasn't limited liability, nobody would ever invest in anything. Even with the best intentions a business can go broke. The bad guys who milk a company for all they can get give all businesses a bad name.

Date: 2011/07/06 19:00:31, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 07 2011,04:18)
Folks who think wind farms are the answer to pollution should take a look at the Chinese city where the ore for the magnets are processed.

There is no such thing as a perfectly clean source of power.

There are sources for which the technology is reasonably mature, and sources which have hidden costs, or for which the costs are carried by invisible people in far away places.

I think that the only real answer is to reduce usage. Unfortunately, economics is against us.

I'm a computer technician and it is cheaper for clients to throw out a sub $100 printer rather than get it repaired.

It is cheaper for me to replace a $100 motherboard (shipped in from China) in a desktop rather than look for and replace a 50c blown component on the motherboard.

Look at how economies fall apart if economic growth is even slightly negative

Date: 2011/07/06 20:15:21, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 07 2011,10:51)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ July 06 2011,18:36)
I think I kinda just autobanned myself from Pharyngula. No one actually banned me, but some of those Pharyngulites just get under my skin, so I won't post there anymore.

I don't know. Is what I did in regard to all those comments such a bad thing?

Is there some kind of crazy going on in the atheist blogosphere these days? or is it really me fucking up?

Fundamentalism is ugly, even when you agree with them.

I think that there is a type of group-think that keeps me from reading comments in certain threads. When I read the Rebecca Watson blow-up, I knew that there would be a huge storm over it, so I have largely ignored it.

I still read the blog for the science and the having a poke at religion articles and ignore anything else.

Date: 2011/07/13 17:16:39, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (CeilingCat @ July 13 2011,20:37)
LS-DYNA alert!

Also, "Lawrence Livermore," "the most advanced finite element analysis program ever devised," "my father worked on the Manhattan A-bomb Project during WWII," he was " founder and director of an experimental nuclear reactor at Washington State University, which has been named in his honor." (a new one, I think),
and then he finishes up with:      
Quote
The people who developed this technology are legitimate scientists. Darwinists are pseudo-scientists who have no notion of what science is all about. Compare the accomplishments of the LLNL scientists and developers of LS-DYNA to those of people like Dawkins and his “weasel” program.

Darwinism is a downright embarrassment for legitimate science.
I think he's stuck in "Boring Twit" mode.

Luckily, Nick Matzke, Liz Liddle, and William Roche have jumped right in, although Batshit 77 has also joined the thread, spewing verbiage and videos all over the place.

Frills Dad http://public.wsu.edu/~nrc/nrc_dodgen.html

Date: 2011/07/25 16:59:08, Link
Author: MichaelJ
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (Ftk @ July 26 2011,01:43)
PZ's a loon, Kristine.  Period.  People who support that dood scare me to a degree.  There's a man whose writing could send a madman off to do something nuts.

UD is no different than you guys or anyone else in this stupid debate.  Blame ~everything~ negative on the other ideology.

It's all quite similiar to the problem of multiculturalism.  As much as liberals are so supportive of blending everyone together and making the world fair for all, they take the extreme opposite position when it comes to their ideologies about science or evolution for that matter.  Hatred abounds....you people are all blind to what your own side does that is wrong on so many levels.  

At least I have the good sense to call it when those who hold a lot of my views are jumping the gun or being unfair to the other side.

Strange I read PZ's article and nowhere does he say that Christianity=Mass Murder? You must not have read the article.

Date: 2011/08/01 17:06:37, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Badger3k @ Aug. 02 2011,04:10)
Quote (khan @ Aug. 01 2011,12:59)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 01 2011,13:48)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 01 2011,10:45)
I've got him at critical mass MELTDOWN POINT on his new 'cake' thread. Does anyone else want the honour of pushing the his button?

Joe on how to measure the CSI of a cake.  Count up the number of bits in the recipe.

   
Quote
Joe Gallien:  One way of figuring out how much information it (an object) contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.

Then you write down the procedure without wasting words/ characters and count those bits.

That will give you an idea of the minimal information it contains.

I say that because all the information that goes into making something is therefor contained by it.

And if you already have the instructions and want to measure the information?

Again just count the bits in the instructions.

For example a cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe.


Interesting thing - if you take the identical recipe in English and translate into French, you get a different number of bits = different amount of CSI.

Where did the extra CSI come from Joe?  Was it in the English-French dictionary?

Heat source: Wood or electric or gas or kerosene or herbivore dung?

Temp in °F or °C or °K?

Hand written in script or capital letters, or pixels?

If you don't use any spaces, you can save information!

That shrinks the CSI and makes it less complex?

Say you are writing it for an alien. You would need to have the DNA of the wheat, cows, yeast etc.  Also how to create a cell. How to milk a cow and grind the wheat etc.

Date: 2011/08/10 08:31:22, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Badger3k @ Aug. 10 2011,09:38)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Aug. 09 2011,11:47)
Interesting. Maybe we should help?

Has anyone contacted the FBI here in the States, or even Interpol (or whatever)?  Threats across international lines should be more serious.

You would think that the police force would do something, at least for self defense if Mabus does act out.

Date: 2011/08/10 16:39:40, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Badger3k @ Aug. 11 2011,02:24)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Aug. 10 2011,10:04)
I feel some sympathy for Mabus as well. I think it came up around the time I first saw his pic from that atheist convention.

He doesn't look like a monster. He does look a bit creepy when you link that pic to his online rants, but I think if he was a balanced fellow IRL, I wouldn't mind at all. Lots of subjectivity in there.

But without whishing any physical/psychological harm to come to him, I still feel pretty creeped-out when I learn that he's turning up at real life events. If he is as deranged as his online persona, I don't want to wait for the day we read the headlines about the fundie shoot-out at an atheist event.

Incarcertion is clearly not the right solution. But a psy evaluation and eventual treatment would be the best, most human thing to do.

Maybe the Police is not the best agency to notify. Social services or mental-health services might be a wiser choice.

Hang in there, Mabus.

Not sure about Canadian law, but here in the US, only a relative can commit someone - I don't believe that a social worker can do it on their own.  It might be, I just don't know.  I know it is easier when they are picked up by the police and a a judge orders and eval.  My info may be out of date and not applicable up north, but there you go.

In my experience here in OZ, the police are the best people to call as they can get stuff done the fastest. Unless it is voluntary, it is incredibly hard to commit somebody, or even raise any interest. My BIL tried to commit suicide a few times and even then he was only kept overnight.

I think that the fact that Mabus is barely coherent is a plus in that if the police knock on his door, he isn't sane enough to pretend he was doing it all for a lark.

Date: 2011/08/11 21:07:28, Link
Author: MichaelJ
No thread yet on how the riots in England is caused by people who are atheists on a daily basis?

Date: 2011/08/11 22:39:14, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I wonder if the tone down is after a talking to by the Police or he is trying to say "What threats? I'm just trying to save some souls here" when they do track him down.

Now that the press is on it the police can't just sweep it under the carpet and just give a friendly warning. I imagine the scene in the police station:

Looie: The commissioner is on my f#$ckin a## about this c$%k s*)ker. He has had up to his f*&(king neck in emails from those p*&cks in the States and now the f&^cking media is onto it. I want you to sit on the f#$ker and if he so much as goes for a s*@t I want to know about it.

Dirty Harry (while caressing gun): Yes Boss.

Date: 2011/08/11 22:44:29, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 12 2011,13:39)
Apparently in one of the Ottawa papers his mother reported he's in Nepean, Ont.

Turns out there was a Dennis Markuze who graduated from J. S. Woodsworth High School in Nepean, Ontario in 1990

link

The plot thickens...

Does it say anything interesting about him (I'd rather not register)

Date: 2011/08/12 21:31:04, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I'm surprised that there is no new news. I thought that they either would have picked him up, given him a warning or he has gone to ground.

Date: 2011/08/19 01:09:51, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Being Canadian Dreary must be aware that this is happening. I'm waiting for an UD postsaying that:

1. He is not a true Christian ™
2. The secularists are inhibiting his freedom of speech.
3. Atheists say worse things and don't get arrested.
4. The atheists drove him insane with their constant hate-mongering.
5. That she has evidence that he has been corresponding with PZ for over a decade which proves that he is an atheist.

What's the bet that she could do all 5 in a single post

Date: 2011/08/19 01:10:51, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I need edit button (or at least read my own post before submitting)

Date: 2011/08/30 17:44:21, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 31 2011,08:19)
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 30 2011,16:50)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 30 2011,14:16)
Also find it interesting that you take into consideration "(complex) cultural, tribal and historical precedents" when discussing this issue, but when I state the same considerations when making my case that God is not immoral because of instances in ancient Israel where He commanded battle between tribes, you toss them off as not particularly relevant.

We're not the ones arguing that morality is invariant and comes from God, F.

But you see, poor Yahweh was a product of the culture that raised Him.  His parents taught him to keep slaves and order his creations to commit genocide.  It's society's fault.

Exactly, the Jews were behaving pretty much the way everybody else was behaving at the time. King David was a cross between a Mafia boss and a mercenary.
You'd think if they were his chosen people, Yaweh would have at least taught them at least one thing that wasn't known by anybody else at the time.

Date: 2011/08/31 07:10:55, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Badger3k @ Aug. 31 2011,10:05)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,22:21)
Quote
Bullshit.  Ever read the Illiad?  The Oddesy?  The moral lessons in the Greek myths?   How about the viking myths?  No?  I'm not surprised.


Quite familiar with all.  Forgot to add this link earlier.

Carm?  Carm?  Seriously?  The earlier link to the tortured apologetics that redefined slavery was bad enough, but this...wow.  Carm is up there with AIG in terms of reality (hint - they ain't near it).  Why not link to some serious scholarship - you know, people who are interested in the truth, rather than making the facts fit their beliefs?

Oh, yeah.  I forgot.

Wow I actually read that. What dishonest piece of wombat pooh.

Date: 2011/09/01 00:36:57, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Don't you just love that brand new thread smell.

Date: 2011/09/01 00:48:40, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 31 2011,22:26)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Aug. 31 2011,07:10)
Quote (Badger3k @ Aug. 31 2011,10:05)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 29 2011,22:21)
 
Quote
Bullshit.  Ever read the Illiad?  The Oddesy?  The moral lessons in the Greek myths?   How about the viking myths?  No?  I'm not surprised.


Quite familiar with all.  Forgot to add this link earlier.

Carm?  Carm?  Seriously?  The earlier link to the tortured apologetics that redefined slavery was bad enough, but this...wow.  Carm is up there with AIG in terms of reality (hint - they ain't near it).  Why not link to some serious scholarship - you know, people who are interested in the truth, rather than making the facts fit their beliefs?

Oh, yeah.  I forgot.

Wow I actually read that. What dishonest piece of wombat pooh.

Please provide evidence that the information in that link is incorrect.  I didn't originally find that at CARM.  It's standard knowledge.  CARM came up first in my search.  

Please provide evidence that it's a "dishonest piece of wombat pooh", or retract.  Thank you.

Dishonest because they are inferring that we have the bible in the second century where only a couple of scraps have been found. For the comparison documents only the near full versions are counted where earlier scraps and references abound for them.

Is that dishonest enough? I notice that you keep talking about the Church fathers. What is the evidence for these guys? Most of what the Church fathers said come  to us from Eusibus in the fourth century. Writer comtemporary to Eusibus say that he had a huge political axe to grind. How much about the "First Fathers" did he make up to suit his needs.

Date: 2011/09/01 04:37:03, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 01 2011,05:42)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 31 2011,13:50)
Quote (Ftk @ Aug. 31 2011,13:41)
In regard to gnostic writings, please bear in mind the late dates that most of those were written in comparison to the books that were included in scripture.

Also, back to the early church fathers.  Certain books were not accepted for good reason...some didn't even yet exist...others obviously were in total contrast to what 1st hand witnesses attested to in their writings.

Name one first hand witness of Jesus that can be shown to have written a book of the Bible (any Bible).

Plenty evidence of that, but I'm sure you've read it all, as you seem to think you're a theologian.  I'm not offering anymore links...find them yourselves.  Most refuse to read and those who do scan and throw up strawmen.  

Then again, anything you read that supports early writers and witnesses, you'll wave off as incorrect even if you have no solid evidence to refute the fact.  Get into the early church father's.  Eye opener.  

Carry on....

You keep talking about the Church fathers as though they are totally reliable. For the most part we don't even have copies of what they wrote but rely on what Eusibus wrote in the fourth century

Date: 2011/09/02 17:17:20, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Quack @ Sep. 02 2011,17:56)
Quote
Freke and Gandy have been criticized by biblical scholars (and others) in their "looseness" with the facts.  They have some good stuff, but anything they say should be checked out with other sources.  There is no excuse for shoddy scholarship.

I think it is more about their obvious agenda than shoddy scholarship. I think they could have done a more scholarly treatment if they wanted to but that would also have made it less of a good read. It helps that they reference their sources and that list is impressive.

BTW, IIRC, it was Robert M Price that I was stung by at t.o. once when I referred to TJM; he appeared as rather arrogant and asked why I would believe two journalists. He struck me as having an agenda too.

I think that they are all like that. There is so little evidence that it is easy to build fanciful towers in the air. It used to annoy me on IIDB that everybody used to shoot down everybody else's fanciful tower as it lacked evidence while they fiercely defended their own. It is worse in the FTK world as they hide and distort evidence to pretend that we know that Jesus exists.

So what do we know - In the first century we have Josephus who mentions Jesus. This is an obvious interpolation. (Also Eusiebius has a Josephus quote which is different from the copied document we now have.

In the second and third centuries we have some scraps of manuscripts and some mentions by Romans (quite a few disputed though), so we know that there was some kind of Jesus movement and that the gospels were close to what we have now.

In the fourth century we start to see the church as we know it now. Eusebius writes his history of the church, where we learn about FTK's precious church fathers. He quotes a lot of documents that no longer exist as even copies.
Now some of Eusebius's contemporaries say that he was dishonest - but why should you believe them anymore than you believe that Eusebius honestly wrote down the history of the church.

Date: 2011/09/06 21:23:48, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 07 2011,08:57)
The universe implodes as DeNudes opines on IQ, snatching an illustration from the Wikipedia article on IQ, uncredited.

That article also states:

"The American Psychological Association's report 'Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns' states that wherever it has been studied, children with high scores on tests of intelligence tend to learn more of what is taught in school than their lower-scoring peers. The correlation between IQ scores and grades is about .50. This means that the explained variance is 25%."

And

"The validity of IQ as a predictor of job performance is above zero for all work studied to date, but varies with the type of job and across different studies, ranging from 0.2 to 0.6. The correlations were higher when the unreliability of measurement methods were controlled for. While IQ is more strongly correlated with reasoning and less so with motor function, IQ-test scores predict performance ratings in all occupations."

And

"The American Psychological Association's 1995 report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns stated that IQ scores accounted for (explained variance) about quarter of the social status variance and one-sixth of the income variance. Statistical controls for parental SES eliminate about a quarter of this predictive power. Psychometric intelligence appears as only one of a great many factors that influence social outcomes."

There are many caveats; academic performance, job performance and income are all complexly and multiply determined. IQ has a relationship with each of them, stronger in some instances than in others.

From this DeNudes concludes:
Quote
within a normal range - there is no systematic relationship between IQ and achievement.

*Facepalm*

Isn't the data skewed because a lot of the high IQ people were not interested in "achieving". I've met a lot of very smart people who were contented with a job that gave them enough resources to follow their own passions.

Date: 2011/09/08 22:53:20, Link
Author: MichaelJ
AGW denial is different to Evolution denial because we can track the changes to the climate.
Given that the rural conservatives and large ag businesses have the most to lose through climate change  will we reach a point where they tell their denial leaders to fuck off.

They can hardly asked for subsidies to manage the effects of climate change if the GOP denies it exists.

Date: 2011/09/09 18:22:13, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 09 2011,22:26)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Sep. 08 2011,22:53)
AGW denial is different to Evolution denial because we can track the changes to the climate.
Given that the rural conservatives and large ag businesses have the most to lose through climate change  will we reach a point where they tell their denial leaders to fuck off.

They can hardly asked for subsidies to manage the effects of climate change if the GOP denies it exists.

You're so cute when your naive :)

Rick Perry, as we speak, is trying to get FEMA money for Texas, even after cutting fire defense budgets AND telling the government that FEMA was a waste of time and money because the states can handle it without the interference of the Feds.

Denial is denial.  Politics is politics.  Money is money.  Logic and sense be damned when politicians are talking and money is on the table.

No I agree that leaders will only change if they are in danger of losing an election if they don't change. This happened in Australia about a decade ago when the Prime Minister was a denialist and suddenly found out that 75% of Aussies believed in climate change.

I was talking about the great unwashed masses and some not so small agri concerns. Your farm could end up totally uneconomic due to climate change. As usually happens the government steps in to subsidise changes in land use. Now the GOP has painted itself into a corner and can't subsidise the effects of something they don't believe exists. So I wonder if the farm towns will start voting for candidates that believe in AGW.

Date: 2011/09/09 19:43:30, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 10 2011,10:23)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 09 2011,14:10)
Attorneys that are not stupid know that eyewitness testimony is the weakest, and that circumstantial evidence can be irrefutable.

Say DNA evidence in a rape case, as opposed to identification in  a lineup.

Casey is not stupid. He avoided the Dover case, where a win would have been significant.

Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.

My take is that Casey is the only true believer in the DI crowd. The rest of the them seem to be in it for the bucks or the culture war and know that their evidence is not that strong.

Date: 2011/09/10 18:17:12, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 10 2011,13:06)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 09 2011,17:23)
Casey was at the Dover trial, basically as a PR shill for the DI. I don't recall him being consulted by the Thomas More Law Center people, though he may have had some casual conversations with them. Mind you, I didn't develop a high regard for the TMLC crew, and they apparently weren't going to Casey for advice.

I recall the first (and only) time I met Casey was at UC San Diego when Jon Wells was giving a talk Casey's shadow ID club sponsored. That was also the first time I met you.

Casey was desperate to 1) have a copy of our anti-ID handout, and 2) learn the real-life identity of Nick Matzke. I provided the latter, but I don't remember who gave Casey the handout that we all were handing out to anyone who walked by.

He thought it was a real 'score.'

That sneaky Nick Matzke hiding his identity by using his real name.

Date: 2011/09/19 17:51:10, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Doc Bill @ Sep. 20 2011,08:24)
UD has really become a clown-car filled cluster fuck.  There's more sense made at the Mad Hatter's tea party than at UD.

Data don't count and you can draw an infinite number of lines through a point only that doesn't matter because it's all just a wild guess.

Venus on a clamshell, UD has become a singularity of stupid.

A few years ago I used to wonder why the more intelligent UDers didn't do more to censor the insane inmates. I think that the answer now is obvious...

Date: 2011/09/22 20:05:14, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 22 2011,22:20)
Gil Dodgen is lost and confused:
Quote
My company has been very generous in providing me with all kinds of training....
. . .
In my experience attending these training courses I am struck by the fact that I am almost always among the very few who are American-born scientists and engineers.

Alternative explanation:  The other engineers learned it the first time.

DrREC is probably correct, though:
Quote
Perhaps you are one of the few American-born scientists and engineers willing to work at the wages your company provides.

Or typically due to being native speakers they would have been promoted out of operational work. I saw this a lot when I was managing a group of programmers in the late 90s. If you were a native speaker and a reasonable coder it was relatively easy to get promoted to team-leader or you simply left and became a consultant.

Same in Engineering. After 10 years you would expect to be a manager, consultant or academic

Date: 2011/09/24 20:24:08, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (paragwinn @ Sep. 24 2011,16:41)
From Gildo's latest he-once-was-lost testimonial:  
Quote
But I’m a freethinker, a legitimate scientist.

Maybe he and Joe G can team up and design their own computer simulation of evolution. Gildo can engineer the software and Joe can beat the shit out of the hardware.

If Gildo is a legitimate scientist, then I'm an eminent historian as a result of living through over 4 decades of American and World history.

He's been putting out quite a few of these lately. What gives?

eta: misspelling correction

Has Gildo even done any pretend science? All he does is preach how he once was lost and now is found

Date: 2011/09/28 16:13:59, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I'm sure that they'll mention the shrinkage in the artic ice sheet this year

Date: 2011/10/16 18:30:45, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Seversky @ Oct. 17 2011,06:49)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 16 2011,13:17)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 16 2011,11:38)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 16 2011,11:19)
Why?

Probably because it's hard to be nice to someone who is both willfully ignorant and ignores reality in favor of their preferred delusion.

People disagree about lots of things.  I don't know why you would reject their friendship merely because they don't align with your own.  Makes no sense.  Your defriending them isn't going to change their opinions, so what is the point?

She does have a point.  What's poisoning US politics at the moment is an excess of intransigence and intolerance.

There's no reason to stop communicating with people just because you have different religious or political views.  Of course, it depends on both sides being tolerant.  I have no problem talking with believers.  It could become one, though, if part of their beliefs held that atheists or agnostics are worse than pedophiles who should be stripped of their citizenship and expelled from the country.

The same applies to those atheists who regard the Westboro Baptist Church as being representative of all Christians, of course

Agreed. From what I have been reading the number one thing that has been turning people away from Christianity is the intolerance and the lies. Being a counterpoint to this can't do anything but help.

Date: 2011/10/19 14:41:26, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 19 2011,23:17)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 18 2011,09:35)

Seems pretty clear to me:

   
Quote
5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.


Emphasis mine. Of course you could go to church for, erm, not-praying.

Yes, that's what I was thinking.

But that is only if you are one of the liberal commie christians who worship Jesus. All of these guys worship Paul don't they?

Date: 2011/10/23 16:29:10, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 22 2011,20:59)
I just finished "Snuff", Sir Pratchett's latest offering. It is one of his greatest works, and I'm waiting for a second reading before deciding if it's going to dethrone "Nightwatch" as my new favorite book of his. You laugh, you cry, you get angry, you get happy, you get sad...

An emotional roller-coaster, I'd say.

+1

Date: 2011/10/23 16:32:15, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (damitall @ Oct. 24 2011,06:05)
It's wonderful to see how the most prolific pro-ID posters at UD are, jointly and severally,  just about the biggest embarrassments to "ID-is-science!-it-is!-it-is!" it's possible to imagine.
I think they embarrass each other, as well.

I don't think that they are aware enough to get embarrassed by each other

Date: 2011/10/25 17:29:51, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 26 2011,03:23)
So I see that PZ simply won't let the stupid Rebecca Watson crap die the death it so richly deserves.  He has yet another shit-stirring post up.  Poor widdle Webecca is getting an "affirmation" because she was soooooooo twamatized by those horrid beasts who didn't buy her bullshit.  And, of course, anybody who doesn't agree with PZ's opinion is immediatley attacked by his horde of mindless sycophants.  

I stopped listening to the The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe about 4 years ago because I couldn't stand her.  The whole "Elevatorgate" debacle merely affirmed my conviction that she's nothing but a substanceless little attention whore.

Or am I gender traitor for saying that?

PZ's Crap

I manage to keep my blood pressure down by only ever reading PZ posts about science and/or poking fun at creationists.

Date: 2011/10/26 15:40:11, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Freddie @ Oct. 27 2011,03:29)
Damn - just when you've made one armchair diagnosis, another one with a better fit comes along.  Try Fanatic Narcissist to see if it fits.
     
Quote
Fanatic narcissist - including paranoid features. An individual whose self-esteem was severely arrested during childhood, who usually displays major paranoid tendencies, and who holds on to an illusion of omnipotence. These people are fighting delusions of insignificance and lost value, and trying to re-establish their self-esteem through grandiose fantasies and self-reinforcement. When unable to gain recognition or support from others, they take on the role of a heroic or worshipped person with a grandiose mission.

Bolding mine.  Top that, someone!

Sounds like Frill to me.

Date: 2011/10/30 00:08:18, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 28 2011,09:13)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 27 2011,18:00)
And there's no banning involved. He really seems to have decided that discussion is not what he wants.

No, it didn't really seem like forastero was much interested in discussing anything.

Not necessarily watching Byers and IBIG here, I've noticed that when real science happens they disappear for awhile until the uncomfortable questions get pushed far enough down the line.

Date: 2011/11/01 20:16:26, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Kristine @ Oct. 31 2011,22:26)
Just follow where the evidence leads.

Science converting denialists one by one

Date: 2011/11/04 17:06:43, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,02:17)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,07:10)
Here's another question for your list of ones you won't answer.

Why do you require impossible evidence for science (i.e. evidence that no actual science requires and all scientists acknowledge that doesn't exist) and not require the same level of evidence for your own position.

You haven't even told us your position, though it sounds vaguely YEC.  Would you be willing to argue with someone who is a ID supporter but says that the designer is not God and the Bible has nothing to do with design?

Would you be willing to subject your notions to the level of scrutiny that you are giving to science?

If 'no' to any of the above, why?

So you admit no scientist can't even explain the notorious   prokaryote to eukaryote and ape to man dichotomies?

I debate theistic evolutionists, Buddhist, alien seed mongers, creationists, and IDers and learn from them too.  Some are much more right than others and it often comes down to the individual. Things like DNA and soft tissue in fossils, thermodynamics etc indicate a young earth to me. I believe the Bible. I believe life was created but adapts slightly by epigentics and not random mutations.

Well the Bible has over 100 references to a flat earth. Also it is pretty clear that the sky is solid and heaven sits above. Why can this be ignored but everything else must be taken literally? The truth is that YECs are cafeteria christians just like everybody else and that the anti science and the rest are just cultural badges to use against perceived enemies. People are seeing through this and are leaving christianity in droves.

You give the game away when you say debate. In a debate you ignore 90% of what the opposition says and hit on the 10%. For people who seek the truth will worry about the other 90%, Ask any of the ex-YECs on this board.

A young earth can't explain:

limestone caves nearby that are caused by a number of very slow processes.


Why the grand canyon meanders.

Fossils are laid out in the order that supports common descent, not in body size or how fast they can out run the flood.

Sediments are obviously laid down by many different processes.

No dinosaurs with modern mammals. Different habitats doesn't wash as Fossils of dinosaurs are found all over the world in many different habitats.

etc. etc.

If I was a YEC and after the truth, these kind of things would keep me up at night. If I was a cultural warrior full of bluster, I'd just ignore it and search for my next debating point.

Date: 2011/11/05 03:29:21, Link
Author: MichaelJ
A real live one

Quote

Then you insisted that no fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time and I countered with:

-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......


Yet the fundamental forces remain the same. To account for a young universe the change in speed of light would have fried adam and all other life. Strange how on one hand all of the universal constants have been perfectly designed for life but then they can be warped to suit a young universe.

As for the rest, wow they are certainly making creationists stupider - Fruit and vegetables have less minerals? Not if you shop at the right places.

Star migration is slowing?? WTF

Date: 2011/11/05 04:15:14, Link
Author: MichaelJ
The canyon system doesn't snake like the grand canyon.

Date: 2011/11/05 04:29:16, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Flat earth ...

Isaiah 11:12  
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Proverbs 8:27-  When he prepared the heavens, I was there, When he drew a circle on the face of the deep

Isaiah 40:22-  It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And it's inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Also unmoving:

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

I wont even start on the firmanent and vaults of heaven

Date: 2011/11/05 04:40:29, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,19:22)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:15)
The canyon system doesn't snake like the grand canyon.

No canyons snake the same because no giant giant forces snake the same

Exactly - a canyon that is created over millions of years will meander like the grand canyon


with the mt St Helens comparisions:

The sediments on Mount St. Helens were unconsolidated volcanic ash, which is easily eroded. The Grand Canyon was carved into harder materials, including well-consolidated sandstone and limestone, hard metamorphosed sediments (the Vishnu schist), plus a touch of relatively recent basalt.

The walls of the Mount St. Helens canyon slope 45 degrees. The walls of the Grand Canyon are vertical in places.

The canyon was not entirely formed suddenly. The canyon along Toutle River has a river continuously contributing to its formation.

The streams flowing down Mount St. Helens flow at a steeper grade than the Colorado River does, allowing greater erosion.

The Grand Canyon (and canyons further up and down the Colorado River) is more than 100,000 times larger than the canyon on Mount St. Helens. The two are not really comparable.

Edit: wrote St Helens instead of Grand Canyon

Date: 2011/11/05 07:06:47, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2011,21:15)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,04:29)
Most importantly though is that fact that all kinds of dinosaurs are found with soft tissues

Citation please.

Haven't they found that the soft tissue was just bacterial film?

Date: 2011/11/05 17:47:05, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,01:35)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:29)
Flat earth ...

Isaiah 11:12  
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Proverbs 8:27-  When he prepared the heavens, I was there, When he drew a circle on the face of the deep

Isaiah 40:22-  It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And it's inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Also unmoving:

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

I wont even start on the firmanent and vaults of heaven

The Hebrew Bible uses poems  consistent with  the ancient Middle Eastern cosmology, such as in the Enuma Elish, which described a circular earth surrounded by water above and below, as illustrated by references to the "foundations of the earth" and the "circle of the earth. In numerous passages, the bible refers to the earth as a campus in relation to night and day, boundaries and winds (easterlies, northerlies etc) so the four corners or "wings" logically means north, south, east and west. For instance Job 26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.

Nebuchadnezzar was in a prophetic dream-time state and thus able to see the earth from afar and seeing the ends of the continents.  

Likewise, in  Mathew, even if Satan can see through solid earth, his best vantage point to see, accuse, and influence all of the kingdoms would logically be from a distance like a "angel of [false] light" (imagine a parabolic beam), hence the name "prince of the power of the air". This is why there are so many depiction  of ancient gods giving of conic and oblique powers

Early Church fathers like Augustine and Constantine’s tutor Lactantius believed in a spherical earth. The early Christian also often depicted symbols of Christ over the sphere of the earth or angels holding a spherical earth.

The flat earth ties to Christians was based mostly on lies by bible hating humanists like John W. Draper and Andrew Dickson White   Russell, J. B. 1997. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback, Westport, Conn.

So you are saying while everybody else around them thought the world was flat, the early Jews knew it was spherical and instead of saying that our God told us that the earth is a sphere, they used the same flat earth language but only meant it metaphorically. Well explain then why we can't assert that they knew that the universe is 13 billion years old and the whole 7 day thing and the flood is metaphorical as well?

Date: 2011/11/05 18:37:29, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,02:05)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:40)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,19:22)
 
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:15)
The canyon system doesn't snake like the grand canyon.

No canyons snake the same because no giant giant forces snake the same

Exactly - a canyon that is created over millions of years will meander like the grand canyon


with the mt St Helens comparisions:

The sediments on Mount St. Helens were unconsolidated volcanic ash, which is easily eroded. The Grand Canyon was carved into harder materials, including well-consolidated sandstone and limestone, hard metamorphosed sediments (the Vishnu schist), plus a touch of relatively recent basalt.

The walls of the Mount St. Helens canyon slope 45 degrees. The walls of the Grand Canyon are vertical in places.

The canyon was not entirely formed suddenly. The canyon along Toutle River has a river continuously contributing to its formation.

The streams flowing down Mount St. Helens flow at a steeper grade than the Colorado River does, allowing greater erosion.

The Grand Canyon (and canyons further up and down the Colorado River) is more than 100,000 times larger than the canyon on Mount St. Helens. The two are not really comparable.

Edit: wrote St Helens instead of Grand Canyon

More pseudoempiricism from you. Various anomalies at St Helens and abroad show that super chaotic cataclysm forces dont always snake the same way as you say. Some gouge out vertically some not so vertically

So why use such a bad example as Mt St Helens? Show us an catastrophic example that does look like the grand canyon.

Date: 2011/11/05 19:07:59, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 06 2011,02:08)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,01:50)
Fossil areas all over the world have mammals and dinosaurs in the same vicinity

Of course they do, muppet.  Mammals evolved from synapsids in the Triassic.  What's your point?

Note that I originally said "modern" mammals. He accuses practically every body else in the world of lying of lying but just on this thread we can document many his lies:

All kinds of dinosaurs are being found with soft tissues - He then gives us a list that contains creatures that aren't dinosaurs and examples of soft tissue impressions. In fact he finds one example that is contentious and is being studied by those same SCIENTISTS who he accuses of burying information supporting his fantasies.

Mt St Helens has a canyon exactly like the grand canyon - well no exactly but there are ones that are exactly like the grand canyon but he could be bother digging them up.

Date: 2011/11/06 16:39:20, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,17:32)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,19:07)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 06 2011,02:08)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,01:50)
Fossil areas all over the world have mammals and dinosaurs in the same vicinity

Of course they do, muppet.  Mammals evolved from synapsids in the Triassic.  What's your point?

Note that I originally said "modern" mammals. He accuses practically every body else in the world of lying of lying but just on this thread we can document many his lies:

All kinds of dinosaurs are being found with soft tissues - He then gives us a list that contains creatures that aren't dinosaurs and examples of soft tissue impressions. In fact he finds one example that is contentious and is being studied by those same SCIENTISTS who he accuses of burying information supporting his fantasies.

Mt St Helens has a canyon exactly like the grand canyon - well no exactly but there are ones that are exactly like the grand canyon but he could be bother digging them up.

Nope I never accused everyone in the world of lying

Actually I gave quite a few examples of soft tissue

Your analogy is equivalent to saying that since cloud-to-ground lightening strikes dont "snake" exactly the same way, then its in no way equivalent

No the features I listed for the grand canyon are features shared by canyons formed rivers over millions of years which looks different a canyon formed instantly by the volcano.

Why do you need to twist things and lie all of the time?

Date: 2011/11/06 17:31:43, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 04 2011,01:44)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 03 2011,15:32)
Personally I would like to get a discussion going on the subject of feminism because the little I've read from the links provided has impressed upon me a world of concepts I'm completely unfamiliar with. Ironically my wife and her friends are most definitely feminists, and given some of the perspectives I've read I might be too, but I've never really explored the issues to any extent and frankly don't know what most of them are (as indicated, again, from the little I've now been reading). My wife and her friends have not really discussed such things with me and I could speculate on why, but I suppose that's irrelevant. The point is I'm just not that familiar with the issues.

Now that I have read a little though and have gone and read some of the comments both on PZ's most recent posting and some of the past postings, I agree that the content to noise ratio isn't that great. Otoh, I think I get some of it...maybe. I think it's a pendulum thing - as in, given the years of nobody even thinking there was any issue and then the years negativity when feminist ideas were first being espoused and gaining attention, to the years of people dismissing the concerns out of hand rather than engaging in discussion, I think that a number of folks - like a number of the folks here who have been in the trenches against creationism for years - just have high frustration-based knee jerk reaction to anything they perceive as even remotely dismissive.

That's my take anyway.  Yeah it completely destroys the message, but given my reaction to the creationist ploys I've seen on Panda's and other such sites ("I'm an evolutionist and I'm trying to find some information on evolutionism, but one thing I don't understand and maybe someone here can help is how is it possible that just given time hydrogen turned into humans mindlessly?") I can really understand it.

Seconded  in toto!

I'm just as clueless and ignorant as the next guy when it comes to feminism and social sciences.

As for the signal:noise issue at Pharyngula, ever since PZ started posting on feminist issues there have been a small number of vocal but unpleasant people who have made really odious apologia for rape/rape culture/sexism (note varying degrees there). There have been a far larger number of clueless gits like me who have blundered in and said the wrong thing, or who have asked questions and got good answers. What is there now is a vast reservoir of pissed off! Every thread on these topics is inundated with the few horrible loons, a greater number of stupid people and an even greater number of clueless gits.

It's become, in the words of another poster, entrenched, tribal. Other blogs have commenters advocating trolling feminism threads in Pharyngula for kicks, threads where people who are rape survivors post and try and work through their stuff. Not the greatest environment or choice, but I mention it only to explain why things get so fraught. Right or wrong, that's the situation over there.

So yeah, anything HERE, that doesn't have that baggage would be valuable.

Louis

It's not just this but it is the lack of diversity. Most of us agree that everybody should be treated equally and their rights respected but I think that some in the Pharyngula crowd and PZ go an extra step and say this is how men and women should behave.

An recent example was a cartoon that basically said that once a girl refused a date the guy should have just gone away and that persistence only works in romantic comedies.

The problem is that in my 50 years, I have seen persistence  end up working many times sometimes in more corney ways than in romantic comedies. Although I agree that most of the time the person is wasting his (or her) time.

Now I would have liked to post that comment on the site but the thought that I would most likely be jumped on by the crowd so why bother.

Date: 2011/11/07 20:36:00, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,04:35)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,12:15)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:30)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,10:50)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:26)
Please tell me again how y'all observed these 13 billion years of geology and what is this concern/cry troll card that you keep playing?

see... more conflating.

More changing what we were talking about.

I was talking about how we know that the fundamental laws of the universe haven't changed.  How we can observe the formation of stars 13 billion years ago and see that the weak nuclear force hasn't changed since then.

Now you want me to show that we have observed 13 billion years of geology.  Are you on crack?

I'm sorry, I'm using concern troll incorrectly.  What kind of troll is that comes in and cries because we don't give his flaky ideas the respect that we give to an actual scientist?

Here is your exact quote Ogre: "None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so)."

..and again your concern/cry troll interpretation is a bit incoherent but it seems that you are actually trying to convey that y'all have been purposefully taking advantage of my sincerity from the beginning?  In that case, my concerns with your attitudo academico is not really a fabrication or off topic; and thus, not trolling.

Thank you

Yes, that's right.  Over the observed history of the universe, none of the fundamental forces have altered.  The weak nuclear force is exactly the same as it was 13 billion years ago.  How do we know?  Because suns still exist.

The output of the suns change over time.  The size of suns change over time (BTW: Most get larger and increase energy output, not smaller with weaker output).  But none of that is relevant to the weak nuclear force... which is both responsible for H-H fusion in stars AND radioactive decay.

To say that radioactive decay can change, then you must also say that the weak nuclear force can change and the consequence is that suns, at some point in the past, couldn't have existed.  (Let's wait and see if he figures this out :)

Please note, that the change in the value of A force does not mean that the force itself changes.  I can type gently or put so much force on the keyboard that it shatters.  This does not in any way change the simple fact that F = ma.

Yes, my concern troll is incoherent because I was using a faulty definition.  However, you (as shown by Bill) are still a concern troll in the classic definition of the word.

You are also trolling for emotional content because your ideas are somehow being oppressed because of a global conspiracy amongst low paid scientists to destroy religion.

This is, of course, an idiotic statement.  Even if it was true, it would have failed miserably.

Anywhoodle... you've lost it.  Did you run out of medication over the last few days?

Actually not all suns still exist and decay rates can be altered and do change

The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry
http://io9.com/5619954....emistry

“It's one of the most basic concepts in all of chemistry: Radioactive elements decay at a onstant rate. If that weren't the case, carbon-14 dating wouldn't tell us anything reliable about the age of archaeological materials, and every chemotherapy treatment would be a gamble. It's such a fundamental assumption that scientists don't even bother testing it anymore. That's why researchers had to stumble upon this discovery in the most unlikely of ways……That's when they [Purdue University] discovered something strange. The data produced gave random numbers for the individual atoms, yes, but the overall decay wasn't constant, flying in the face of the accepted rules of chemistry.”

Your Wiki might help

Changing decay rates                                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay#Changing_decay_rates

The radioactive decay modes of electron capture and internal conversion are known to be slightly sensitive to chemical and environmental effects which change the electronic structure of the atom, which in turn affects the presence of 1s and 2s electrons that participate in the decay process. Recent results suggest the possibility that decay rates might have a weak dependence (0.5% or less) on environmental factors. It has been suggested that measurements of decay rates of silicon-32, manganese-54, and radium-226 exhibit small seasonal variations (of the order of 0.1%), proposed to be related to either solar flare activity or distance from the sun.[8][9][10] However, such measurements are highly susceptible to systematic errors, and a subsequent paper[11] has found no evidence for such correlations in six other isotopes, and sets upper limits on the size of any such effects.

The strong nuclear force, not observed at the familiar macroscopic scale, is the most powerful force over subatomic distances. The electrostatic force is almost always significant, and, in the case of beta decay, the weak nuclear force is also involved.

Such a collapse (a decay event) requires a specific activation energy.. In the case of an excited atomic nucleus, the arbitrarily small disturbance comes from quantum vacuum fluctuations. A radioactive nucleus (or any excited system in quantum mechanics) is unstable, and can, thus, spontaneously stabilize to a less-excited system. The resulting transformation alters the structure of the nucleus and results in the emission of either a photon or a high-velocity particle that has mass (such as an electron, alpha particle, or other type).  Random quantum vacuum fluctuations are theorized to promote relaxation to a lower energy state (the "decay") in a phenomenon known as quantum tunneling. The Quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space

Do you read anything you quote. This discusses a 0.1% seasonal variation. You need more than that to convert 13billion years into 6 thousand years

Date: 2011/11/07 20:54:49, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Didn't GOP turn out to be a Poe? Even GOP wouldn't say that changed farming practices and hybrids (re mineral content) proves that the fundamental forces change.

Date: 2011/11/08 17:05:29, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,10:23)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,17:47)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,01:35)
 
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:29)
Flat earth ...

Isaiah 11:12  
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Proverbs 8:27-  When he prepared the heavens, I was there, When he drew a circle on the face of the deep

Isaiah 40:22-  It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And it's inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Also unmoving:

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

I wont even start on the firmanent and vaults of heaven

The Hebrew Bible uses poems  consistent with  the ancient Middle Eastern cosmology, such as in the Enuma Elish, which described a circular earth surrounded by water above and below, as illustrated by references to the "foundations of the earth" and the "circle of the earth. In numerous passages, the bible refers to the earth as a campus in relation to night and day, boundaries and winds (easterlies, northerlies etc) so the four corners or "wings" logically means north, south, east and west. For instance Job 26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.

Nebuchadnezzar was in a prophetic dream-time state and thus able to see the earth from afar and seeing the ends of the continents.  

Likewise, in  Mathew, even if Satan can see through solid earth, his best vantage point to see, accuse, and influence all of the kingdoms would logically be from a distance like a "angel of [false] light" (imagine a parabolic beam), hence the name "prince of the power of the air". This is why there are so many depiction  of ancient gods giving of conic and oblique powers

Early Church fathers like Augustine and Constantine’s tutor Lactantius believed in a spherical earth. The early Christian also often depicted symbols of Christ over the sphere of the earth or angels holding a spherical earth.

The flat earth ties to Christians was based mostly on lies by bible hating humanists like John W. Draper and Andrew Dickson White   Russell, J. B. 1997. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback, Westport, Conn.

So you are saying while everybody else around them thought the world was flat, the early Jews knew it was spherical and instead of saying that our God told us that the earth is a sphere, they used the same flat earth language but only meant it metaphorically. Well explain then why we can't assert that they knew that the universe is 13 billion years old and the whole 7 day thing and the flood is metaphorical as well?

No they didnt all use a flat earth anology

What, your answer does not even make sense? I give a doesn't examples of Bible references to a flat fixed earth. The flat earthers say that there are in total 170 references in the Bible to a flat earth and your first response was to quote people from the middle ages, who as far as I know didn't write the Bible and your second response is simply

"No they didn't".

Cue the black night scene from Monty Python

Date: 2011/11/12 21:03:51, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Wow the word salad really comes out when they lose the argument doesn't it.

"Again, the fluctuations, assumptions, circular calibrations, contaminations, religious fervor, etc etc etc make your radiomagic dating a joke."

He has stated this and except for a 0.5% possible issue with fluctuations he has failed to show any other issues with dating.


"Again, No because its only a "part" of the reason that your dating is way off"

So why the feck lead with the issue that only results in a 0.5% error. This is like the Mt St Helens thing - He has these magical super-secret proofs, but he trots out the tired old creationist carnards.

Date: 2011/11/12 23:44:33, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:07)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 12 2011,21:03)
Wow the word salad really comes out when they lose the argument doesn't it.

"Again, the fluctuations, assumptions, circular calibrations, contaminations, religious fervor, etc etc etc make your radiomagic dating a joke."

He has stated this and except for a 0.5% possible issue with fluctuations he has failed to show any other issues with dating.


"Again, No because its only a "part" of the reason that your dating is way off"

So why the feck lead with the issue that only results in a 0.5% error. This is like the Mt St Helens thing - He has these magical super-secret proofs, but he trots out the tired old creationist carnards.

Actually I already went over that stuff but y'all only want to discuss this new finding on fluctuating decay rates

We must have all blinked and missed it because anything you have said has well and truly been refuted.

Date: 2011/11/12 23:54:36, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,10:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25)
Hey forastero, here's a reply, also published in Radiocarbon to your Keenan article.

http://dendro.cornell.edu/article....02c.pdf

I'll just add that Manning et. al. has another (minimum) 15 peer-reviewed articles published specifically discussing radiocarbon dating AFTER 2002.  Further, if you go to Manning's home page, there are at least three articles discussing radiocarbon calibration, at least two discussing the tree-ring dating and radiocarbon dating, and one article discussing what we know and don't know about radiocarbon dates.  Most of these were also published in Radiocarbon.

Feel free to read them all and learn what's going on from an actual scientist, but do start with the response to Keenan's paper.

Enjoy.

There be skullduggery goings on with yur pirates
http://www.centuries.co.uk/uluburu....run.pdf c14

Yes a scientist is taken to task by other scientists when he can't backup his conclusions. This shows that if there was anything wrong systematically with dating methods some scientists will be onto it straight away.

This is extremely bad for your case as it shows for science to be open to examination

Date: 2011/11/14 02:21:18, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Unfortunately the Table of Nations was written in the seventh century BCE as a post-hoc explanation of the nations of the time. A good clue that this section was written at this time is that while some of the nations mentioned only recently appeared in the 8-7 centuries and certainly weren't started at around 2000BCE

Date: 2011/12/16 04:58:09, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Dec. 16 2011,17:08)
Farewell, Hitch!

:(   :(   :(

A sad day

Date: 2011/12/21 16:21:21, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 22 2011,07:10)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 21 2011,11:11)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 21 2011,11:03)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 06 2011,13:26)
My son has to give a persuasive speech for his class next week.   He chose ID as his topic...hehe...;P  

His teacher mentioned he'd probably have to get into religion on that topic, and he told her...nope, won't touch on religion.  It'll be entirely based on science.  

:))

Speech on ID complete.  Received a 93.5%.  Went three minutes over allotted time, but didn't get points take off.  Instructor said she was very impressed with the amount of research he put into the topic.  

Just looked up his grades on parent portal for the semester...straight A's.  

<ends proud mama report>

Any chance of getting a copy?

I doubt it and so should you. The writer of any material owns that material, and the person who earns the grade owns the grade. I would really be uncomfortable posting a child's paper online for adults to critique; it seems to cross a privacy line.

I agree and there wouldn't be anything there that hasn't been debunked 100 times over. While FTK's brain has fossilized and can't take contrary information, her big risk is that her son has read something that has raised a spark of doubt in his mind.
I wonder if she will get angry and flounce out of the room if she can't answer her son's questions.

Date: 2011/12/22 16:14:44, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 22 2011,07:54)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 21 2011,16:21)
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 22 2011,07:10)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 21 2011,11:11)
   
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 21 2011,11:03)
     
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 06 2011,13:26)
My son has to give a persuasive speech for his class next week.   He chose ID as his topic...hehe...;P  

His teacher mentioned he'd probably have to get into religion on that topic, and he told her...nope, won't touch on religion.  It'll be entirely based on science.  

:))

Speech on ID complete.  Received a 93.5%.  Went three minutes over allotted time, but didn't get points take off.  Instructor said she was very impressed with the amount of research he put into the topic.  

Just looked up his grades on parent portal for the semester...straight A's.  

<ends proud mama report>

Any chance of getting a copy?

I doubt it and so should you. The writer of any material owns that material, and the person who earns the grade owns the grade. I would really be uncomfortable posting a child's paper online for adults to critique; it seems to cross a privacy line.

I agree and there wouldn't be anything there that hasn't been debunked 100 times over. While FTK's brain has fossilized and can't take contrary information, her big risk is that her son has read something that has raised a spark of doubt in his mind.
I wonder if she will get angry and flounce out of the room if she can't answer her son's questions.

umm, he also spoke briefly on the multiverse theory as an alternative to ID.  He did quite a bit of reading on that as well, although he knew of it before researching for this speech of course.  

There is not one solitary thing he will come across in college that will shock him.  He's been brought up with the evolutionary mantra in schools since day one, and I've certainly told him many times to learn as much as he possibly can about the arguments against ID.

I'v also told him he needs to know everything possible about evolution if he has any interest whatsoever in discussing/debating the topic with people.

Unlike you folks, we aren't interested in censorship.  I strongly support evolution being taught in the schools in all it's glory. Always have...it's a theory...teach it.  But, unlike you, I believe ID has every right to be taught right alongside any OOL theories out there.

Also believe the controversial issues about evolution need to be taught...we're just stifling science otherwise.

I think that you would be surprised. We have seen you not understand the critiques of ID and generally just flounce out.

Has your son actually read the critiques of Behe's examples of irreducable complexity? Not just through your distorted glasses or Behe's own goalpost shifting responses but read the responses themselves. Is he aware that DrDr's definition of information is confusing and contradictory and nobody has been able to quantify the specification of any meaningful biological object.

Date: 2012/01/15 00:36:40, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Dembski is any of the villains in the Scoopi Doo shows "If it wasn't for those damned kids then I would have gotten away with it"
Of course that makes the NSCE Scoobie and the gang

Date: 2012/01/16 00:49:05, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Reading the interview it seems to boil down to "I don't think that it is probable therefore it is false".

I guess as a full fellow he will be asked to sing for his supper. I wonder if the requirements will include the UD blog? Also given his comments about not liking the Nazi-Darwinism link and being an Old Earth Creationist, how will he control UD?

Date: 2012/01/30 16:59:53, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I wonder why there is such a negative correlation between creativity and general talent and the kind of people that get attracted to fundamentalist religion. Take out his Atheist writings and Hitchens was still an amazing essayist, Dawkins with his popularisation of science, Stephen Fry! Colbert and Stewart aren't atheists but they accept reality. The list can go on.

Even at a local level, I have about 1000 clients on my list and without exception the creative and the clever are all left leaning.

Kevin is never going to be anything but a hack and an admitted liar. I don't know how anybody could live with themselves just being happy with mediocre

Date: 2012/01/30 17:26:26, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 30 2012,22:38)
Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 30 2012,06:59)
champignon gives kairosfocus some much needed correction here:
 
Quote
I’m ashamed to say that when I read Gil’s post and your subsequent comments, I actually believed that the songwriter was expressing approval of the burning of synagogues. I figured that you and Gil couldn’t possibly be brazen enough to quote mine the song lyrics, particularly when anyone could look them up online. Well, you and Gil have stooped that low, and you can bet I won’t be assuming your honesty in the future.

and here:
 
Quote
Onlookers,

Imagine the outcry from kairosfocus if an atheist had quotemined a Christian song in order to smear Christianity. We’d get 500+ indignant lines talking about how “evo mat” amorality was leading to the destruction of civilization.

What hypocrisy.

Could this be the combination of posts that finally increase the pressure in kairosfocus head beyond the structural limits of his skull?

Combined with woodford's posts who repeatedly questioned KF's authority along the line of "I don't know this guy, so why should I take his comments as gospel?"

In the same thread this  comment quoted from the site. I don't know if any sock puppets want to bring up the falsehoods in the text as here is the  real story.

Date: 2012/01/30 18:38:24, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Nice friends they keep. The post they are quoting from is from Justin's stalker who has been ordered not to write these articles

Date: 2012/01/30 19:29:19, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (dvunkannon @ Jan. 31 2012,04:22)
Quote (The whole truth @ Jan. 28 2012,23:35)
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 28 2012,09:44)
That is an All-Star Lineup Of The Stupid!!!

BTW - This pic came up when i googled "Cornelius Hunter:



LOL!

On that Biola faculty page, "George" Hunter doesn't seem to be proud of his PhD from the University of Illinois in Biophysics and Computational Biology

Protein structure analysis and prediction
by Hunter, Cornelius George Ph.D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2001, 138 pages; AAT 3017108

It seems "George" tried to parlay that work into a faculty position at Rice University - http://www.cs.rice.edu/Colloqu....4.shtml

Guess it didn't work out.

How could someone do all that book learnin' and still be as thick as two bricks.

Date: 2012/01/31 00:31:39, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Verbena @ Jan. 26 2012,03:55)
Another way to look at it is if humans were a completely female species, a caste of big brutish (and probably infertile) females would evolve to do the kinds of dangerous work men  do

The term 'Brutish' has some interesting overtones other than just being large and a risktaker. It also assumes someone who is not very articulate or sensitive etc. Would the drones have these secondary characteristics as well?

It must be a tough job teasing out what is environmental and what is caused by genes.

Like most modern liberal parents, I was surprised how quickly my son went from baby blob to 'male' and my daughter to 'female' with very little influence.

Actually, to be honest I thought that kids were born blank slates, instead, at least for our kids they were born with their current personalities and I feel that all we can do as parents is to try to encourage the good and discourage the bad

Date: 2012/02/02 15:31:40, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I think that if the speed of light remains a real limit, I think that it would be inefficient to send biological beings around the universe. I think that the people would be just uploaded into a computer. The advantages are:
1. A ship the size of a beer keg.
2. You could slow down the CPU clock speed so the trips might only take subjective a couple of weeks.
3. Once you arrive you could use nano-bots to make whatever you need including a new body.

I got this from a science fiction book but the name escapes me

Date: 2012/02/02 19:54:07, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 03 2012,10:29)
Quote
Elizabeth:

If you think a guy with two Ph.D.s (one in math, one in philosophy) has made an elementary mistake in his own research field, and you have the mathematical knowledge to demonstrate the mistake, then why don’t you write up your argument formally and submit it as an article (I know you are a big fan of articles! to a peer-reviewed journal of probability theory or design theory or the like, instead of airing it here or on other blog sites, among people who mostly aren’t competent to referee? If you are going to invest scores of hours arguing against Dembski’s position, why not do it where it counts?


Well, yeah, I guess you could do that if, in fact, Dembski had published his crap in such a journal where a reply would make sense.

However, sending in an article demonstrating that Betty is mathematically better than Veronica is not likely to succeed if you get my drift.

Morons, all the way down.

Liz reply pretty closely matches yours:
Quote

There have been very many critiques of Dembski’s math. None to my knowledge are published, because you don’t get papers published if they are critiques of non-published work.

Most are much more detailed than mine, but mine seems a simple enough point that I’d have thought someone here (maybe even Dembski himself) could respond. Possibly gpuccio or kairosfocus, both of whom have developed their own versions of CSI.

I’m no mathematician, but of course I am a data analyst, and use inferential statistics daily.

And actually, there are plenty of mathematically competent people who post here who could chime in.

Date: 2012/02/08 15:09:42, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Another reason to keep it alive is that it is a little like Ron Paul's newsletter, great evidence against ID itself.

Date: 2012/02/14 16:11:55, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 15 2012,07:02)
AtBC needs a qualifying question too. Candidates? I'll start:

Can a one-legged frog kick the seeds off a dill pickle?

Is that the African or European Frog?

Date: 2012/02/15 16:45:20, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I find the current purge a bit of a yawn. I predict that within a week or two people will don new socks and the cycle will repeat itself once again. It would be nice if people could refrain from visiting the site for a month just to see if the site would implode.

Ever since Dave Scott left and DrDr has let go of the reins I've noticed that the site has cycled between being tolerant and wielding the ban hammer with abandon.

Of course in the early days even expressing a polite doubt would get you banned.

Date: 2012/02/15 23:11:27, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Patrick @ Feb. 16 2012,13:36)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 15 2012,17:45)
I find the current purge a bit of a yawn. I predict that within a week or two people will don new socks and the cycle will repeat itself once again. It would be nice if people could refrain from visiting the site for a month just to see if the site would implode.

Elizabeth Liddle's blog is well positioned to replace UD.  Even Gil Dodgen has shown up.  It must be a classy place.

They wont stay long if they can't control the conversation by intimidation

Date: 2012/02/17 14:18:05, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Looking at the site the only posts getting comments are the LNC related posts.

Date: 2012/02/18 22:30:43, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 19 2012,12:38)
Pathetic is WAY too charitable to describe GilDodgen's "doubts" of his doubts of evolutionary theory:
 
Quote
The history of evolutionary theory has included quite a number of skeptics (the Wistar dudes were no dummies, and even Gould had reservations, until he was forced to recant), including Charles Darwin himself, who observed that the fossil record did not comport with his assumption that nature makes no jumps, but speculated that future investigation would reveal that the fossil record really was infested with the transitional intermediates his theory required.

Finally, I propose what I call the trajectory of the evidence. When a scientific theory is correct, the more we learn, the more the theory should have explanatory power, but the opposite has occurred concerning orthodox evolutionary theory. The more we learn about the incredible engineering sophistication found in even the simplest living cell, the more I’m inclined to be skeptical that the probabilistic resources could have been available to accomplish such a task through the proposed evolutionary mechanisms.

I thus defend the rationality of my skepticism.

He's been invited over and over to maybe just scratch the surface regarding his doubts about "probabilistic resources". No dice. Just a bunch of handwaving hoping everyone is too stupid to notice he won't even try a little bit to defend his doubts.

Doesn't rise to 'pathetic', even. This is how a fraud gives the audience and his critics the middle finger, by typing up hundreds of words that purposely avoid and evade what he claims to defend. Maybe you could just start with some of the probabilities you're concerned about, asks olegt, politely.

Fuck you, olegt, says Gil, and thanks for letting me defend my doubts by tell you all to fuck off.

Gil's argument is always only ever personal incredularity. I admit that I was taken in by his "Look at how smart I am" posts and was surprised by the pathetic responses that could have come from Hovind.

Date: 2012/02/26 15:19:53, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I also don't think that you need a scientific education to see that ID is vacuous. Prior to Dover the commonest complaint on PT was that the MSM was too much he said-she said when they reported on ID. Once the case started this quickly changed to ridicule and now except for some Fox pundits they don't even bother reporting on it.

I come here for 2 reasons:
1. The unintended humour of the UDists and the intended humour of the ATBCers.
2. To try to understand their psychology. What goes on in their brains. Why would Gil come onto Liz's site and say that he could prove that evolution was impossible using basic probability not provide the calculation and flounce out using the insults as an excuse.

Now what are the options:
1. He is completely unhinged and planned it all ahead of time.
2. He thought he had the devastating proof when he made the claim. As this was the first time anybody asked him to provide it, he realised that it was puerile and looked for any excuse to run away from the site.
3. His subconcious protecting him from reality led him to think that he actually did provide the proof and he was insulted that everybody on the site weren't instantly converted and flounced out.

I'd be interested in Liz's opinion on she thinks happened.  For Gil I tend towards number 3. People like Joe I think tend towards number 2. That is he KNOWS that ID is correct but also know where the evidence lies. Joe thinks that for now he can confuse matters by throwing dung around and maybe one day somebody will find some evidence for ID.

Date: 2012/02/26 17:11:10, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (socle @ Feb. 27 2012,07:22)


I don't know what to say about Gil.  I get the impression he thinks of himself as always being the smartest guy in the room, and that he just doesn't need to defend his claims, because, well, he's Gil Dodgen.  


Which basically says '2' as he must not be conscious of not being able to back up his claims.



Date: 2012/03/02 22:05:52, Link
Author: MichaelJ
On the death of UD. I've been watching the date and time of the first and last of the recent comments and it currently takes around 24 hours for the site to generate 30 comments. Just after the purge it was about 6 hours. Also at least half of the comments are from BA77.

Also in the 'daily popular' there used to be threads that were in the thousands now they all seem to average around the 700s



Date: 2012/03/06 02:02:25, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Cool graphs. So if they maintain 30 comments per day then the total for March would be 930 which would make it the lowest month since 2008.

I've just checked the recent comment list and again it seems to be almost exactly 24 hours for 30 comments. Am I missing something obvious?

Date: 2012/03/07 23:08:03, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 08 2012,03:04)
Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 07 2012,09:45)
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Mar. 06 2012,20:30)
 
Quote
scordova
If you google the phrase “intellectual honesty” you’ll see that an essay by ID author Mike Gene ranks very highly (#3 as of this writing).

This game is fun! If you google the phrase "intellectual dishonesty", you'll see that Mike Gene also ranks very highly.
Plus, if you google "intellectual dishonesty intelligent design", Phillip E. Johnson is on top.

Another example of intellectual dishonesty:
By O'Really: Scientist banned for doubting Darwin has presented challenge to our definition of life

Salvador Corwegotfuckedindova?

By Jove, UD really are scraping the barrel.

Which is a good thing.

:)

He hasn't really got the hang of this Google thing, has he?
Quote
In contrast, if you google “intellectual dishonesty NCSE Gleik”, the NCSE’s Gleik is at the top of the list.

Well, yeah.  If your search terms include "NCSE Gleik", your chances of getting the NCSE's Gleik are reasonably good.

If there were any commenters left at UD, one of them might have pointed out who's top of the list if you google "sal cordova moron".

I wonder if he has come back because there is nobody left to highlight his idiocy

Date: 2012/03/13 16:51:07, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (damitall @ Mar. 13 2012,21:18)
Paranoia

Mullings:
 
Quote
I notice we are running at a better than 100:1 views to comments ratio, about ten times the usual ratio for UD, which strongly suggests that this thread is under hostile observation.


Couldn't be any other reason, could there?

I don't know where he gets the 10:1 ratio. The top daily visits current runs between 400 to 700 views. Having 100 to 1 ratio just means that there are almost no comments.

Date: 2012/03/18 23:04:22, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Under the thread "Engineering and Metaphysics Initial Abstracts Posted" our good friend Gil post's:

"I would love to present a paper, and I could write a really good one. Unfortunately, I do engineering and commuting from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM every day, sleep eight hours a day, and therefore have only about four hours a day for everything else in life."

Date: 2012/03/25 01:13:06, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Didn't Nick Matzke get the memo. He is posting over at UD

Date: 2012/03/25 23:46:20, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Clasty has been banned from PT. Is this the first banning since Dave Scott?

Date: 2012/03/26 15:22:34, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 27 2012,05:12)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 26 2012,11:59)
Where would he go? He is banned at PT, Pharyngula, and rationalskepticism; at TalkRat members don't discuss with him, they just laugh. And if he uses a sock his insolence will give him away rather sooner than later.


Looks like he's already resurfaced back at UD where he (posting as Atheistoclast) was banned earlier this year.  In a nod to his previous identity at "Ghostofpaley", he's posting as "Paleysghost".

linky

He's starting off by sucking up to Slimy Sal, setting him up nicely for a future big troll.

I thought that Ghost of Paley ended up being a Poe?4

Date: 2012/03/26 23:57:53, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 27 2012,11:15)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Mar. 26 2012,15:22)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 27 2012,05:12)
   
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 26 2012,11:59)
Where would he go? He is banned at PT, Pharyngula, and rationalskepticism; at TalkRat members don't discuss with him, they just laugh. And if he uses a sock his insolence will give him away rather sooner than later.


Looks like he's already resurfaced back at UD where he (posting as Atheistoclast) was banned earlier this year.  In a nod to his previous identity at "Ghostofpaley", he's posting as "Paleysghost".

linky

He's starting off by sucking up to Slimy Sal, setting him up nicely for a future big troll.

I thought that Ghost of Paley ended up being a Poe?4

You think Asshatoclast isn't one?

Atheistoclast is more like the kooks that want to overthrow Einstein than a creationist or a poe.

One way to tell is to show some pictures of men wrestling, Paley always seemed to like those.

Date: 2012/04/01 16:55:11, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 02 2012,03:11)
I find it rather odd that Southern Evangelical Seminary is YEC to the core, but their new "Scientific Apologetics" certificate program has as faculty Fazale Rana, and Hugh Ross, along with Dembski. They are all "old earth" creationists.

So, is SES just too stupid to know who they hired, or is there a change of heart.

I don't think that they are faculty. I think that they are just using these guys for nifty quotes.

ETA - Just checked and found that Fazale is giving a summer course on Chemistry & Molecular Biology during the summer.



Date: 2012/04/02 22:21:04, Link
Author: MichaelJ
The ending was a bit rough as well. It finished with West's whine that the evilutionists wont listen to us. I left a comment there

Date: 2012/04/11 06:53:45, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 11 2012,20:28)
As we are all saddened by the withdrawal of Rick Santorum as a Republican candidate for the White House, I am reminded that no less a personage than Phillip E. Johnson was the author of the Santorum Amendment "which promoted the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in U.S. public schools."

Fairwell, Rick.  You will always be Mr. Republican to me as well as "The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."

Getting ready for 2016 no doubt. Due to the divisions in the Party I wonder if the GOP will ever be able to nominate somebody who is not a flip-flopper.

Date: 2012/04/18 16:34:34, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (NormOlsen @ April 19 2012,03:06)
Seems now that a majority of Americans are beginning to accept global warming.  From the NY Times:

Americans Link Global Warming Extremes to Climate Change

This is great; if the majority of Americans accept that climate change is real, then UD's denialism will be the anchor that drags them down further into obscurity.*

*Unless of course, Barry purges all anti-climate change posts for all time and claims they were never agin' it, they were fer' it!

I've always wondered how long it would take for the conservative rural folk to overcome their hatred of all things librul and accept climate change. As they are the most affected they have the most to lose.

Date: 2012/04/19 05:12:24, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 19 2012,08:03)
Quote (MichaelJ @ April 18 2012,16:34)
Quote (NormOlsen @ April 19 2012,03:06)
Seems now that a majority of Americans are beginning to accept global warming.  From the NY Times:

Americans Link Global Warming Extremes to Climate Change

This is great; if the majority of Americans accept that climate change is real, then UD's denialism will be the anchor that drags them down further into obscurity.*

*Unless of course, Barry purges all anti-climate change posts for all time and claims they were never agin' it, they were fer' it!

I've always wondered how long it would take for the conservative rural folk to overcome their hatred of all things librul and accept climate change. As they are the most affected they have the most to lose.

They are basically funded by the oil industry, though...

The GOP is - not the sheep

Date: 2012/04/19 05:21:29, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 19 2012,13:33)
Quote (MichaelJ @ April 18 2012,17:34)
Quote (NormOlsen @ April 19 2012,03:06)
Seems now that a majority of Americans are beginning to accept global warming.  From the NY Times:

Americans Link Global Warming Extremes to Climate Change

This is great; if the majority of Americans accept that climate change is real, then UD's denialism will be the anchor that drags them down further into obscurity.*

*Unless of course, Barry purges all anti-climate change posts for all time and claims they were never agin' it, they were fer' it!

I've always wondered how long it would take for the conservative rural folk to overcome their hatred of all things librul and accept climate change. As they are the most affected they have the most to lose.

if they are in coalfields it will never happen because they are consistently lied to and manipulated by the colluding interests in extraction, transportation and power generation.  you think creationists are cognitively dissonant, the rhetoric around coal mining and the EPA is unfucking believable.  PM me and I'll point you to some particularly choice nuggets of tard for mining

Looking at it from Australia, it has always amazed me how the GOP wants to close the EPA and the sheep dont complain. Doesn't anybody remember Lake Eyrie and the Love Canal?

Date: 2012/04/19 16:39:44, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Frustrating that we can't get the sense from the articles on how the case went. I suppose that is good in a way as it would only be truly newsworthy if Coppedge turned up some concrete evidence of discrimination.
Sadly though, JPL only seems to have started documented problems with Coppedge after the fateful meeting with Chin. Even if he was trying to protect him he should have documented everything.

Date: 2012/04/21 05:16:08, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Cubist @ April 21 2012,17:15)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 20 2012,21:57)
robin that is fantastic


anyone else laughing their balls off at nick matzkes meltdown in progress at PT?  fuck he really did say some of the dumbest shit i have ever read.  you owe it to yourself to revel in the tard

Yeah... I posted a comment pointing out that since Gnu Atheists have been doing their thing for a number of years now, the negative effects he's attributing to Gnu Atheist activity are things that should be visibly occuring... so are those things occuring, or are they not? No response from Matzke, so I've posted again, making the same point in different words.

I was about to post something when it was only on the second page. The next time I went back to have a look there was about 150 comments. I decided not to bother even reading.

Others probably posted similar. But I was going to post:

Why is what you term new atheists position is always misrepresented. The following 2 comments are truth statements and I have heard nobody can contradict them:

1. Many scientists are religious
2. Many people believe that that religion and science can mix.

The following is not a truth statement

3. Religion and Science can mix.

It is very much a matter of debate. A body representing science should not make the third statement. However, whenever the topic is brought up we are labelled with making statement 1 or 2.

Date: 2012/04/30 16:39:45, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (kn0808 @ May 01 2012,07:14)
While all of you are attacking Dembski, you are not making any kind of argument of your own. No one has even made an argument against one of his statements. You have simply discredited him and sworn at him. While you may not agree with Dembski or Intelligent Design, give me a rational explanation about what specifically is wrong with it and defend your own position. You are actually demonstrating exactly what he says neo-Atheists do in his book The End of Christianity when he says:

“Instead of presenting scientific evidence that shows atheism to be true (or probable), the neo-atheists moralize about how much better the world would be if only atheism were true. Far from demonstrating that God does not exist, the neo-atheists merely demonstrate how earnestly they desire that God not exist.”

Your criticism towards Dembski would be much more founded if you actually had an argument against him or his belief.

You'd really have to either be eight or have your head permanently in the sand to think nobody has presented arguments against Dembski or supporting atheism.

Date: 2012/05/04 17:55:06, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Have the graphs about site visits etc been redone to include April? (hint-hint)

Date: 2012/05/11 17:38:17, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Kattarina98 @ May 11 2012,19:30)
When I studied to become a teacher - a looong time ago - we were told to distrust IQ tests because children raised in a different (sub-)culture might be asked questions completely unrelated to their upbringing. Instead, they might have problem solving skills we don't even dream of.


Edited to insert an "s".

I remember seeing a show that said that Inuits did badly because they would stop at an question they didn't know rather than go onto another question

Date: 2012/05/12 02:19:27, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Gil did the test in the 1950s - that makes him around 60. An employee doing simulations at 60 doesn't seem to be something that you would brag about

Date: 2012/05/16 16:31:50, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Kattarina98 @ May 13 2012,02:25)
Quote (Febble @ May 12 2012,10:46)
Well, his second attempt at death by cop worked.

Poor silly bugger.

It's kind of sad - why would he do something like that? He only hurt himself - and for a while, he seemed to like the place.

I haven't been the Febble's site much but the last time I was there Joe's comments were being largely ignored. That probably hurts him more than being abused

Date: 2012/05/28 18:26:03, Link
Author: MichaelJ
What makes me sad about the online atheist movement over the last couple of years is this kind of continual divisiveness amongst the potential leaders.

Mooney first of all sees himself as a communicator but told a major stakeholder group to STFU.

Now with Elevatorgate. PZ should have said that he is 50 year old geek from a small town and never dated anybody but his wife and so will stay out of this discussion except that everybody deserves respect. Instead he is giving relationship advice!!!111onety-one.

I think that it is kind of sad but I think our movement needs a leader that will bring people together rather than keep kicking heads with those we don't 100% agree.

Or am I wrong? Were people like MLK jr, Ghandi and Mandela dicks in the early parts of their movements?

Date: 2012/05/29 02:07:59, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Kristine @ May 29 2012,13:09)
In other news, my cat went missing today, so I'm extra sick of EG unless someone finds my little pookie in an elevator.  ???

One real lost cat trumps all internet fights

Date: 2012/06/19 16:16:41, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 19 2012,19:28)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ June 19 2012,00:51)
The Dodgenator has churned out combination a1:    
Quote
I’m something of an evangelist for classical music, since it has brought me so much joy and reward all throughout my life. My piano teacher, Ruby Bailey, with whom I studied from the age of seven through high school (and, actually, beyond), I consider to be my second mother.
...
So how does Darwinism account for this, the extraordinary power of music in all of our lives?

 
Quote
The Extraordinary Power of Music (How does Darwinism account for this?)


Gil, for the sake of argument let's say it does not.

How does ID account for it?

...

I'd hate to be Gil. I did a quick Google and there is a pile of competing ideas on why we evolved to enjoy music.

Date: 2012/06/20 03:18:41, Link
Author: MichaelJ
To me the big difference is that TEs accept the scientific consensus and ID is a political movement.

Date: 2012/06/22 00:46:28, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 22 2012,13:44)
Looking more closely at the stuff following, I don't see how "Dr. Jammer" can wriggle out of the conclusion that he's claiming that it is against my religion to appreciate design. I guess he's just ignorant.

That's because it is his only argument. Given his Avatar, he obviously doesn't understand the science.

Date: 2012/06/22 01:03:32, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Personally I'd advise to go for the money - a mainstream IT course or something and keep his passion in his spare time.

I've hired a lot of IT people over the years and a college degree was valuable in so far as it proved that somebody could stick at something for 4-6 years. I would always hire somebody who had average grades but has automated his house with a Linux server over somebody who got high distinctions but his IT interest seems to stop once he left the office.

Date: 2012/06/22 17:44:42, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 22 2012,09:42)
Quote (olegt @ June 21 2012,17:00)
I'll take it as a yes, Jared. Thanks for playing.

Bonus question: what do you make of the folks at BioLogos? Are they a bunch of atheists?

Worldview preferences strongly dictate both sides of the debate, although I believe they're stronger with Darwinists. After all, I've seen many valid pro-I.D. arguments regarding the origin of life, all while Darwinists simply assert that their view, abiogenesis, must be true because design must be false.

One side, the I.D. side, is arguing via logic and evidence. The other side is arguing via fallacious question begging -- the result of being motivated to dogmatism by their worldview.

So Jammer is saying that the thousands of Hindu biologists in India and Muslem Biologists in Indonesia, Shinto biologists in Japan and Christian Biologists in America are dogmatic while a handful of American Fundamentalists are driven by logic and evidence. FAIL

Date: 2012/06/30 22:58:20, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Shame about the RasPi as it seems perfect for these kinds of operations. I suppose there will be hacked version out soon enough

Date: 2012/07/03 21:44:39, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 04 2012,05:35)
Mom update.

The clot is removed and several leaky blood vessels were sealed.

No indications of retinal damage or failure.  She shouldn't even have any blind spots.

yay

Praise be to science!!

Date: 2012/07/06 21:59:02, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 07 2012,11:22)
For thoughts not worth a penny.

I thought that this whole thought police stuff might be alienating people but PZ seems to be getting more hits than ever.

Date: 2012/07/11 08:48:37, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 11 2012,19:40)
Quote (Bob O'H @ July 11 2012,03:49)
Can anyone point me to a good summary of this FTBullies spat? I caught some of it, but was away doing (well, talking about) Science last week, so I think I missed the fun.

Sorry, I can't provide an unbiased summary, but here are what I think the relevant blog posts:

Thunderfoot's offending post:
http://tinyurl.com/d774xp9....d774xp9


PZ's answer:
http://tinyurl.com/7q2jnkt....7q2jnkt


Thunderfoot's following posts:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/thunder....derf00t

Ed Brayton announcing TF's banning:
http://tinyurl.com/c5x2k3n....c5x2k3n

My biased opinion:
Excluding someone for bad behaviour is a bit rich - at PZ's blog bad behaviour is deemed a virtue. Remember Gelatigate when Lizzie got attacked for tone trolling simply because her comments were not foulmouthed?

That said, I think Thunderfoot didn't quite get the issue at hand.

Edit: I'm pulling a bornagain77 now, but this video is doing a good job at evaluating what has happened.

Greg Laden got the boot - so there is a silver lining.

Date: 2012/07/11 17:30:22, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (The whole truth @ July 12 2012,07:28)
  

I'll never understand why religious zealots are so determined to deny human-caused global warming. Why the fuck do they fight it so much? What does it have to do with their stupid religious beliefs? And if they're so "moral" and caring and loving and such good christians, WHY don't they care about the terrible effects that human-caused global warming is having and will have on people and other organisms as the temperature goes up, the glaciers melt, the sea level rises, the droughts and storms and floods get worse, etc.?

because God gave a promise after the flud that he wouldn't destroy the world again and it is inconvenient for their GOP Billionaire overlords



Date: 2012/07/12 16:27:08, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I'm not sure it the whole thing has burned itself out or the FTBullies meme has bitten but they seem to be more on the defensive and spending a lot of time posting about other stuff.

I don't think that FTB will die as there are a few interesting writers there but I think that new quality bloggers will think twice about joining.

Date: 2012/07/15 05:38:52, Link
Author: MichaelJ
With latching

Date: 2012/07/15 20:59:04, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (olegt @ July 16 2012,10:59)
I just had a eureka moment. All this nonsense Hunter has been pouring at us makes sense when you realize that he is not speaking to you (the evilutionist). He is talking to an invisible audience of students at Biola.

More on that here.

I think that all of the ID crowd are preaching to choir. I think that Dover trial brought such an unwelcome light on ID that they gave up trying to convert anybody.

Does anybody pre Dover that the non-crazy MSM would uncritically publish anything by these guys with a token paragraph from a real scientist.

Date: 2012/07/20 04:59:04, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ July 18 2012,23:46)
I don't understand the US A/S online community anymore. I posted a comment on J&M's latest cartoon, and even that got deleted. It was an innocuous "Benson is definitely not the inspiration for the Barmaid".

There's something I must be doing US-wrong.

The Author has done a cartoon mocking the over the top reaction to elevatorgate so he is probably sympathetic.

He probably doesn't want to start a war in the comments by naming names.

Date: 2012/07/23 00:56:16, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ July 20 2012,21:50)
Quote (MichaelJ @ July 20 2012,11:59)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ July 18 2012,23:46)
I don't understand the US A/S online community anymore. I posted a comment on J&M's latest cartoon, and even that got deleted. It was an innocuous "Benson is definitely not the inspiration for the Barmaid".

There's something I must be doing US-wrong.

The Author has done a cartoon mocking the over the top reaction to elevatorgate so he is probably sympathetic.

He probably doesn't want to start a war in the comments by naming names.

I love The Author and their work, but it still doesn't excuse censorship.

And, naming names is wrong now? I'm confused (and so are many)...

I can't read Author's mind but I think it is similar to having Xmas with the family and avoiding subjects so everybody can get through the day without people killing each other.

Date: 2012/07/23 01:11:57, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I wonder if PZ has damaged his position in the wider atheist community. PZ is popular but he is nowhere near people like Dawkins, Hinch and many others.

If PZ was in a business and I was his manager, whether he was right or wrong, the fact that he is constantly denigrating collegues rather than trying to solve issues would be a huge black mark.

Date: 2012/07/25 16:01:09, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Badger3k @ July 26 2012,03:31)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 25 2012,11:45)
Saved for posterity so it can not be disapparated.


I can get the "Brokeback Monserrat" reference, but why do I hear banjos instead of guitars?

I'm looking for the windmills

Date: 2012/07/26 01:49:43, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (keiths @ July 25 2012,15:54)
Quote (CeilingCat @ July 24 2012,22:30)
It looks like the Discovery Institute is branching out.  Wesley J. Smith has a new blurb for his column at First Things:      
Quote
Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism, and consults for the Patients Rights Council and the Center for Bioethics and Culture.

Mr. Smith wishes us all to know that he's a very exceptional human and don't you forget it!

The Center on Human Exceptionalism web page.

Whoever designed the header is exceptionally untalented:


Me thinks that somebody gave them a big lump of money. Those creationist dollars are probably drying up. Expect to see articles such as why sunbathing in Alaska is more important than a few polar bears

Date: 2012/07/28 19:38:03, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ July 29 2012,10:04)
Corny has a new post up at his blog, but comments are still turned off.  Interesting to see how long that lasts.  I do wonder how he viewed Joe's threats.

Like he usually does, Corny posted the verbatim OP over at UD.  Guess who were two of the first responders beating their chests and claiming evos couldn't refute them?  Why the tag team retards batshit77 and "meet me in the parking lot" brave Joe G.  :p

Joe is also going around to other UD threads and bragging how he schooled the evil evos on human chromosome 2, and that no one could refute his "science".  What a world class douche.

Easy to be an internet tough guy and lie your ass off when all opposing comments are banned.

I predict that his blog will do a fast death dive because he isn't important enough in the creationist sphere that people will bother to write comments elsewhere,

Date: 2012/08/08 16:44:14, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Aug. 08 2012,17:52)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 07 2012,20:02)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Aug. 07 2012,12:28)
There is still the possibility that this is an impostor trying to hurt Mabus, which would be even sicker.

Can't be done. IPs can be traced easily. You can get people stirred up and angry, but the courts are gonna want evidence.

If he posts from an internet coffee or if he uses a proxy, it will be quite hard to locate him.

Now, the posts really are similar to his style, with the exact same links as always. Later on in the thread, he speaks of Mabus in third-person style, though, so who knows?

Meh, whatever...

if he is so far gone that he openly posting again, I don't think that if he was visited by the police that he would be able to dissemble enough to fool them.

Date: 2012/08/14 03:02:57, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Quack @ Aug. 14 2012,07:30)
That was the one. I got to thinking: We have spent so much money on the LHC, Curiosity and I don't know what; what if we spend some dough on experimental evolution?

Set up something like that one on a bigger scale & budget, let it run run run forever and see what happens? I suppose there may be many interesting variations to be played on the same theme; creating a veritable showcase for evolution in action?

Didn't we do that in the 1950s? I saw some old documentaries about it. Remember "The Blob", "The attack of the killer tomatoes" and one which had giant teenage girls in bikinis.

Date: 2012/08/21 18:08:20, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Aug. 21 2012,01:34)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 20 2012,16:51)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Aug. 20 2012,09:46)
I may have to give up the fight, because some people on "our side" look to be at least as dogmatic as these guys. At least, ours do not seem to be trying to impose their views in schools and government yet.

Yet...

You noticed it too?  Glad it's not just me.

Definitely not just you, a good majority too.

Atheism is atheism is atheism. First, let's have atheists accepted as equal citizens (well, in the US, here it's already done), then maybe move on to other specifics.

A+?

Shhhhh, they wont let you into the Atheist+ club house if they hear that kind of talk.

Date: 2012/08/21 18:10:48, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 22 2012,06:00)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Aug. 21 2012,14:52)
C-C-C-C-Combo break! Anyone?

I once beat that with a 32 hit combo in Primal Rage.  

Well, I guess the meds didn't take.

Sad really, he must really be fried if he is posting after all of the warnings.

Date: 2012/09/07 18:12:44, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 08 2012,00:48)
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Sep. 07 2012,09:28)
A quick note to say "Hellbound?" is doing a sneak preview in Nashville on Sept. 12 and then opening in NYC, Dallas and Minneapolis on Sept. 21. See all of the details here: http://hellboundthemovie.com./....ie.....ie.com.

Just out of curiosity, do you think anyone here actually cares?

By posting here it triples his web traffic.

Date: 2012/09/08 03:44:27, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 08 2012,09:22)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Sep. 07 2012,18:12)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 08 2012,00:48)
 
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Sep. 07 2012,09:28)
A quick note to say "Hellbound?" is doing a sneak preview in Nashville on Sept. 12 and then opening in NYC, Dallas and Minneapolis on Sept. 21. See all of the details here: http://hellboundthemovie.com./....ie.....ie.com.

Just out of curiosity, do you think anyone here actually cares?

By posting here it triples his web traffic.

I thought web traffic was when people click on your website, not when you click on someone else's website.

He might think that some of us would be bored enough to click on his website.

Date: 2012/09/15 19:48:59, Link
Author: MichaelJ
15-Sep: Joe is coming to Monseratt tomorrow. I am so excited that I can hardly contain Mr Leathers. I have had 3 oil-soaked baths so to relax. I have polished the gladiator outfits and bookmarked the disgusting web sites to show Joe.
16-Sep: A terrible day, a veritable constitutional crisis. Joe was held up in customs when they discovered his melon rinds and mites. I went straight to my good friend the chief of police but the police station was closed (again). I'm sure I saw the front doors open when I drove in. Anyway I went to the airport and cleared it up. Joe didn't help matters when he listed his occupation as "ID scientist and top secret stuff".

Date: 2012/09/26 16:31:45, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I agree that being here hones our own skills. I think that starting somebody on the path of reality probably occurs elsewhere. It could be a creationist commenting in a blog on sewing or cameras etc.

I think these people aren't as committed and because we have heard all of the arguments before it usually means that they shut up after a couple of exchanges or say something lame like "I still believe it anyway".

What I have noticed over the years is that if a creationist pipes up now it isn't just me but they usually get snarky comments from a bunch of other people. I think that the internet can be a lonely place for creationists if they venture out of their friendly confines.

Date: 2012/09/27 17:01:18, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I think that there is another useful function of ATBC is that it keeps the UD inmates insane. Don't forget that prior to Dover the MSM and quite a few of the chattering classes took ID seriously. Half of the articles on the PT was bemoaning bad journalism. Dover put paid to this and relegated ID to the creationists.

Now some unfortunate theist might meet one of the UDers on another forum and might half convince them the ID is Real™ science and not creationism. However, visiting UD and seeing the anti-materialism rants would quickly show them that ID is just creationism.

If they weren't goaded by us they might be able to maintain a pseudo-scientific facade.

Also the UDites are scared to move outside of their safe haven.

Date: 2012/09/28 18:10:45, Link
Author: MichaelJ
I think that it is a mistake to expect the vocal tards to change. I read somewhere that once a person has vocalised their position it is very hard to get them to shift. I think it is the lurkers who are the ones who get deconverted or even get stopped from falling into trap in thinking that ID is anything but bad theology

Date: 2012/10/07 02:12:55, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 07 2012,14:33)
Hi all,

As promised, here's the direct link to my new blog Smilodon's Retreat.

If you go, check out some of the other SINners (Skeptic Ink Network bloggers).  John Loftus and Ed Clint are the founders.  

Thanks

Cool, Just hope Skeptic Ink doesn't end up constantly harping on about FtB/Skeptichicks/A+. Even though I agree with the sentiments it get's old quickly when people I don't know complain about other people I don't know.

Date: 2012/10/13 02:06:35, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 13 2012,07:04)
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 12 2012,15:39)
lol...the career he's wanting to go into there is no way he'd get a decent apprenticeship without a serious amount of education on 3D animation.  Check out Full Sail's animation programs...freaking top notch.

sigh... if you come to ask the experts, why don't you listen to them... oh wait... nevermind.

Academy of Art University - talk about top notch and it's accredited.

CalArts (California Institute of the Arts) - is the top ranked digital animation school by Disney and Pixar (the Pixar head went there).  It's accredited.

Those are schools that actually provide internships at good places.  Yes, they will be tough to get in.

Honestly though, at this point, if he hasn't actually created an animated short-film, then he's seriously behind.  Same thing with programmers.

When I was a teacher, I had no shortage of high school students saying they were going to be game programmers.  I asked them how many games they had built so far.  Every time the answer was none.  I asked how many programming languages they knew.  Every time the answer was none.  I told them that they better get on the stick because there were (and are) 8th graders who have published apps on the iPhone and a job won't even look at them until they have a serious portfolio of work.

I'm not trying to be discouraging.  That's the way the world is.  Right now, to do anything other than basic work in any field, you have to be seriously involved before high school.  I mean, creating games, creating short films, doing science and engineering before you even get to college.

+1

I used to be in charge of a large team of developers.  A un. degree was just a sign that somebody could focus long enough to pass exams. We paid well and looked for people who lived and breathed coding

Date: 2012/10/15 05:32:36, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 15 2012,12:03)
Man, you guys have no idea what tard is anymore.  

Used to be creationism was the end-all-be-all of tard.  Now, creationism is NOTHING.  ID is NOTHING.

Nothing at all compared to the tard that is anti-GMO.  OMG, it's like the anti-GMO crowd has learned all the tricks of the creationists, but they have real true believers out there.  You can't even do a simple google search for "percentage of GM sugar beets in the US" without wading through pages of the purest tard you've ever seen.

These guys have it all
headlines that make it seem like GM corn will destroy the entire fucking solar system
cherry-picking on a truly epic scale
quote-mining... you've never seen quote-mining like these guys do it
every logical fallacy that exists... all on the same page

Geez, I didn't want this.  But now, creationism is dead.  It may be fun to kick the horse a while, but anti-GMO is alive, well and almost as popular as that guy who claims that in a 'real rape' women can't get pregnant.

It's... really fucking depressing.

The problem is that there are valid concerns about the mega seed companies which gets lost in the crazy.

It's like coal seam gas - People want the whole industry shutdown where what it needs is some better regulation.

Date: 2012/10/28 16:42:07, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 29 2012,07:08)
Robert Byers:
Quote
No. People think like God and animals don’t.
Animals are very dumb and memory maintains any semblance of intelligence in them I think.
They the memory but still can’t reflect.


If God thinks like you, Bobby, we're in deep shit.

But it would explain a lot.

Date: 2012/11/16 15:46:34, Link
Author: MichaelJ
It is like Gaulin says that invisible unicorns live amongst us and rather than give any evidence that they exist he talks about their mating habits

Date: 2012/11/16 21:16:51, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 17 2012,10:59)
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 16 2012,15:16)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,09:04)
     
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 15 2012,23:22)
Again:
Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?


As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical.
This would be the situation in a flask inocculated with a single E. coli cell susceptible to T2 phages.    
Quote
But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.
What does your theory predict will happen if a single T2 phage is added to the culture?

Thankfully I found another more normal question to work on:

After a phage inserts itself into the host genome to be replicated the molecular intelligence memory size increases. There are then additional molecular intelligence subsystems included. It makes sense that there is more intelligence there, even though the recent gain could later become harmful.

Where the phage is deactivated it's taken out of the molecular circuit, molecular intelligence is then the same as before. Where the phage starts quickly replicating inside, the molecular intelligence and/or (without help from host systems is) phage protointelligence continues to rise. The intelligence will not drop until the phage destroys the host.Where the phage is a beneficial mitochondria that just took up residence in a cell, the molecular intelligence of the cell increases, and the cellular intelligence would be more robust and responsive from the extra energy (but not have more cellular intelligence unless it also adds more cellular level circuitry/subsystem to its schematic).

Still talking about the life cycles of the invisible unicorns but nothing about how they explain the world better than a world without invisible unicorns.

Date: 2012/12/16 05:52:24, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (hotshoe @ Dec. 16 2012,08:40)
You're doubly foolish because you're believing a cut-and-spliced video put up by Reap Paden, one of the slymeballs who notoriously wants to tell lies about feminist men.

Well I am sure that you can point out Reap's lies on the Slymepit and elsewhere. Unfortunately you can't do that at FTB as they have a habit of removing dissenting commenters and comments (UD anyone?). The despised slymepit on the other hand welcomes robust discussion and hasn't banned anyone. Their comments can be a bit coarse at times (ATBC anyone?) but there are other calmer areas outside the circled wagons at FTB where open discussion can take place.
To me most of the slymepitters, many who are women, agree to equal rights for all people, their problem is the treatment of any dissent from PZ and a handful of others.

The beauty of the video is the "we were always at war with EastAsia" kind of thing in that if somebody else was in that video PZ would have had their gut for garters. The excuse of consent wouldn't wash because of the large differential in power (The speaker is a white male with a Phd).



That's the last comment I'll make because I don't think this stuff belongs here at ATBC and should be taken to other venues.



Date: 2012/12/16 05:53:48, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 16 2012,08:49)
Lou graduated! Ignore Fluffy and Vex Duh. Who cares. I'll let them vote - their votes don't matter.

Lou graduated! :)

Yeh congrats Lou

Date: 2013/01/03 05:42:52, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,15:02)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 02 2013,22:47)
Perhaps you will tell us how the good guess generator works.

Good Guess is mentioned 14 times in theory so start there.

I’m busy on the new software and have no interest in playing another endless game where you fuss and deny there is such a thing as “good guess” while I waste my time spoon-feeding you like a baby.

Gary is still here? I thought he was going to leave these dark and unfriendly shores months ago.

It must be pretty sad that the only people who will interact with your world changing theory are only there for the laughs.

Why doesn't he talk to all of the super secret supporters?

Date: 2013/01/03 06:02:38, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 03 2013,01:45)
So, there's this site....

Attention Meter

....that apparently aggregates the data from a bunch of different web-traffic thingies. Here are the stats for Uncommonly Dense....







Looks good to me.

If only people would stop giving in to temptation and actually engaging the fools those graphs would look even healthier - you know who you are *scowls*.

No wonder Denyse jumped ship. She was probably paid a share of the revenue.

Date: 2013/01/23 16:02:23, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (rossum @ Jan. 23 2013,21:07)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 22 2013,18:50)
UD is celebrating their 10,000th post.

Not strictly true.  Their 10,000th post was some time ago.  It is their 10,000th undeleted post.

Is it 10000 post of 10000 comment?
Although given the number of comment free posts then the total number of comments would not be that great.



Date: 2013/02/08 16:29:12, Link
Author: MichaelJ
He is trying to kill us all by a powerpoint overload

Date: 2013/02/08 16:54:46, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 08 2013,01:55)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 07 2013,08:23)
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 06 2013,13:26)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 05 2013,19:55)
:-/

Ew.

Eeewww...I missed that secondary squick factor. Thanks...I think...

Ken Ham is at least honest about this. The Creation Museum informs its young patrons that Adam's children married their brothers and sisters.

Hurrah for the Universal Moral Code!

The fundies say that the genes in those days were more pure in those days so it was okay to interbreed. This purity is why they all lived for hundred of years.

Date: 2013/08/18 17:13:50, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (Driver @ Aug. 19 2013,00:14)
Quote (Driver @ Aug. 18 2013,04:19)
Quote
I know too much about people.  You see, they lie.


Then you know the stats on false reports of crimes  and specifically rape. Excellent. This is a link.

^ on rape and lying.

I think that the issue is simple. Whether you like or dislike Myers, he repeated hearsay on a very serious crime where the accused has no way to clear their name. That is and should be illegal.

Date: 2014/04/13 18:17:05, Link
Author: MichaelJ
Quote (socle @ April 08 2014,02:29)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 07 2014,09:41)

But you said:

"2- With respect to natural selection it means that not all individuals have the same probability of being eliminated. That is what makes natural selection non-random."

You state that equiprobability is a necessity for Randomness. Then you claim that something that isn't equiprobable is also random because it is "a chance event'

You haven't thought this through, have you cupcake?

You might want to think about things before trying to define them for those who know better.

I notice Joe's blog archive goes back to Oct 2005.  8.5 years.  That's enough time to get a BS, MS, and PhD, starting from scratch.  Yet still we see these elementary errors.  It's mind-boggling.

I've had a long break from here and surprised that they are still around. Their leaders haven't done anything original for years.

I think that this is the very definition of loser, that after 8.5 years Joe has to come here to a group that laughs at him to get any audience. His only other choice is UD which has also gone nowhere.
Real science moves on and Joe tough guys sits in the corner moaning about the meanies.

 

 

 

=====