AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Nerull

form_srcid: Nerull

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: Nerull

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


DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2007/06/07 15:27:07, Link
Author: Nerull
A religious school gave ID a lab? Shock! Horror!

I wonder if its part of their theology department?

Date: 2007/06/11 12:04:56, Link
Author: Nerull
FTK, I'm curious.

Why is it that no one is allowed to critisize religion without being well educated about every little detail, yet someone who is, by her own admission, rather ignorant about science in general, can make such bold critizisms of something she knows little to nothing about?

Its pretty obvious why you refuse to actually talk about science, dispite your whining about us not doing the same - every time you do, you get proven wrong. I guess its not good for your faith if you keep getting shown wrong, so the blinders come out in force.

Date: 2007/06/14 20:43:34, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Kristine @ May 24 2007,12:06)
In the panga on the way back to the ship, I noticed a star in the sky and asked if it was Jupiter. Richard said that it was Venus (sorry, Richard, I still think it was Jupiter)

I know this is kind of late, but if you could remember about when and in what direction it was, I can probably tell you.

Jupiter is up pretty early now, but in March it was rising after midnight, at least thats what I remember (I'm an amature astronomer). I didn't get out much in May, so I don't remember - but I can look it up.

Venus is easily the brightest thing in the night sky, aside from the moon, and has been for a few months. If what you saw was towards the sunset, you saw Venus. Jupiter would have been low in the east at any reasonable hour. (I assume you were probably not up and about at 3AM)

Ok, I'm doing being a space geek - for now.

Date: 2007/06/14 21:17:44, Link
Author: Nerull
Back to being a space geek for a minute...

Jupiter rose at about 10, here is the sky in Galapagos at that time:

Fish eye projection, flat horizon.

And now I'm kind of jealous - you could see stars I will never see from my location.

Date: 2007/06/14 21:37:25, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 14 2007,21:28)
Go. I am serious. If I can afford it, other people can.

sounds like good advice.

As the stereotypical broke student, I defiantly can't afford it. (I do well enough to afford food).

I'm just lucky there is a nearby observatory with quality instruments that I can access or I'd be to broke to do astronomy too. ;)

Date: 2007/06/15 14:22:40, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ June 15 2007,14:05)
Oh, BS, Stephen.  Dembski has nothing to be ashamed of at all.  Even if DaveScot is a jerk to some of you at times, I can't imagine that he is actually the one who turned this place into a pit of spewing ridicule toward those you disagree with.  I mean, do you actually think that people take this place seriously?  Shoot, that's why I could care less of what you people say about my views.  Reasonable people reading some of the stuff on this forum might get a few laughs, but when they consider the attitudes of the posters here, it's abundantly clear where the anger at ID stems from.  

Know what else?  I don't think you were ever probably as strong an ID supporter as you believe you might have been.  If you were, you'd consider Behe's new book with more interest.  From what I've always understood about Behe, he believes the same thing you and Wesley supposedly believe.  That there is a designer, and that common descent and evolution are pretty much "fact".

It's the "edge" of evolution that is in question here.  That is what ID is about, and you seem to fail to understand that.

You and Wesley have no reason to reject ID other than perhaps you don't want to consider how evolutionary mechanisms started working on that first microbe, and exactly what they are actually cabable of.  Why the fear of trying to find out?

You see, FTK, that is the difference, as had as it may be for you to understand, between ID and science.

We don't shut off our minds and blindly agree with someone just because they say a few other things we like. Behe is wrong - so wrong the only real possibility left open is he is intentionally lying, given his past. (DaveScot and Dembski are ignorant - Behe has no excuse) The reason we know that is, unlike you, we actually checked out his reasoning, despite his acceptance of common decent and evolution (But only when its convenient for him).

I know this goes against everything in the ID movement - but you might want to try it sometime. We certainly didn't get where we are today by being uncritical - Kepler and Newton had some nutty ideas that we reject, despite the fact that both are important figures in modern physics.

So, ID is now about shoving god into every imaginary gap in evolution, is it? Why hasn't Dembski changed his websites name, I wonder? UD seems to imply pretty forcefully that ID supports neither common descent or evolution.

Date: 2007/07/05 11:44:04, Link
Author: Nerull
I believe Skatje banned her after a while.

Date: 2007/07/06 10:03:29, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2007,08:52)
I don't know anything about The Sci Phi Show, but that Jason guy seems to be a moron.

Going by his posts on Pharyngula, you would be correct.

Date: 2007/07/06 19:50:31, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 06 2007,10:16)
Quote (Nerull @ July 06 2007,10:03)
Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2007,08:52)
I don't know anything about The Sci Phi Show, but that Jason guy seems to be a moron.

Going by his posts on Pharyngula, you would be correct.

Is that Jason the same as Jason McHue AKA Jinxy? If so he's a creationist wingnut dimbulb who was banned at Pharyngula several months ago.

If that's him, the upside is, he's easily intimidated and flustered. He can't debate convincingly to save his life. He used to get swarmed at Pharyngula.

PZ's description:

A Christian creationist who is a bit obsessed; has an anti-PZ blog, which is no crime here, but is indicative of his mentality.

He seems to have taken down his PZ-stalking blog. Maybe his pastor told him it was unseemly.

He's that most entertaining type of Young-Earth Creationist, a YECer who refuses to admit he's a YECer.

A lot like FtK that way.

I don't think so - he posts as 'TheSciPhiShow' on Pharyngula.

Date: 2007/07/23 15:24:06, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 23 2007,12:02)
The worst was when she started in on PZ Myers daughter over on her site.  Wow! Skatje shut her down so quick I actually felt bad for her.

I've heard the rumors that FTK barged into Skatje's site and started shitting all over the place, but I never heard what this consisted of. Can anyone provide a humorous capsule history or, failing that, a link?

Although Jack over at KCFS did suspend FTK's posting priveleges it was only for a couple of days. Shortly after he took that (long overdue) action, he shut down the old forum in order to facilitate the use of new software. At that time he said that any and all posters were welcome to re-register and that included FTK.

Apparently FTK chose to not rejoin.

Since FTK can't keep her head above water at any site she's not moderating, her MO seems to be to deliberately get herself banned as soon as possible, or, barring that, to pretend she's banned, like she does here.

It's pretty twisted.

FTK showed up and 1) Told Skatje she shouldn't talk about gay bashers, because they have a right to believe what they like, while she doesn't have a right to argue otherwise.

2) Butted into a argument with a friend with a long and complex history and tried to hijack it into a lecture about how mean Skatje was.

3) Told Skatje she couldn't quote scripture, because she couldn't see it how a Christian sees it (aka she doesn't ignore most of it).

4) Told Skatje she was only an atheist because PZ indoctrinated her.

At some point she got tired of it and booted her out.

Date: 2007/07/25 12:42:26, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (RedDot @ July 24 2007,22:59)
Do I believe the Earth is flat?  Of course not!  Do I believe the Earth is between 6-10 thousand years old?  Absolutely.  We're not crackpots, we just cannot swallow another drop of the Evolutionist/Uniformitarian nonsense and circular reasoning.

The evidence for a flat earth and the evidence for a 6000 year old earth are exactly the same - completely non-existent except for your little book which has been translated several times and written from verbal stories created by herders, farmers, and nomads.

The only reason you can possibly give for believing the earth to be that young is considering the bible to be inerrant - but you cannot believe that and believe the earth is round. Either the bible is correct, or it is not - and if its wrong about the Earth being flat - why do you take its age of the earth over all the evidence otherwise?

Yes, you are a crackpot.

Date: 2007/08/01 21:50:05, Link
Author: Nerull
Care to give any of the abundant evidence you have?

Keep in mind all the things you just listed do not support YEC.

Evidence for a global flood is hogwash, as we've all been over before.

Moon recession rates a very well understood and modeled. They do not support the YEC position - but the opposite. I can't imagine your magnetic field argument will come from anything but similar ignorance. Same with zircon.

I have to agree with the others. All we've got is another JoeG who can speak english. Still ignorant of all the actual science.

Date: 2007/08/05 20:59:04, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (RedDot @ Aug. 05 2007,20:46)
I was at Mammoth Cave National Park last week.  My wife and I were taking a tour through one of the large chambers that had been dissolved from the surrounding limestone.  Both of us marveled at how much water it would have taken to cut such a chamber.  The literature in our hands told us millions of years through a slow trickle of water flowing through what were at one time tiny cracks.  However to our eyes we could only see the jagged effects from millions of cubic meters of water violently tearing away the rock.  Both can be valid observations.  One can be true, or both could be false.  Since no one was there to witness the event, no one can really be sure.  Oh, we both can speculate, and we both will see what our worldview demands that we see.  But that does give one side the right to state that the other's observations are not "science".

And this is why you are not a geologist. You are not trained to identify any signs of what happened. Your opinion on the matter is about as valid as someone who looks at a computer and says "I can't see how it works, must be magic! Hur hur hur!"

People who do know what they are doing have studied it, and reached a conclusion, that IS science.

I don't think its even possible for you to have picked a worse example.

Date: 2007/08/06 20:53:35, Link
Author: Nerull
Astronomy is a theory? And it competes with particle physics?

As an astronomer (unfortunatly not professional) that is possibly the funniest thing I've read yet today - and I've been reading up on Hovind, so your doing pretty well.

As for the rest, sounds like you just want to protect the IDers, to me. They can bring their books into schools, get teaching of evolution banned, and any other tactics that seem to be OK with you - but scientists shouldn't dare respond.

It's clear your motive has nothing to do with the prattle you write here, which is pretty thinly veiled. Your real motive is to advance that causes that you pretend to belittle here.

Date: 2007/08/07 17:58:29, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (VMartin @ Aug. 07 2007,14:20)
Doctor Meyeres published (or random ejaculated?) an article few days ago:

The name of the article: Cephalopod development and evolution. Doctor argues that primitive apes evolved into man and oysters are related to squids. If origin of oysters and squids is due to saltus/frontloading/gradual evolution is of course no problem for him.

But transitional forms are many times impossible. Anatomy of soft parts (of snails for instance, speaking about molluscs) corresponds with the form of the shells. Mantle should have evolved only after the appearance of the shell, but the shell can appear only in one saltation, because it only makes sense as a whole. Thus, many molluscs could appear only as a result of saltation.

But such triffles are no problem for the doctor.

I'm wondering how long it'll take for VMartin call him Meeeeyeeereeeeesseeess at this rate. You'd think, for someone so obsessed, he could manage to spell the name correctly.

Date: 2007/08/08 09:30:40, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 08 2007,07:18)
Just a quick one here and I'll be back later for some more.  As a clarification, I don't think ID is either science or religion, it is a philosophy.

God, ultimately, is a personal concept and in truth it has no bearing on God's existence what anyone's personal concept is.  Just a quick example, if I could take every single religious text on Earth (every faith) and thoroughly disproves every single line in them it still would mean nothing when the question of God's existence is approached.  I know that's hard to accept but I believe your resistance comes from the fact that you're trying to frame this as a scientific question and it is not one.

Lenny, go back again and read.  You'll see that I've questioned AFDave, FtK, Reddot, to name a few.  I will always question YECers scientifically because I believe they are in the wrong as I will question anyone perverting science to make claims about faith because they are also absolutely wrong.

Oh yes, you give some half-assed criticisms to some of the craziest, but you still give cover to all the others, including the IDers.

Date: 2007/08/10 10:33:39, Link
Author: Nerull
I've met a right winger using the name Seeker before. I don't know if its the same guy, but he's lying about the scientist bit if he is.

Date: 2007/08/28 14:04:05, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 28 2007,12:11)
Louis, you are simply delusional.  You've proven nothing and failed to answer simple questions repeatedly all the while claiming your superiority.  It is simply sad.

Bill, I'm not sure sure it is the proper context to say that steaks have beauty in their taste.  It might be more appropriate to say that beauty can be accessed through taste in general as with other senses.  So that then the taste of the steak reveals Beauty in the experience of eating the steak.  This really may come down to quibbling about what is Beauty.  If Beauty exists it will be independent of all consumers and may not actually be accessable.  Ask yourself this, what is it about the taste of a steak that may invoke thoughts of beauty?  Taste may simply be sensory response to stimuli which is purely physical in this regard but why does it seem to transcend this to many people?

Is a sunrise beautiful and if so why?

A sunrise being beautiful is entirely a matter of opinion.

Why would beauty 'exist'? We call something beautiful because we find it pleasant, its as simple as that. There is no need, and no reason for, some silly hand waving about beauty existing 'outside' of everything else.

Many humans like sunrises because they are often accompanied by striking colors - something we like. I suspect, however, that if you were stranded in a desert and dying of thirst you would not find it so beautiful.

Personally, I prefer sunsets. Sunrises mean I have to close down the observatory, park the telescopes, and put up CCD equipment and eyepieces, go home, and crash for a few hours.

Date: 2007/08/28 17:20:06, Link
Author: Nerull

Producer Mark Mathis apparently doesn't have the time to write a real reply to someone interviewed for the movie (PZ) or to Richard Dawkins, apparently.

Date: 2007/09/07 19:19:26, Link
Author: Nerull
Paint and light have diffrent sets of primary colors. In light it is Red, Green, Blue. Computers use these three colors for everything too.

In astronomy we use red, green, and blue filters in separate exposures to produce a color image, because our CCDs don't have dedicated color pixels, unlike the CCDs in most digital cameras. This makes the CCD more sensitive, which we consider more important than easy color photos.

Date: 2007/09/10 12:22:46, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 10 2007,11:42)
Before adressing nonsenses about the color perception (Why "knowledgeable evolutionists" do not read more about the complicated problem of the perception of colors and always try to defend completely nonsense green = white - red?) some words on topic.

According Buffon <<Histoire de la Terre>> from the midst 18 century the Earth was 75.000 years old. Charles Lyell in 1830 estimated the time of rocks to 230 millions years. Helmholtz and Kelvin estimated 100 millions years of the Earth as exaggerated.

I don't know if the nowadays estimation 5,4 mrd years is the final one and no other changes are possible.

But preliminary scientific dating of Cambrian explosion or mammalian "radiation" in Eocene is something I take for granted.

Because Darwin himself didn't suppose the Earth to be 5,4 mrd years old the question of the exact age of the Earth has no relation to mechanisms that govern evolution of life.

What I disagree is the neodarwinian explanation of evolution of organisms. On my view natural selection play no role in it.

Actually, white - red is a light blueish color.

Hey VMartin, that monitor your using, do you know how it creates those "complex colors"? By combining red, green, and blue.

Ever used a digital camera? Know how it perceives those "complex colors"? By using pixels sensitive to red, green, and blue and combining them.

Know how all color images on a PC store that complex color data? As red, green, and blue channels. They are combined when the image is displayed.

Date: 2007/09/14 15:24:29, Link
Author: Nerull
VMartin is very afraid of giving his own opinions on anything. The reason is JAD.

Much like VMartin is JADs only friend, JAD is VMartins only friend - but he's not completely braindead. He knows how JAD is. He knows that if he gives an opinion JAD doesn't like, he will throw him in with everyone else he hates. Then he will be all alone.

Date: 2007/09/18 17:19:46, Link
Author: Nerull
I didn't see anyone else post this, but as an astronomer, this is the most hilarious thing he's said so far (and thats doing pretty good - the 'tard is strong with this one.)


""We already know that E=mc2 is wrong because it contradicts Newton's law of gravity. E=mc2 says nothing is faster than the speed of light....yet as we know, this is not correct. Gravity is instantaneous, thus faster than the speed of light. If the earth were to move, for example, the moon would somehow "know" it and move right along with it. Same with the sun...if the sun were to move, the planets would follow the sun around, all without ropes.

Scientists have long known that Einstein's theory contradicted Newton's law of gravity, but it's just one of those things they try to keep hush about and sweep under the carpet like it doesn't exist.

So if E=mc2 is wrong, which it is, then we can pretty much be assured that astronomers and cosmologists are not to be trusted because they simply do not know what they're talking about."

We knew Newtonian gravity was wrong long before Einstein. Care to explain the precession of mercury?

Oh, and E=mc2 gives the energy output when mass is converted to energy. It doesn't say anything about traveling faster than light. Thats relativity. Using the right terms is a good way not to look like a complete fool. (But you've still got a long way to go there.)

Date: 2007/09/18 17:59:11, Link
Author: Nerull
Yes, newtonian gravity doesn't work with relativity - thats because newtonian gravity is *wrong*.

We've known that for a long time.

Newtonian gravity cannot explain the precession of mercury, among many other things. Can you? The answer requires relativity.

Newtonian gravity is only used for cases where it approximates the answer from relativity, because its easier to work with, but to accurately predict real observations you must use relativity.

You can cry "Newtonian gravity has instantaneous gravity!!!!!" all you like. It does. The problem is it doesn't work!.

Newtonian gravity cannot accurately describe the universe we see. It was a good approximation from what we knew at the time of newton, but its just that, an approximation. One that breaks if you take it too far.

The fact that you continue to cling to it just shows how ignorant of everything you are. Newton would slap you around, were he here. He was the first to model gravity, with limited knowledge. Its not perfect, Newton didn't expect it to be perfect, and only someone who is willfully ignorant of all physics advances would think it was.

Date: 2007/09/18 18:02:28, Link
Author: Nerull
Oh, and that experiment is quantum tunneling. It does not violate relativity, the guy doing the experiment doesn't claim it does. That comes from overzealous reporters. Strike two.

Date: 2007/09/18 18:23:46, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,18:10)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,17:47)
Nerull: "Oh, and E=mc2 gives the energy output when mass is converted to energy. It doesn't say anything about traveling faster than light"

Taken from "Faster than the Speed of Light" by Joao Magueijo

"Einstein was well aware that the Newtonian theory of gravity was at odds with his thoery of special relativity at the very fundamental level.  It contradicted the idea that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light." pg. 46

any explanation as to why you would get this basic information so wrong?

Would you like me to explain exactly what E=mc^2 means? Its pretty obvious you've got no idea.

Date: 2007/09/18 18:26:17, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,18:09)
Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 18 2007,18:02)
Oh, and that experiment is quantum tunneling. It does not violate relativity, the guy doing the experiment doesn't claim it does. That comes from overzealous reporters. Strike two.

who cares how it happened?...and the speed of light has slowed down in the past centuries so obviously it is variable.

Got any evidence for that, any at all?

Didn't think so.

Date: 2007/09/18 18:30:36, Link
Author: Nerull
I'll state this again, nice and slow.

Yes, it does require instantaneous gravity. It also doesn't actually *work*. Its broken. It is completely useless except as a simplified version of relativity that works in some situations.

How can anyone be this thick? Newtonian gravity does not disprove relativity, because relativity is a further refinement of it. Reality disproves newtonian gravity. Only relativity correctly describes what we see in the real world.

Get out of your basement, do some actual research. Try learning something for a change. There's a whole world out there. I know it'll be hard for you to leave the comfort of the world you've created in your own mind, but seriously, get out and get help.

Date: 2007/09/18 18:52:57, Link
Author: Nerull
It describes the energy you get when you convert mass to energy. (Or energy to mass, if you can find a way to do that).

It has nothing to do with the speed things can travel. Its completely unrelated. If he actually knew what it ment, he wouldn't bring it up, because its silly. Its about as relevant to something going faster than light than the fact that I had a hamburger last week.

Date: 2007/09/20 15:12:20, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 20 2007,13:59)
Excellent! Do you have any ideas about coloration of ladybirds too? For instance that black ones live in high latitudes to warm themselves? And red ones live in low latitudes near shores to protect themselves in sun-sets?

Because, obviously, its not possible that different animals could have evolved coloration differently or for different reasons.

VMartin, were you always this thick? Did you need training? Does JAD help with that? Beating you with plank until you lose enough brain cells to suit him?

Date: 2007/09/21 16:09:01, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 21 2007,15:42)
Who said the asteroid hit AFTER the Flood?

Erm, you did.

Getting JoeGs memory problems, afdave?

Date: 2007/09/22 16:23:01, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,15:51)
Two, four, six, eight
Let’s get on with this debate!

Was just released from the pariah fort
So I can cheer for Supersport!

So, stop your evasion...
or admit to creation.

This is what you’ve waited for
don’t you dare show him the door!
[Wes...see! I “substantiated that claim!!”]

I’ve found I seriously suck at rhyme
perhaps I should consider mime.
[copyright to Kristine]

Gooooooo Supersport!
[And, isn’t he a cutie?!]


[Does seriously outstanding cheerleading jump (for a 42 yr. old)...

....arrrrggghhhhh*%##@ !!...

...lands on "expansive backside"]

Gosh darn it!  It’s, like, really difficult to do my jumps in these freaking heels, Richard Hughes!!!!

***She’s  baaaaaaccccccckkkkkkk!!---Wes released me from teh piranha pinata pimento pariah cage!***

I take it then, FTK, that you believe Newtonian gravity takes precedence over relativity, that E=MC^2 controls the maximum speed you can travel, and that *all* scientists are wicked evil atheists who are in a big conspiracy? (That includes your hero Brown).

Date: 2007/09/24 12:46:08, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,12:15)
Hi Albatrossity2 and K.E.,

One of the things I have noticed in blogs is the tendency to engage in "Shield Bashing".  This is generally done by trying to frame the debate where the other side is expected to prove their point thus allowing the shield basher to alternate between laughing at their pathetic attempts and/or be indignant over arrogance of the presumptions.

I have been banned from Uncommon Descent and  I don't think my behavior warrented being banned in either case.  I can (and have) presented the comment that got me banned from UD with minor effort.

I was posting to After the Bar Closes a while ago but quit doing so.  Now, if I were to simply accuse SteveStory of being rude to me as the reason I quit, would it become Steve's burden to prove otherwise.

The "innocent until proven guilty" works both ways.  Telic Thoughts should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

The case needs to be made by TT's accuser, JAM.

Unless, of course, you just want to believe what you want to believe anyway.

Erm, I'm not understanding this at all.

When someone receives a punishment, when does it become their burden to prove they don't deserve it? Thats not generally how things work, anywhere.

Well, anywhere you'd want to emulate, at least.

Date: 2007/09/28 13:21:22, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 28 2007,12:39)
Here's as good a place as any..

Whats with the photography? Are they aware we've invented color photographs? Even in digital cameras!

We've also got cameras that can take an image larger than 500px and store it...without heavy compression!

Isn't technology great?

Date: 2007/09/28 13:32:43, Link
Author: Nerull
This is the online version of the credited newspaper. The article is written by the editor in chief. I find it hard to believe they couldn't get the originals, unless they stole them from another newspaper, which is just stupid. ;)

Date: 2007/09/29 21:40:53, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 29 2007,21:35)
Also, Bill, I never mentioned the poster in my original article (although it is disgusting), and it's not just as simple as saying that it's no biggie because it's "sexual behavior between two *consenting* adults".  

It's the mockery and irresponsible behavior being promoted in regard to sex.  Sex is not just a game or a competition as to who can get the raunchiest or how many partners one can accumulate.  It's something special and beautiful.  That you seem to condone this behavior says a lot about you.

Says more about you, actually, that your so obsessed with it.

Why do you care, and why is it any of your business, what goes on between two consenting adults?

Fundies hate gays because they hate themselves. Why do all the big anti-gay fundies turn out to be gay, FTK?

Date: 2007/09/30 19:30:11, Link
Author: Nerull
ID presents no harm to science, in fact it's pushed science to new heights.  


Sorry, had to get that out of my system.

ID has pushed science to new heights? Thats a good one.

Which parts, the science of lying? The science of quote mining? The science of marketing?

What science have they even done, FTK? Can you name any?

Date: 2007/09/30 22:34:35, Link
Author: Nerull
No one would work so hard at supporting something that they know to be patently false

They will when money is involved.

"Fleecing the flock" is a longstanding tradition. No matter how silly your claims, how badly or how often you get caught lying, how obviously wrong you are, people will throw money at you if you do it in the name of religion. Behe and Dembski know this well. They've got book sales to consider.

Date: 2007/10/01 09:55:22, Link
Author: Nerull
If my calculations are correct, the next post should be the Page of the Beast. I'll let someone else do the honors.  :D

Date: 2007/10/04 10:38:27, Link
Author: Nerull
Yeah, like Dembski posted the personal information of several people?

Or is it ok when you guys do it?

Date: 2007/10/04 21:24:36, Link
Author: Nerull
Oh, oh, I know!

More fart jokes from Dembski?

Perhaps he'll post some more personal information? Or send his minions to harass a few more grad students?

Date: 2007/10/04 21:37:28, Link
Author: Nerull
Could she mean the Expelled release? When is it coming out?

If she is...good one, FTK!

A movie no one but IDers cares about, narrated by a has-been no one likes who made a career out of boring people to sleep.

Yeah, that'll convert everyone. *snicker*

Date: 2007/10/05 16:48:19, Link
Author: Nerull
A discussion on how God allows Entropy at UD. And I thought its not about religion? ;)

Date: 2007/10/12 13:39:32, Link
Author: Nerull
If BibleGod is real, I'd still refuse to worship him.

He has the worst qualities of the most evil dictators we can imagine, and his followers love him for it.

They can shove their god.

Date: 2007/10/15 20:13:51, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 15 2007,17:29)
Anyway TP, have a look at my blog linked below when you get a chance.  Interesting article there on Venus ... you knew that it's surface got a total makeover all at one shot right?  Just like Walt claims happened here on earth?

You knew that already right?

Thats a pretty big pronouncement considering how little we know about venetian geology.

Perhaps we can send Brown, afdave, and FTK there to study it in person? Take shorts and t-shirts, I hear it gets a bit warm.

Date: 2007/10/16 10:00:58, Link
Author: Nerull
Thinking more about afdave's last post - the implication seems to be the God flooded Venus too.


An omnipotent being does not need practice.

Was there a civilization on Venus, and he killed them? Perhaps we're just the second experiment? Did he start one on Mars and kill them too?

Date: 2008/01/05 10:43:26, Link
Author: Nerull
Sorry for this, but as a friend of Skatje's, I can't read this crap anymore.

FTK - What the fuck? It was never about legal issues? Skatje's ENTIRE FUCKING POST was about the legal issues.

As far as sex and morals, Skatje is one of the more moral people I know, and that includes a hell of lot of Christians. That doesn't mean she wants to lock people up because they don't act the way she does.

You just said you don't think it should be banned - you therefore agree completely with what Skatje said. I'm having a hard time imagining why you to would make such a big deal out of something you agree with.

And as for Sal posting it under humor...

FTK, you have kids, correct?

Would you find it at all funny if some guy on the internet started posting sexual innuendo about them? How about your friends? I thought not.

Date: 2008/01/05 10:53:13, Link
Author: Nerull
Now its group think not to accept meaningless numbers and quantum woo!

Date: 2008/01/05 11:18:05, Link
Author: Nerull
"hate,  further conflict, and misunderstanding"

Are exactly what Sal peddles in.

It is not without reason that Sal is considered the worst of the worst. He earns it.

That you cuddle up to him doesn't say a lot about your character, though.

Date: 2008/01/05 12:21:09, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (olegt @ Jan. 05 2008,12:17)

You, an anonymous poster, were subjected to juvenile name calling by 17-year-olds.  I don't condone it (ah, the pleasure of expanding one's dictionary!), but it would be a fool's errand to try and stamp out teenage rants.  

ERV, a real graduate student also known as S. Abbie Smith, was subjected to deliberate character assassination by a grown-up with three college degrees (and an aspiring scientist to boot).  

I think there's a bit of a difference here.

Havn't you kept up with definitions?

Not stamping it out means you do condone it!

Date: 2008/01/05 12:49:01, Link
Author: Nerull
Speaking of which

"Sure, she didn't think bestiality should be banned, but then, neither do I."

FTK, do you admit that you condone beastality, under the definition you were so quick to apply to Skatje and post everywhere?

You wouldn't get upset if I started posting everywhere that FTK condones beastality, would you?

Date: 2008/01/05 13:17:00, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 05 2008,13:02)
If you are aware of the background to this fiasco, then you would know that the reason I linked to Skatje’s post was in regard to moral issues, not legal ones.

Sal, wrote a post that angered Darwinists because he made the moral connection that Darwinism leads to the acceptance of bestiality.  I told him in the comments of that post that I understand his position, but that the way in which he went about making his point, which was highly provocative, was not fair to Darwinists in general.  The point he was trying to make was going to be lost because of his choice in how he presented it.  

This forum lit up, and further discussion took place about the issue of morality and whether or not Darwinism or atheism would allow for bestiality to become an acceptable behavior.

I then responded to Ed Brayton’s post which was in regard to Sal’s indication that Darwinism leads to bestiality.  My post was entirely in regard to morality, not legality.  I considered from the Christian and the atheist perspective whether or not bestiality is an acceptable practice for those who wish to engage in it.  That is when I linked to Skate's feeling on the topic.  I was not interested in the legality of the issues, but rather the “right” and “wrong” of the issue.  

Here is the post I initially wrote at my blog.  I was commenting on the moral issues throughout, not the legal ones.  Skatje’s comments on the subject of bestiality were in regard to the “ew” factor and whether is it morally acceptable to engage in the act.  She also mentioned legality in one of her later comments, but that was never the issue.  We had been talking about the moral issues.  Her first comment on bestiality was this:

What's wrong with bestiality? I mean, I disapprove of forceful penetration or any sort of activities that would hurt the animal. But when an animal willingly engages in sexual activity with a human, what's the problem?

Note: You must supply a better answer than "ew".

Other commenters started to kinda of freak out, and then she reframed the issue and brought in the legal aspect.  The legal issue was not something that we were discussing, but rather the moral one.  She then went to her blog and wrote the infamous post.  There was more in that post than whether or not it should be legal or not.  The moral issues are what I was interested in, and that is what I considered when I wrote my post at YC.

Sal read my post, and decided to pull an AtBC peanut gallery move.  He wrote a humorous post while alluding to Skatje’s apathetic acceptance of bestiality for those who choose to engage in the act.

It doesn’t follow that Sal was trying to make everyone believe that Skatje engages in bestiality, but rather that she is apathetic to it.  He quoted from her post in regard to her feeling about the moral issues in regard to bestiality.  Links to her post were all over the place, and he even later wrote a post of apology to those who didn’t realize that the post was *supposed* to be humorous.  

The discussions were all based on morality, not legality.

I was talking to Skatje when she wrote that post.

I know you fundies have a hard time separating what you personally don't like and what is OMG!!!! WRONG!!! MAKE IT ILLLEGAL!!!!, but Skatje was arguing legal issues the entire time.

When she asked you what was wrong, she was asking why it should be banned - something you agree it should not.

There are two possibilities:
You and Sal have started an extensive smear campaign against a 17 year old girl because you can't read.
You and Sal have started an extensive smear campaign against a 17 year old girl because you just don't like her dad.

(Don't pull the definition crap - anyone can see through that.)

From someone who saw this unfold from the inside, thats the only conclusions I see possible, and thanks you to she could well be harassed by UD-types for a long time to come.

You aren't even worthy of contempt, FTK. I hope you feel good about yourself.

Date: 2008/01/05 13:39:21, Link
Author: Nerull
Skatje does not consider it moral either - but she avoids passing judgment on others, and her entire point was that it shouldn't be illegal because it seem icky.

From what you're saying now, the only difference between her position and yours is the degree to which you want to force others to comply with your views.

Are you willing to post something on the front page of Young Kosmos, quoting only the bit about you condoning bestiality - probably even snipping out the legal part, and leaving the moral argument out completely? And then post a picture of an animal with innuendo about your sexual habits underneath? Because thats what Sal did to Skatje.

Date: 2008/01/05 13:46:46, Link
Author: Nerull
FTK, people tried to coach you on this earlier, but I guess we'll have to try again.

Elementary Reading 101:

"There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets. Obviously they can’t obtain the same level a deep human-to-human relationship, but loving your pets isn’t anything unusual. People care for their pets, talk to them, spoil them, feel relaxed in their company, and mourn them when they die. This relationship is so underestimated."

Skatje states the obvious - lots of people care very dearly about their pets. I don't know if you have pets, but I'd certainly hope you care about them. She isn't talking about sex at all at this point - just caring about pets.

"Why does it come as a surprise that when someone feels a deep connection to their pet, they might be interesting in doing something more expressive and intimate like we do in human-to-human relationships?"

Having established that lots of people care greatly about their pets, she asks why its surprising that a few people take it even farther. This is not an endorsement, or even a judgment at all, but just a question about why this surprises anyone.

"That said, I remind you that my position isn’t based on my own personal wants. I just don’t see any reason to ban it other than the same reason things like homosexuality and sodomy were banned: it’s icky. I think it’s bad practice to put social taboos into legislature when no actual logical argument can be made against it."

And this is what we call a legal argument.

Sorry FTK - there isn't a moral argument anywhere in that.

Date: 2008/01/05 13:55:00, Link
Author: Nerull
When did this become about what you were arguing, FTK?

This is all about you and Sal attacking Skatje because you don't like PZ.

This is all about taking a quote out of context and trying to smear her with something she never wrote.

You can't even find her moral argument - the one you keep saying your post was about - when pressed. Her posts have been about the legal issues, and the legal issues period.

This isn't about what you were writing about at the moment - you aren't the one who's had innuendo about what you do with animals posted all over the internet. You aren't the one who's reputation is damaged by this (Well, except from backlash).

Why has it suddenly become about you and not about Skatje? Perhaps your morals are finally kicking in and you feel a bit of remorse...nah.

Date: 2008/01/05 14:09:03, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 05 2008,14:07)
Quote (Nerull @ Jan. 05 2008,13:39)
Skatje does not consider it moral either - but she avoids passing judgment on others, and her entire point was that it shouldn't be illegal because it seem icky.

From what you're saying now, the only difference between her position and yours is the degree to which you want to force others to comply with your views.

Are you willing to post something on the front page of Young Kosmos, quoting only the bit about you condoning bestiality - probably even snipping out the legal part, and leaving the moral argument out completely? And then post a picture of an animal with innuendo about your sexual habits underneath? Because thats what Sal did to Skatje.

I am not trying to *force* my beliefs on anyone.  I am stating what my beliefs are, and you can quote me wherever you like.

1.  I believe that bestiality is morally *wrong*.  I believe that it is unquestionably unacceptable to have sexual relations with animals regardess of the circumstances.  

2.  I "condone" the act legally because I do no feel that the government should get involved in these issues *unless* it gets out of control.  

So, if anyone decides to write a post on the moral issues of the act, quote #1.  If you are writing in regard to the legal issues, quote #2.

Why do you get a different standard? Skatje's stance on legal issues was implied to be her moral stance - and indeed what she engages in.

Date: 2008/01/05 14:46:21, Link
Author: Nerull
No, she wouldn't. But thats because she subscribes to another set of morals - completely unrelated to this issue, that are a hell of a lot better than yours.

It is her position, and one I generally share, that if someone is not hurting anyone - what is it her business what they do in private? She doesn't make a moral judgment on what other people do because she considers it none of her business.

The world would be a lot better place if everyone felt the same.

You, on the other hand, think you have some right to tell other people how to live their lives. Why? What makes it your business?

Didn't your god tell you to worry about the log in your own eye before pointing out the mote in others?

Perhaps, instead of poking your nose into everyone else's business based on a book that you only follow when it suits you, you should adapt a stance closer to hers.

Date: 2008/01/05 15:38:05, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 05 2008,15:09)
First of all, when people engage in sex with *whatever* merely for instant gratification, sex becomes no more unique than taking a dump every day.  Sex is what bonds a man and a woman.  It makes their union special and unique.  When people have sex with anything that walks, it takes away from the beauty of that act, and it also makes it harder to form a lasting relationship with one partner.  That leads to the break down of the family, which is harmful to future generations.

And I'll give a damn what the fundies say about that when they stop getting caught soliciting sex in bathroom stalls. Or when the conservative hero (Regan) isn't well known for pleasuring an 18 year old staffer during his campaign, or when Newt Gingrich (ugggh) doesn't say he only does oral sex outside of marriage because that doesn't count. Or when the most overly religious man I know doesn't randomly talk about this great porn he saw last night.

Fundies talking about morality and sex is like thieves talking about security.

You love to make Pronouncements from On High about how other people should live their lives - very rarely do you follow them yourselves.

Date: 2008/01/05 16:40:46, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 05 2008,16:35)
Quote (Nerull @ Jan. 05 2008,15:38)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 05 2008,15:09)
First of all, when people engage in sex with *whatever* merely for instant gratification, sex becomes no more unique than taking a dump every day.  Sex is what bonds a man and a woman.  It makes their union special and unique.  When people have sex with anything that walks, it takes away from the beauty of that act, and it also makes it harder to form a lasting relationship with one partner.  That leads to the break down of the family, which is harmful to future generations.

And I'll give a damn what the fundies say about that when they stop getting caught soliciting sex in bathroom stalls. Or when the conservative hero (Regan) isn't well known for pleasuring an 18 year old staffer during his campaign, or when Newt Gingrich (ugggh) doesn't say he only does oral sex outside of marriage because that doesn't count. Or when the most overly religious man I know doesn't randomly talk about this great porn he saw last night.

Fundies talking about morality and sex is like thieves talking about security.

You love to make Pronouncements from On High about how other people should live their lives - very rarely do you follow them yourselves.

So, what you are saying is that since Christians are also susceptible to sin, that means God doesn't exist and his word is bogus.

No one is immune to goodness, if I started writing about all the mistakes I've made, it would fill a book.  We're tempted, we screw up, this is true, and it is far worse when a Christian does so because they are setting a horrific example of what Christianity encompasses.

I'm saying its the height of hyprocracy to make grand pronouncements about morality to everyone else while you are quite often worse than those you preach at.

This argument is a fine example.

We must all be nice to each other, except when its politically convenient to smear a 17 year old with sexual rumors - you'll defend doing that to the end!

Date: 2008/01/05 16:58:07, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 05 2008,16:46)
Quote (Nerull @ Jan. 05 2008,16:40)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 05 2008,16:35)
Quote (Nerull @ Jan. 05 2008,15:38)
Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 05 2008,15:09)
First of all, when people engage in sex with *whatever* merely for instant gratification, sex becomes no more unique than taking a dump every day.  Sex is what bonds a man and a woman.  It makes their union special and unique.  When people have sex with anything that walks, it takes away from the beauty of that act, and it also makes it harder to form a lasting relationship with one partner.  That leads to the break down of the family, which is harmful to future generations.

And I'll give a damn what the fundies say about that when they stop getting caught soliciting sex in bathroom stalls. Or when the conservative hero (Regan) isn't well known for pleasuring an 18 year old staffer during his campaign, or when Newt Gingrich (ugggh) doesn't say he only does oral sex outside of marriage because that doesn't count. Or when the most overly religious man I know doesn't randomly talk about this great porn he saw last night.

Fundies talking about morality and sex is like thieves talking about security.

You love to make Pronouncements from On High about how other people should live their lives - very rarely do you follow them yourselves.

So, what you are saying is that since Christians are also susceptible to sin, that means God doesn't exist and his word is bogus.

No one is immune to goodness, if I started writing about all the mistakes I've made, it would fill a book.  We're tempted, we screw up, this is true, and it is far worse when a Christian does so because they are setting a horrific example of what Christianity encompasses.

I'm saying its the height of hyprocracy to make grand pronouncements about morality to everyone else while you are quite often worse than those you preach at.

This argument is a fine example.

We must all be nice to each other, except when its politically convenient to smear a 17 year old with sexual rumors - you'll defend doing that to the end!


Would you like to go back and count how many times I've stated that Sal's choice in how he addressed this issue what *not nice*.  I said he was being a "jerk".  I believe he made a *poor choice*.  I've taken this position from the start and voiced it at least a dozen times now.

Please recognize that.

Oh, before or after you say he was just trying to be funny, and we should all get a sense of humor?

I do have a sense of humor. I don't find this crap about friends of mine remotely funny. I don't think PZ finds it funny, and Skatje sure as hell doesn't think its funny.

This is beyond "Oh, he just made a bad joke! Har! Har! Har!".

If PZ had done something like this, you'd be calling for Scienceblogs to shut him down. But since its your buddy Sal, we just get "It was just a joke, lighten up".

It takes a lothesome, despicable person to do that to someone.

Combined with your stupid definitions game, I have zero respect for either of you. Sal didn't have much to begin with, but I had at least considered you misguided and stubborn - I won't say I liked you but I didn't hate you. You've fixed that.

If your god is real, the lot of you can rot in hell.

(You don't expect to get into heaven for ignoring half the things he told you, do you?)

Date: 2008/01/05 17:25:18, Link
Author: Nerull
Nothing to see here.

Date: 2008/01/05 17:39:13, Link
Author: Nerull
Or here.

Date: 2008/01/05 17:46:23, Link
Author: Nerull
Defiantly nothing here.

Date: 2008/01/05 17:48:43, Link
Author: Nerull
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Date: 2008/01/05 18:13:34, Link
Author: Nerull
I have removed some posts that were probably better left unsaid, for various reasons. I'd like to ask that the content not be brought back up.

I won't reserve shots about future arguments, but for me this one has been resolved.

Date: 2008/01/06 00:08:08, Link
Author: Nerull
I'll give em credit - even the guys at Telic Thoughts know a quantum quack when they see one, apparently.

Date: 2008/01/06 19:43:32, Link
Author: Nerull
I read through Young Cosmos to read his "apology", and I noticed this gem:


   What we’d allow to run rampant is tolerance.

Herr PZ Myers,
just before he sent FtK to the dungeon for expressing her dissent

Hey FTK, why don't you allow others to comment on Young Kosmos?

If banning one person who went after his daughter makes him Hitler (Herr), what does that make you two?

Date: 2008/01/07 10:40:35, Link
Author: Nerull
However, if there is some force that causes the cards to tend to line up in the way you predicted, and you knew this beforehand, your point is completely worthless.

Like, say, natural selection.

Date: 2008/01/07 12:10:15, Link
Author: Nerull
I won't disclose the PMs we've had back and forth lately, I'll just say the only explanation I can come up with for her behavior is that some part of her feels remorse, and some part of her desperately wants to avoid accepting that she might have done something wrong. Its the only reason I can imagine for sending an apology in one PM and a rant about how she is the victim in all this in the next. I can only think that I caused the remorseful part of her to break through, if only for a moment.

After scolding me for the "damage" PZ et, all. do for the "cause.", I did ask her how many converts she thinks she brought in with this whole stunt. They seem to put ID before everything - what is right or wrong doesn't matter. For some reason they expect us to behave the same way.

Yes, FTK, I'm an atheist. Yes, FTK, I read PZs blog. But none of that matters here. What matters is that you and Sal initiated a senseless attack, and then tried to play the victim card. And you try to claim to be the "moral" ones in all this.

And frankly, you should be glad that Skatje doesn't want to talk to you. I didn't say so, but she told me what she was thinking, if she didn't write it. Copying it here would get this post moved to The Bathroom Wall.

I can't speak for her, but don't expect to just wash this over and become best buddies.

FTK knows what I think, in stronger words than I posted here. She's had her chance, and made what she wanted of it. Our conversation, here and in PMs, is done.

Date: 2008/01/07 17:37:37, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 07 2008,17:27)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 07 2008,14:06)
Maybe some of the reason FTK is like she is can be put down to a lack of curiosity.

For example, FTK writes (of Walt):
His theory suggests that comets, asteroids, and meteorites formed when jetting water and rock debris were forcefully launched from the subterranean chamber, escaped the earth’s gravitational pull and blasted into space to become part of our solar system.

So, logically all comets, asteroids, and meteorites would then have a makeup that can be traced back to earth. That's right huh FTK?

FTK, want to talk about that? Comets or asteroids or meteorites? All three?

It's much, much worse than that.  Walt Brown needs to come up with a plausible way of changing asteroid orbits from highly-eccentric ellipses to near-circular ones out beyond the orbit of Mars.  And I see nothing but a blur of rapidly-waving arms on this point.  This objection can be repeated, with knobs on, for the Kuiper Belt.

In the absence of a plausible mechanism, either (a) everything we think we know about classical orbital mechanics (the laws of which were first worked out by Kepler and Newton, and which are tested every time NASA launches something) is wrong, or (b) Walt Brown's hypothesis is a load of old cobblers.

FTK, I'm leaning towards (b) here.  Would you like to say anything about (a)?

I want to know this too. I mentioned to FTK in a PM that I am an (amateur) astronomer with a strong interest in physics and space flight. I know how orbits work. I've flown spacecraft in realistic simulators - I've flown to other planets and back, landed on moons and used Jupiter for gravity slingshots.

I know that it is completely impossible, by the known laws of physics, to launch a rock off of Earth and put it in the main asteroid belt orbit.

I know these laws are correct, because, as you said, NASA tests them every time it launches.

NASA can pull of hideously complex trajectories, making use of multiple slingshots and flybys - I'd almost call them a work of art - without a hitch.

To quote XKCD: "Science: It works, bitches!".

So, FTK, explain how all this is wrong. And keep in mind that on this subject there are people here who know what they are talking about. Handwaving won't get you anywhere.

Date: 2008/01/07 17:41:06, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 07 2008,18:39)
Hi Doc Bill et all,

Maybe I haven't made myself clear.  I am not trying to convince you that Mike Gene's isn't valueless (i.e. "garbage").  I am just trying to demonstrate Mike Gene's method is less offensive than Dembski's <fill-in-your-choice-of-description>

Got to run, will comment more later.

Pointless, misleading, bullshit is bullshit no matter who spews it.

Date: 2008/01/07 22:23:31, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (JonF @ Jan. 07 2008,21:07)
Not only that ... think about the planes of the orbits. What naturally occuring force acts perpendicular to the plane of a random orbit to bringing it into the ecliptic plane?

I'm sure you know the answer. Others either know or can guess, but for FTK I'll spell it out.

The answer is - there isn't one.

Changing the orbit plane is one of the most energy intensive things a spacecraft can do. Inertia is very good at keeping things in the same orbital plane. There is no natural force that would or could do that.

Date: 2008/01/09 21:11:40, Link
Author: Nerull
I'm not a biology expert, so I miss out on some of the more nuanced arguments.

I can, however, speak about Walt Brown's nuttiness. And since FTK is in love with Brown and is, as far as I know, the only person on the planet who actually believes him, I have fun poking holes in the stuff she posts instead.

Date: 2008/01/10 21:00:55, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (skeptic @ Jan. 10 2008,19:56)
and this is what I would call higher level semantics.  If mutations are a result of causes then these causes are not occuring in a vaccum.  They are occuring within the environment that the organism lives.  In other words, mutations occur as a result of the enironment and actions of the organism.  Whether or not the mutation has a direct impact upon the fitness of future generations or has more indirect result is probably up for grabs and maybe both depending upon the situation.  To constantly claim that mutations occur with no apparent relation to fitness is only reality in a test tube, and probably not even there either.

again, my opinion but not something that gets alot of play here because the perceived implications are too scary.

This is quite possibly the silliest thing I've ever heard you say.

That mutations are caused by the environment does not mean that mutations are related to the environment.

Taking a bath in radioactive waste will do wonders for your mutation rate, but it has absolutely no effect on what the mutations *do*, and it won't make the result of any mutation more likely than the result of a mutation caused by any other environment.

Date: 2008/01/10 22:42:47, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (skeptic @ Jan. 10 2008,23:04)
And that is quite possibly the silliest thing I have ever heard...mutations caused by the environment are not related to the environment!

Look, I'm not really interested in getting into this too deep because you guys really aren't interested in discussing it.  If you want to do some more research on your on check out heat shock proteins and chaperones and the AMES test and then think about how quickly environmental changes occur in relation to mutation rates.

The reason why this is scary is because, to be perfectly honest, the current theory has no good mechanistic explanations for evolution and no one wants to admit that.  Evolution is no longer science it is dogma because of the perceived threat from ID/creationism.  Under current conditions there can be no dissent because that would offer a weakness to the enemy and right now defeating the enemy is more important than scientific integrity.  This, of course, will change when enough evidence is amassed to offer a more complete mechanism to replace RM seamlessly and the enemy then will have no weakness to exploit.  In other words, right now it is about politics but one day it will actually be about science again.

Someone here certainly isn't interested in discussing anything, but its not us.

Keep feeding your martyr complex and denying reality, though.

Date: 2008/01/10 23:01:55, Link
Author: Nerull
Rich pointed me here, so I guess I'll resurrect this thread...

The guitar on my blog was a $200 Epi SG. For the money, it was one hell of a guitar, but unfortunatly I had to sell it a few months ago when I needed the money for other things (Standard Issue Broke Uni Student).

Now I'm eagerly awaiting my tax returns and pondering a replacement. I'd like to go higher end this time - something that'll last a while and look damn good doing it.

This has caught my eye at the moment:

Could use better pickups from what I've read, but electronics is one of my many hobbies, and I can replace pickups without much trouble.

Hell, I've never even used non-shitty pickups, so its not like I'll be in agony anyway. ;)

(Amusing fact - the one post on my blog about the SG draws in more visitors than anything else - I seem to be popular on google)

Date: 2008/01/11 10:37:58, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (skeptic @ Jan. 10 2008,23:04)
And that is quite possibly the silliest thing I have ever heard...mutations caused by the environment are not related to the environment!

I want you to answer something for me, Skeptic.

A bit of ionizing radiation from said bath comes in and nails the DNA of a developing organism.

Where in the DNA this happens is entirely random.

Now explain how the mutation will somehow relate to the environment it happened in.

Also, a stable area of DNA doesn't mean no mutations happen there, but that no mutations have become widespread and passed on to future generations. This could be due to the fact that most mutations to that area are deadly - for example if it produces a protein that said organism has become dependent on. Break the protein and the organism dies. This tends to prevent the mutation being passed on to the next generation. This is what we called "natural selection.", and its a rather important bit of evolution that you seem to ignore.

Date: 2008/01/11 22:28:42, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (skeptic @ Jan. 11 2008,23:24)
sorry Nerull, it's quite a bit more complicated than that.  Also, lethality is not the driving mechanism in conservation.  Quick suggestion, you guys might want to study up on that which you appear to know nothing about.  You could start with Wikipedia, I hear that is fertile ground for the lazy mind.

You still have to explain how a mutation that effects a random location in the DNA sequence creates a change related to the environment, Skeptic.

Stop dodging.

EDIT: Also, I never said lethality was the only reason, just one.

I'm not your babysitter. I don't have time to hold your hand and give you the education you so desperately need, which apparently also includes basic reading comprehension.

Date: 2008/01/12 11:12:16, Link
Author: Nerull
Skeptic, lets try something simpler you might be able to understand.

Lets say I have a normal 6 sided die.

I drop it on a carpet, a hardwood desk, and a rubber mat.

These all change the manner, number, type of bounces.

Which makes the die more likely to read '4'?

None of them. Though all affect the die in different ways, they do not change the essentially random outcome. (We're ignoring the fact that the die could be modeled if we knew its starting state and every force acting on it with precision, since its irrelevant to the discussion.)

Date: 2008/01/22 09:22:58, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 22 2008,00:52)
A lot of people think of the Special Relativity answer to the Twins Paradox when they hear "relativity" or "space-time".  That version is so incomplete that I consider it wrong.  Did you know our GPS satellites automatically adjust for General Relativity?  If they adjusted for Special Relativity they wouldn't keep time accurately.  Special Relativity was a stop gap calculation that was known to be wrong by Einstein when he proposed it.

Thats, funny, because GR includes SR. You can't compensate for general relativity without also compensating for special relativity.

General relativity is an attempt to unify Newtonian gravity with special relativity. It depends on it and does not work without it.

SR does not work when dealing with gravity. Its not supposed to - thats what GR is for. The GPS satellites must operate within a strong gravity field and thus must use GR.

For someone who likes to berate others for not understanding your quantum woo, you are rather ignorant of the way things actually work.

Where is your evidence to show that the measurements by actual scientists - which confirm both to the limits that we can measure - are wrong?

Don't have any? Didn't think so.

Date: 2008/01/24 19:08:33, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 24 2008,20:03)
Hmmm, it’s gotten quiet all of a sudden.

Hi Henry,

Thank you for your comment.

I had put together the Star Trek example in anticipation of the standard "changing inertial frames" argument.

It is the landing party that is going out and back, not the Captain on his ship.  At least from the Captain's frame of reference.

You are using acceleration to choose a preferred frame of reference.

Now if the ship was orbiting a gravity well, the Captain and his ship wouldn't experience acceleration.  Oops, special relativity breaks down and then the hand waving begins.  Why make exceptions for an antiquated concept that has outlived its usefulness?  Nostalgia?

Did you understand what Penrose was talking about with "'arc length' measured along a world line"? Minkowski brought Einstein and physics back to the "absolute world" of a single, non-Euclidean reference frame. The integral of ds is the summation of the path taken by the respective twin.  The path taken by the traveling twin is shorter in the single, "absolute world" that is our universe.

The traveling twin takes a short cut.

You've made it quite clear you understand neither SR, GR, or QM.

Date: 2008/01/25 10:32:26, Link
Author: Nerull
Joy's post is high quality tard.

Its a rock. Its been there in multiple photographs over the course of three days. Its not alive. Its not moving. Its 6cm tall. It resembles a tree-dwelling mammal on a planet with no mammals and no trees. Its a friggin rock.

Date: 2008/01/25 13:53:46, Link
Author: Nerull
Most IDists take a very conservative approach to inferring design. Not only would the evidence indicate design but it would include indicators that a non-design conclusion is implausible.

Most IDist say "Design!!!!" because their little holy book tells them so.

Date: 2008/01/29 12:44:42, Link
Author: Nerull
FTK, why do you picket military funerals with signs that say "God Hates Fags!"?

You've established that if one small group of people who claim to be part of a larger group, wither that larger group accepts them or not, the larger group all get tarred with the actions of the smaller group. No backtracking, FTK, thats what you've been saying.

So why do you picket funerals, FTK?

Date: 2008/01/29 14:07:45, Link
Author: Nerull
Evidently, he's dug down deep enough to find that moral compass still intact, and realizes it's a sin to tell a lie.

Something you have no problem with, of course. Keep lying for Jesus, FTK.

Date: 2008/01/31 18:14:45, Link
Author: Nerull
The flat-earthers of old no doubt often “won” debates against the less informed and less debate-able round-earthers.

Is this a sockpuppet, or real?

The Greek scientists (Yes, thats scientists, IDers, not those with a religious axe to grind) determined it was round and even the approximate size, did they not? They're about as far from less informed as you could get for the time.

If its real, its quality tard. If its a sockpuppet - well done. ;)

Date: 2008/02/03 22:51:00, Link
Author: Nerull
1.  One, I'm not a nutter...the polls indicate that you are.

Argument from majority, FTK? You can't even do that right, though.

You're part of one tiny movement that is the laughing stock of the entire world.

Date: 2008/02/05 16:37:34, Link
Author: Nerull
Isn't he supposed to be a lawyer? He should know better than to use a graphic if he doesn't know where it comes from and that he has permission to use it.

Date: 2008/02/10 10:44:22, Link
Author: Nerull

Under the Borne convention rules, pictures (And other works) are copyrighted from the moment they are created, unless stated otherwise. This applies to everyone except government agencies - stuff they create falls under public domain, usually.

Unless you see otherwise, always assume an image is copyrighted, because it probably is.

Casey Luskin - a lawyer, knows this. He used a copyrighted image anyway, without even bothering to check the URL in the image.

We have a legal term for that - its called outright stupidity.

This is the law in the US, at least. And in many other Borne convention countries.

This post, for example, is copyright Me. Right Now. No need to register anything. (Assuming I didn't agree to hand them over to the board, which I don't remember doing, but don't really care if I did) Of course, fair use allows a pretty wide usage.

Date: 2008/02/21 10:19:33, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Nomad @ Feb. 21 2008,03:27)
Coincidentally, I was out with my Canon camera plus 70-200 lens.  I'd never shot an eclipse before and I was underprepared.  I'd read up on some ideas for how to shoot it, and really I should have done better than I did, but there was some last second screwups involving being locked out of the house in 8 degree F weather, so I ended up being kind of rushed once I got inside.

In particular, while I thought I zoomed all the way in I DIDN'T!  I'm kicking myself for this, I took my lens which was a bit on the small side for lunar photography, and didn't even use it to its full capability.
I also wasn't thinking about having to keep my shutter speeds up, rather than turn up the ISO I let the shutter speeds get up to 5-6 seconds at totality.  Which meant blurry images.  I know that things are moving around up there, I've dealt with this before, but I just don't have a handle on exactly when the Earth's rotation (or the Moon's motion) starts showing up in images.
So here's a crude montage of a few of the better images.  All my shots of totality are blurry, the one of near totality that I included is better even though the illuminated portion is massively blown out.

It was pretty neat, I don't think I've actually ever seen a lunar eclipse before.  Not that I can remember, anyway.

The time will vary with the magnification.

When you magnify the image, you also magnify the movement. If you are taking images of more than a couple seconds with a high power telephoto lens, you really need to piggyback on a guided telescope.

Date: 2008/03/16 10:27:23, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 16 2008,10:29)
Louis, I would make one observation.  In this country right now the political force behind GW really doesn't care how you came to the light only that you did and you have now fallen in lock-step with the Truth.  Change you lightbulbs, buy a hybrid car, install solar panels and prepare for oblivion all the while blaming capitalism and accepting the only true resolution to the impending disaster: POPULATION CONTROL.

Yikes, Skeptic.

Your not just an annoying twit. Your a loon.

The only place you hear people screaming "Global warming is population control!!!" is fringe AM radio stations where nutcases rant about the Illuminati.

That tells me quite a bit about you.

Date: 2008/03/16 18:59:34, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 16 2008,15:44)
Also, to shed some light on my motivation for starting the thread, much to the contrary of proposed theories, I posted that story as sarcasm.  Personally, I find it pathetic that the SBC or any other organization feel so pressured that they must jump on a brain-dead bandwagon to curry favor.  Just a hint, the SBC doesn't really embrace GW, this is PR, nothing more.  If you follow SB theology, outside of the commandment to tend the Garden, baptists and most fundamentalists believe that God is directly in control and nothing mankind can do or say will change that.  The world will end at God's command and not a moment before and if God chooses to use GW or a rain of fire then incandescent light bulbs and hybrid cars aren't going to change that.  It's PR and that's why it's easier to embrace than evolution because they don't really believe it either.

And *that* is quite clearly and irrefutably wrong.

Psst. Skeptic. If you die, the world doesn't end. It'll be here no matter how badly we fuck it up. At least until we start playing with sufficiently large quantities of anti-matter.

Earth does not require humans.

Date: 2008/03/20 21:58:24, Link
Author: Nerull
Okay,  PZ probably already had the idea...

But since I did tell Skatje to crash Expelled at the MoA, I'm taking credit.  :p

Date: 2008/03/21 10:43:21, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 21 2008,11:24)
Quote (guthrie @ Mar. 21 2008,09:29)
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 20 2008,22:49)
The only reason that they didn't throw Dawkins out is that they were apparently too fucking stupid to recognize him! They didn't even recognize him when he sat through the film - not until he rose to speak, after being called on - by said producer, MARK MATHIS - at the Q&A. Holy shit, the blood drained from his face then! :angry:

Just for clarification purposes- Mathis didn't even seem to know Dawkins was there, so the blood drained from his face when Dawkins revealed himself?

Maybe someone needs to speak to the people checking the list of names, so as to clear up why "Richard Dawkins" was allowed in...

This has a fairly simple and rational explanation. Myers lives in the town and could be expected to show up. He signed up online under his own name, plus unnamed guests.

So they had his name and a reason to look for him before he showed up.

Well, actually he lives on the other side of the state, several hours away.

Date: 2008/03/22 10:26:54, Link
Author: Nerull
I saw him post on DKos recently, and linked to this, but its not a blog:

He did write a blog post there last year, but it was more or less "Atheists are stupid and will never have any political clout.", followed by him screaming at everyone who tried to discuss it.

Date: 2008/03/22 14:16:43, Link
Author: Nerull
According to Skatje, they never checked IDs anyway. Dawkins had his passport out but they didn't look at it. Neither did they check the rest of the group, so the answer is both 1 and 2.

PZ did register, but they also didn't check IDs against the list.

Date: 2008/03/23 09:35:53, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Annyday @ Mar. 23 2008,09:42)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 23 2008,08:35)
PZ Myers says they used the Harvard/XVIVO animation. Somebody else says, no, it's definitely the Illustra animation ("Unlocking the Mystery of Life"). And then there is the claim from, IIRC, Kevin Miller that they commissioned their own animation.

I think that it will require a careful side-by-side analysis of the actual animations to determine which of these is right. I haven't seen anybody do that yet.

I saw the film when it was shown in Albuquerque a couple of weeks ago, and got a copy of the "Leader's DVD." After carefully comparing the "Inner Life of a Cell" clip from the DVD (and from Expelled the Movie) to the Harvard/XVIVO footage, I also came to the conclusion that it is NOT the actual Harvard Video, but rather a COPY/ re-rendering of the video - a re-animated "Frankenstein" as it were.

Mathis introduced the film in 'Burque also, along with the local Calvary Chapel preacher. They made it quite clear that their goal was to get the 'leaders' to exhort the troops in their home pews to fill Expelled seats during opening weekend - one church per showing.

The "Leader's DVD" has three "Outreach Ideas" pages. #1 says to use the DVD at a church event or youth group. #2 says "For a small group - host a 'Dinner with Darwin' for your small group, using the Discussion Guide, DVD and the film as an opportunity to educate yourselves about the 'good science' in support of our faith. ..."

This gives away the whole farm, right there. I didn't add the quote marks around "good science," they (Expelled producers) did. But, most importantly, this isn't about "faith," it is about "OUR FAITH". They can whine all they want to that ID is "science," but they let us see their real cards here.


P.S. BTW, I signed up thru the web site, and received my e-mail confirmation. My name was on the sign-up sheet, and I was allowed to enter. I signed up under my real name, and as a member of the "DST" - that's "Darwinist Swat Team," a name the ID guys started using on us when we whupped 'em in Rio Rancho, NM.

Posted by: Dave Thomas | March 22, 2008 4:58 AM

Here, post 104.

ETA: Personally, I'd prefer seeing the animation in question myself. Having only contradictory second-hand reports about if it is or isn't the same animation is annoying, but you can't say nobody else has tried it.

So its a remake?

They remade music, they remade animations...

It seems they're really really asking for some lawyers to look very closely at the limits of "derivative works."

(The movie uses covers of both Pink Floyd and Depeche Mode, from what I've been told.)

Date: 2008/03/24 09:33:02, Link
Author: Nerull
Since it hasn't been posted yet:

Mark Mathis:

You should know that I invited Michael shermer to a screening at NRB in Nashville. He came and is writing a review for scientific American. I banned pz because I want him to pay to see it. Nothing more.

Date: 2008/03/24 16:29:33, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 24 2008,07:15)
Is it possible to be a concern troll on your own blog?

This doesn’t bode well for Myers’ upcoming tenure review. If enough of his peers start viewing him as a liability to science and the University of Minnesota then they’ll give him the bum’s rush just as quick as they did Guilliermo Gonzalez. And PZ Myers’, unlike Guilliermo Gonzalez, has no impeccable publication record to fall back on in protest so it won’t be difficult or unseeming for the tenure committee to give him a thumbs down.

This is very, very bad for us. If PZ Myers didn’t exist we’d have to invent him. Myers does more to give Darwinists a bad name than any man alive. If he’s denied tenure we might be forced to put together a “Save the Myers” foundation to solicit donations to keep his blog alive.

Like DS can even remember what the inside of a university looks like. And if we're going to talk about "liabilities to science" I suggest you start with Dembski and Behe. Do they also have an "impeccable publication record to fall back on" ?

Someone might want to inform DaveScot that it takes more than being outspoken to get tenure revoked.

And, of course, there is the slight diffrence that Gonzales never had tenure, and did not meet the requirements. PZ is already tenured. ;)

Date: 2008/03/27 10:45:11, Link
Author: Nerull
I'm curious, and since I can't think of any, has FTK ever gotten any scientific concept right?

I'm not even talking about biology, or cosmology. Any area of science at all.

It seems to me she is completely incapable of learning any science at all, not just what her holy book disagrees with.

I know she can't grasp basic physics, for example.

Date: 2008/03/28 15:41:09, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 28 2008,15:53)
And 98 % of New Age Crazies believe OUR New Age Crazie more than all other New Age Crazie Stuff.

BUT while we are on the subject, at least that Grinin' Fool Moron "Bob " and his annoying grin are a thing of the past... The Gov'mt finally did something right and tagged the company for the total scam that they were.  

Although it's hard to feel too sorry for the victims that actually expected a "penis enhancer sold on TV " to work!

Not that I  would actually care about this, since I am not  from TX, and not named named DaveScot.

When did this happen? I looked at Wiki and it says they simply had to change their ads to avoid actually claiming anything. And I'm sure I've seen Smilin' Bob recently.

Date: 2008/03/28 15:48:37, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 28 2008,16:10)
Does it annoy me?

Does the Pope shit in the woods? Are bears Catholic?

OF COURSE it annoys me!

The long suffering and eminently wonderful Dr Mrs Louis is treated to regular tirades at the television. The saintly lady bears these outbursts with great fortitude and tolerance, and even sympathises to a sufficient degree that she will occasionally let fly herself.

Bad science, pseudoscience and antiscience is a pain in the arse wherever it arises. I know that FTK/Skeptic etc will be shocked to read this, because our anti-pseudoscience is of course anti-religion obviously (sheah, right!), but I get more annoyed about homeopathy than creationism. You biologists think that people have no clue about bioogy? Your average personage on the Clapham omnibus is a Nobel Laureate equivalent in their biology knowledge compared to their chemistry knowledge. If I hear, see or read the spurious claims made about "natural" things once more I might just have to go on a killing spree. Well, maybe not a killing spree, perhaps just a harsh language spree.

L'Oreal adverts can render me quite spectacularly annoyed, and don't even get me started on the topic of nutribollocks and "organic" agriculture.*

Frankly, science literacy is a rare thing, and science friendliness only slightly more common.


* There is a lot of good to come out of the "organic" farming movement, unfortunately there is also a lot of utter shite. It's a case by case kind of thing based on something called the "evidence". Our creationist chums won't know what that word means, but they'll have to trust me when I say it applies to more things than their inane beliefs.

How about some all natural Hydrogen Cyanide? Or that lovely castor bean extract, Ricin. Very natural. ;)

Date: 2008/03/30 19:48:38, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 30 2008,04:59)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Mar. 30 2008,01:53)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 29 2008,10:31)
I see that FruiTcaKe over at Repugnant Kooks is continuing in her normal vein. I wonder when that curtain twitching bitch's beady little eyes will focus on her own "crimes"?

I'll take never at 1/2 Louis.

1 to 2? I'm not taking those odds!

Is it just me but I get a MASSIVE curtain twitching vibe from FTK, I always have. She strikes me as the sort of person who is hiding behind her (superbly clean btw) net curtains and watching her neighbours. "Ohhh Mrs Smith at number 27 is having an affair with Mr Jones at number 29, he's straight round there when the husband goes to work" and "Well I don't know WHERE the Bloggses at number 54 get their money from, him being only a junior manager and all, but they've just bought a new car. It isn't christian to have that sort of debt" and "Mrs Warburton's son is a H O M O S E X U A L. I've seen him bringing 'friends' home, I don't want him near the kids, you know what the faggots are like with kids".


I just get this horrendous vibe from FruiTcaKe. Meh, I hope I'm wrong. But I think that not only is she an unselfcritical, hypocrtical nutter, I think she's probably an unpleasantly nosy nutter.


I've noticed before that FTK seems to become obsessed with certain people who she tries to "guide" to wherever FTK thinks they need guiding. Which generally ends up with the recipient thinking she is rather wierd and creepy.

They seem to be young women, generally, but thats from a small sample size.

Date: 2008/03/30 19:53:18, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (blipey @ Mar. 30 2008,11:31)
That's because you treat people like shit, Ftk.

You behave just as a 5 year old does.  You moderate based not on any sort of evidence, argument, or other reasonable criteria.  You moderate based on whether or not you like someone.

Sure, that is your right, but when you claim to be interested in evidence, science, and freedom of speech, your true colors shine through.

Just be honest.  Say you moderate people you don't agree with--based completely on your gut feeling.  Stop claiming it is anything else.  That's all most people (myself included) want--a little honesty.

Ftk doesn't ban people

And, as always, she's the victim. She and Sal went on the attack, got burned, and expect people to care if people were mean to them.

She's seriously sick.

Date: 2008/03/31 16:13:38, Link
Author: Nerull
So, Jason....

He runs not one, but several, websites dedicated to PZ.

He's been emailing Skatje about how it feels to have a horrible father. (Since he, after all, would know.)

Now he writes his latest comment out of the blue.

Is it just me, or is someone just a little obsessed? ;)

(Also, who wants to place bets on a comment about, say, Ben Stein with the same tone as his latest post getting through on FTKs blog.)

Date: 2008/03/31 17:45:30, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 31 2008,18:08)
Quote (Nerull @ Mar. 31 2008,16:13)
So, Jason....

He runs not one, but several, websites dedicated to PZ.

He's been emailing Skatje about how it feels to have a horrible father. (Since he, after all, would know.)

Now he writes his latest comment out of the blue.

Is it just me, or is someone just a little obsessed? ;)

(Also, who wants to place bets on a comment about, say, Ben Stein with the same tone as his latest post getting through on FTKs blog.)

Ah yes, Jason McHue, AKA 'Jinx'. In addition to his PZ-stalking websites, he's another one of those young white male Christianist wingnuts who harasses Skatje because he's too ineffectual and frightened to take on PZ himself. I guess he figures that it's easier to harass an 18-YO female. How Skatje can stomach the creeps who post at her blog every day is beyond me.

I hadn't noticed he was a commenter on her blog, but then I rarely read the comments unless directed to one. She gets a lot of morons in general, and is very lax as far as banning goes. AFAIK only JAD has gotten to the point of really wanting to ban him, but not really having a reason to. AFAIK he still isn't.

Date: 2008/04/01 12:58:19, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Louis @ April 01 2008,13:03)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ April 01 2008,12:42)
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 28 2008,19:42)

Simply telling people to avoid the troll never ever works. As long as a small fraction of viewers want to aggressively argue with trolls it'll drown out everything else. To fix the problem you have to make it easy for the others to avoid the troll-related material. Say, have a selection like View Trolls / Hide Trolls, and have a few regulars empowered to mark subthreads with a Troll identifier.

I quite like this idea.

{gentle cough}

Ahem, Ian that links to a Rick Astley video. To say that the late great Bill Hicks and I agree in our estimation of the music of Mr Astley would be an understatement (trust me, good it isn't). I think you meant to link to something different.

Unless of course you are favouring an idea in which trolls are sent into some kind of nether hell where Rck Astley records are played at them non stop. In which case I like it.

A lot.


P.S. The problem with trolls and vociferous creationists that that both groups are comprised almost totally of asinine morons. This is a happily correctable condition, but to correct it engagement is necessary. Simply lumping them all together might make people miss those asinine morons who are curable. I like PZ's three strikes rule.

You probably don't visit the right forums to be familiar with it, but you were just rickrolled

Date: 2008/04/13 13:08:38, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Assassinator @ April 12 2008,14:55)
By the way, since when does ginseng grow in the US ^^

Erm, its native.

Date: 2008/04/13 14:27:33, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (skeptic @ April 13 2008,14:30)
If that's not the biggest load of "political" crap I've ever heard then I don't know what is.  There's one simple fact that is lost on almost everyone spewing this end-of-the-world rhetoric and is that sixty millions years ago the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 3 times what it is now and, surprisingly enough the world did not end.  Life was not exterminated and there was no "global warming tipping point."  The sooner we get past the finger-pointing and fear-mongering (oh yeah, I said it) then the sooner we can start applying real solutions to energy and environmental concerns jointly.

And the great plains were under a tropical ocean, your point?

Date: 2008/04/13 14:43:03, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Assassinator @ April 13 2008,15:30)
Quote (Nerull @ April 13 2008,13:08)
Quote (Assassinator @ April 12 2008,14:55)
By the way, since when does ginseng grow in the US ^^

Erm, its native.

That's not what I read on Wikipedia (it says Asia), but I kinda fail at reading.

There are several species, one of which is native to north america. This is also the species that is considered the most valuable in asia.

Date: 2008/04/19 00:00:52, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Reed @ April 19 2008,00:05)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 18 2008,20:53)
Watchtower is by Dylan, although Hendrix's version is the definitive one.

Anyone want to lay odds they legitimately acquired the rights to this and the "Another brick in the wall" ?

A bottle of single malt scotch perhaps ? Anyone ? B....

Gilmore is an atheist. I'm not sure about Waters, but he's certainly anti-religion. My money is on no, unless they mislead them like they did The Killers.

Date: 2008/04/23 18:55:58, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (skeptic @ April 23 2008,18:05)
and finally, opinions are opinions and none "count" more than others.

Which is, of course, why when you need to fix your car, you hold the opinion of the local loony in the same regard as trained mechanics.

This possibly explains why it breaks every 5 minutes. But thats just an opinion.

Date: 2008/04/27 08:53:41, Link
Author: Nerull
How FTK helps science:

She, and her commenters, are so obviously ignorant and crazy that no one wants to associate with them.

Seriously. Darwinism is false because people don't have as many children as they could? What the hell?

Larry F giving legal opinions?

Someone seriously citing Deepak Chopra to show "We're not all stupid!"?

Date: 2008/04/28 11:29:32, Link
Author: Nerull
Born Again ERV

Date: 2008/05/05 16:47:22, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 05 2008,17:36)
As for comparing GG and Avalos, Iowa State is not known for either physics or religious studies. If anything, GG was too good for Iowa State's physics department, the delusions of the chair notwithstanding.

Flunking grad students, no grant money, no research output: A standard of excellence.

Date: 2008/05/06 14:13:11, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Robert O'Brien @ May 06 2008,14:29)
Yes, which is why Iowa State, which is situated in the plains of BFE, is not an ideal location.

And the top of a mountain in a remote area is not a great place for a university. Neither is low earth orbit.

What, do you think astronomy research still consists of looking through a telescope and sketching what you see?

Universities rent telescope time from observatories, using the grants that GG failed to bring in. Its all done from far away, no physical access is required. The telescope itself would be monitored by a few techs, but it mostly runs automatically.

It doesn't matter where the university is located. You can request pictures from anywhere in the world.

Your ignorance is showing.

Date: 2008/05/11 16:41:51, Link
Author: Nerull
We've grown habaneros quite successfully here in southern Indiana. Each plant will produce massive numbers of peppers, and keep doing so until it starts to get too cold. You pick them, more grow, etc, etc.

Date: 2008/05/13 22:20:38, Link
Author: Nerull
Something amusing: I was doing some searches on gamma-ray astronomy, which is still a field pushing the limits of technology, and Iowa State was one of the first results. Apparently they are responsable for the camera system in a high-energy telescope array, and they've also got one of the researchers heavily involved in the GLAST program. This is hardly low-end astronomy.

So what exactly do they need to do before they're worthy of Gonzalez? ;)

Date: 2008/05/15 10:12:30, Link
Author: Nerull
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Lou FCD @ May 15 2008,10:45)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 15 2008,10:23)
Dippy Joe:




8:05 am

Metal rusts and silicon can crack.

Also, if science is correct, a silicon and metal “entity” requires a meat-based entity to create it.

If there are interstellar travelers, they clearly would not be made out of meat.-Allen

And you know this, how?

Joe has pointed out that the deadly 'space mist' might cause some rusting. It's not like vacuum is famous for preserving things or anything.. Does he think that Allen is talking about becoming a robot who drinks tea, has a bath, etc whilst waiting thousands of years for his interstellar voyage to finish?

Physics as we currently understand it would seem to indicate that the acceleration and deceleration necessary to make interstellar flight practical would render a meatsack little more than a messy stain on the bulkhead.

Of course, space-faring aliens would presumably have a better understanding of physics than we do, so there's possibly a loophole.  Either that or they took the multi-generational approach to space travel, though I'd hardly call that "practical".

ETA:  Dan Simmons dealt with the splatter issue by pulling an alien parasite out of his ass, which as outlandish as it sounds, worked OK for his story, Endymion.

Well, not really. 1G is sufficient, and that hardly would make us a splat on the bulkhead, and we'd get to Alpha Centauri in 2-3 years or so, ship time. I'm not sure how long it would take to Earth, but at least that system would probably be a reasonable time frame.

Actually, it wouldn't take that much longer to get anywhere else, either, though if you go too far there won't be an earth left to go back to.

Isn't relativity great?

Date: 2008/05/15 10:19:59, Link
Author: Nerull
I've noticed it before, but now its happened to one of my posts...

Are the admins aware that the board doesn't create a new page for the first post on that page? You can get to it by URL manipulation, but the link doesn't appear until the second post on that page. Which should be this one. ;)

Date: 2008/05/15 10:31:19, Link
Author: Nerull
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

A human could, in theory, travel to other galaxies if he had a constant acceleration 1g drive. Of course, the galaxy may not be where it was when he started by the time he gets there. At a constant 1g time dilation would become a major effect very quickly. No generation ships required, though since its a one way trip in most cases, bringing a breeding population for your new colony is not a bad idea.

Of course, if you go too far, everything will have changed. The planet you wanted to colonize and its star will have died long ago.

Date: 2008/05/15 10:34:02, Link
Author: Nerull
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (Richardthughes @ May 15 2008,11:27)
Where's Heddle? Working on his space telescope? I think it gets incrementally harder to accelerate as you approach C so in terms of energy storage and mass of the vehicle (which effects acceleration) you get into trouble quite quickly..

It does, but you can still get well into the range of serious time dilation in a reasonable time frame.

At least I'm pretty sure that's the case. I don't claim to be an expert on the matter.

Date: 2008/05/15 21:47:22, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Henry J @ May 15 2008,22:19)
I'm wondering how close can you get to C before wind drag becomes a problem. After all, if the ship is going .999999C, then any particles it hits are also going .999999C, and even if there aren't many of them per cubic meter that's going to add up. Another factor is that with number of particles hit per second ship time goes up proportionally with time dilation (although occupants of the ship would see that as length contraction).

(And that's ignoring the gamma rays and maybe other radiation generated each time one of those .999999C particles hits the ship.)


That is a definite problem. Go fast enough and you'll quickly be reduced to subatomic particles. Don't know how fast you need to go, though. I suppose it depends on what you hit.

Date: 2008/06/01 07:57:07, Link
Author: Nerull
It's funny - people like FTK and WW always seem to think they can convert Skatje - I wonder if they're aware she reads this forum, and sees posts like this.

Would you listen to a sad little scumbag?

Date: 2008/06/01 13:16:44, Link
Author: Nerull
FTK participated in much the same with Sal earlier. She's certainly no better than Wallace on the issue.

Date: 2008/06/01 13:58:36, Link
Author: Nerull

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Telepathy? Really?

UFOs, ghosts, psychic powers - what’s next, Miss Cleo as a UD contributor?

And you guys really, seriously, wonder why scientists ignore and laugh at you? You haven’t figured it out?

I’ll give you a hint - its posts like this.

Regardless of its (lack of) merits, ID will never be taken seriously so long as it is in bed with quacks.

My first UD post ever. Trying to post seriously, not trolling. I don't expect it'll get through.

I feel like I need a shower, though.

Date: 2008/06/01 14:04:08, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ June 01 2008,14:57)
But in the context of recent posts the above, directing the same to FTK doesn't seem at all warranted.

How so?

What exactly did I say or do that was so horrible?  Posting pictures of Lou?  Lou degrades me at every single turn.  Some of the stuff he's said about me is disgusting and completely unwarranted.  

I said we *all* act like jackasses at times....obviously including myself.  What does he add?  "Some of us more than others".  Well, that's pure bunk.  Some of the stuff that goes on over here could certainly be considered hitting below the belt...time and time again.  I'm no worse than the rest of you.  

The thing with Skatje?  I still have *no* clue what I said that was innacurate.  Everyone knows by now that she *came to me first* in regard to the initial discussion.  I stated everything completely accurately.  There is not a thing that anyone can call me on.  I never called her names. I never lied about anything.  

There would be no reason to go to her to get to her Father.  I have no fear of PZ, and I have posted over there many times.  

Dave was pissed off by one sentence of a post at my blog, and it was obviously written as humor.  I don't understand why everything you people write in a humorous tone is perfectly acceptable, yet if I look for the humor, I'm damned for it.  Go back and read some of the stuff you guys write about us and ask yourselves if what I write is really that much worse.

Am I to be held to a higher standard?  If so, why?  And, how is the standard to strive for determined?

Lets see, for a start - crowing everywhere you could post, for most of the day, how horrible and immoral Skatje was, for a position she held that you agreed with. Combined with your defense of Sal's pig fucking joke...

Hrm, nope. I can't see anything wrong there.

Date: 2008/06/01 14:40:02, Link
Author: Nerull
Right, FTK, because a discussion on what its okay to have sex with has *nothing* to do with Morals.

Also, Skatje is the daughter of one of the most ardent religion bashers.  It only makes sense to consider the morals of his followers and offspring when considering what our future might look like without religion


Date: 2008/06/01 16:41:58, Link
Author: Nerull
Post is gone from moderation.

Date: 2008/06/02 15:11:31, Link
Author: Nerull
They've posted an updated status message on the forum.

As to other sites being down lately - ThePlanet, a major web host and datacenter, had an explosion/fire in their power systems, taking the whole facility offline. No servers were damaged, but I can't imagine its a quick fix.

Date: 2008/06/03 15:12:16, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ June 03 2008,15:29)
I'm not particularly promoting antivaxers.  I just think it's something that shouldn't be entirely ruled out.  I know quite a few kids who have autism, and my son was good friends with one little guy from his previous school that struggled with it.  It's so common these days, and one just wonders why.  

I've never been comfortable ruling something out merely because the "scientific consensus" deems it the wrong avenue to explore.  

The article I posted provides some testing that is worth thinking about, but they were sure to relay that the results are not conclusive by any means.  

It just seems to me that running all those chemicals through an infant might possibly have repercussions.

What do you think of the fact that when the Horrible Nasty Chemical that was "causing" autism in vaccines was removed, autism rates didn't budge at all? And that no correlation has ever been found for autism rates for vaccinated and non-vaccinated children? (And not because we havn't looked).

Also note that children have in fact died because of the Thiomersal scare, which its never been found to have any effect at all. Every year 10000 autistic children receive chelation thearpy to remove mercury, and at least some of them have died from the treatment.

And that's not even taking the disease side of unvaccinated children into effect. Measles outbreaks are on the rise...

Date: 2008/06/04 10:31:12, Link
Author: Nerull
FTK, do you agree that eating shrimp and wearing mixed fabrics are immoral acts, and always will be?

Date: 2008/06/04 10:54:00, Link
Author: Nerull
So, the fixed christian morals have changed then...

While we're on a roll, do you agree that it is moral for an older man to marry a girl as young as 11 or 12? This isn't even OT.

Do you agree that it is moral to burn blasphemers, heathens, and witches?

Do you agree that it is moral to kill your children if they disobey you? (That one used to be biblical law!)

Or, perhaps, are your "fixed unchanging biblical morals" not as fixed as you think?

Date: 2008/06/09 13:30:26, Link
Author: Nerull
Can anyone point out a single intelligent thing Vox Day has ever said?

Date: 2008/06/11 07:30:39, Link
Author: Nerull
Still waiting for something intelligent from Vox.

His hilarious example of bad writing he calls a book certainly doesn't count.

Date: 2008/06/11 10:09:45, Link
Author: Nerull
Lets talk science, FTK.

How does an asteroid, ejected off the earth, arrive in a circular orbit beyond mars?

It's a simple physics question. I'm sure you have an answer.

Date: 2008/06/11 11:11:32, Link
Author: Nerull
Still waiting.

It's not a trick question. You don't have to worry about me jumping out with a silly "gotcha!". It's physics 101. Answer it.

Date: 2008/06/11 11:54:16, Link
Author: Nerull
Still no answer. Whining about talking science and then ignoring science posts doesn't earn you much credibility, FTK.

Since you are afraid to address it, I'll go ahead an answer.

Simplified, an orbit is an ellipse. It does not change without a force to change it. An orbit will always pass through the point where the last impulse was applied. (We're ignoring precession, which rotates the orbit around the object its orbiting).

What this means is, if you apply a force to an object from Earth, and the force is not enough to give the object solar escape velocity or sends it close enough to slingshot off a planet - it will always pass through Earth's orbit. You cannot put an object in a circular orbit in the asteroid belt using only impulse at Earth. It's impossible.

What this means for Walt Brown is that the asteroid belt was not created by rocks blasted off of Earth - it couldn't have happened.

Any rocks that are blasted from Earth will be in Earth crossing orbits. What this means for our recovering civilization after the Flood is a K/T size mass extinction level impact every few years. There wouldn't be much left on Earth aside from a few bacteria.

Walt Brown probably knows this, but hey - he sells books to people who believe him, like FTK.

Date: 2008/06/11 12:15:18, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (JohnW @ June 11 2008,13:00)
Quote (Nerull @ June 11 2008,09:54)
What this means for Walt Brown is that the asteroid belt was not created by rocks blasted off of Earth - it couldn't have happened.

Any rocks that are blasted from Earth will be in Earth crossing orbits. What this means for our recovering civilization after the Flood is a K/T size mass extinction level impact every few years. There wouldn't be much left on Earth aside from a few bacteria.

After all the energy required to accelerate the asteroids to escape velocity, I think we're already down to a few bacteria.

That too, but I was sticking with the orbital mechanics reasons, which is my area of interest.

Date: 2008/06/11 18:07:07, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ June 11 2008,18:47)
Well, welcome aboard Wolfhound!  

My goodness, you'll fit in well here.  Your very first post and you've mastered the first rule of calling.  Lots and lots of it.  

In fact, I think there's a rule book floating around here somewhere stating that you must slam creationists in a  derogatory manner at least 3 times a day or you'll be throw off the boards.

Oh, btw, the Infidels thread as been posted here several times in the past.

Still posting, FTK?

We're talking science. It's what you wanted. Now talk. Stop hiding.

Explain how an asteroid ejected from Earth ends up in the asteroid belt in violation of the laws of physics.

Date: 2008/06/11 20:30:40, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (JonF @ June 11 2008,20:37)
Quote (Nerull @ June 11 2008,12:54)
What this means is, if you apply a force to an object from Earth, and the force is not enough to give the object solar escape velocity or sends it close enough to slingshot off a planet - it will always pass through Earth's orbit. You cannot put an object in a circular orbit in the asteroid belt using only impulse at Earth. It's impossible.

What this means for Walt Brown is that the asteroid belt was not created by rocks blasted off of Earth - it couldn't have happened.

Any rocks that are blasted from Earth will be in Earth crossing orbits. What this means for our recovering civilization after the Flood is a K/T size mass extinction level impact every few years. There wouldn't be much left on Earth aside from a few bacteria.

Actually, Waltie-poo does address that particular problem. He invokes the radiometer effect, implemented by the molecules of the temporary inner solar system atmosphere created by the water blasted off of Earth. No, really, that's his "explanation". I wouldn't kid ya.

He doesn't address the even worse problem of getting the orbits into the plane of the ecliptic, which requires much larger impulses applied perpendicular to the plane of the current orbit.

And he regularly increases the amount of energy dissipated in this big rip; IIRC he's up into the trillions of hydrogen bombs now. Even without specifying the yields of the bombs that would wipe out life on Earth several times over.

He's a hoot and a half.




Please wait while my brain reboots....

Does he have any idea how much water vapor you would need to give a measurable atmosphere to the inner solar system? And that it would still be around now?

So THIS is fractical stupidity. It gets even stupider the deeper you dig.

Date: 2008/06/11 20:33:40, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (stevestory @ June 11 2008,20:55)
Quote (Marion Delgado @ June 11 2008,17:00)
resistance to antibiotics was a degradation as opposed to being an advance such as evolution would require.

Marion, are you being serious? I ask because this statement is wrong several different ways.

I don't know his history, but that post pegged my sarcasm detector...

Date: 2008/06/12 09:04:43, Link
Author: Nerull
Do you agree with Vox that date rape is moral?

Do you really want to cheerlead someone who, because you said that he was 'HAWT', would have no moral qualms raping you?

Date: 2008/06/12 09:57:42, Link
Author: Nerull
Vox is supposed to be a great moral christian. It doesn't bother you at all that he can be so immoral? It doesn't bother you at all that he wants you to shut up and go back to the kitchen? I'm sure he disapproves of you on here arguing with men. You aren't good enough, in his eyes.

Personally, I find it hilarious how you whine and cry and moan about people never talking about science, and when people do try to talk science, you pretend the posts don't exist. It's like you can't even see them.

Talk about Vox though, and you have plenty of time to post.

What is it? Are you afraid that if you actually read a science post, it might damage your ability to hold no opinion on anything?

Date: 2008/06/12 10:00:01, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ June 12 2008,10:54)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 12 2008,09:39)
Quote (dnmlthr @ June 12 2008,09:24)
Quote (Ftk @ June 12 2008,15:07)
Of course.  I've never argued that there are not any lateral mutations that benefit an organism.  I'm saying that they are very few and far between, they are ~relatively~ non-existent, and that they are the result of massively complex systems already fully functional.

Only a few pages back you said the following:


Common design.  Mutations that have a negative affect on mammals.  They break down the system, not build it up, btw.

LOL, classic - FTK which is it, one or the other?

Oh, for God's sake.  I've always concurred that there are occasional mutations that can produce slight lateral changes in an organism without causing damage.

Hello?  How long have I been in this debate?  How long have I been discussing these same issues over and over and over?  Mutations are brought up all the freaking time.

I didn't say mutations "only" have a negative affect, but essentially that is usually how they affect an organism.

Any evidence for that at all?

You've got a nasty habit of making grand pronouncements about scientific fields you know nothing about.

Date: 2008/06/12 18:38:09, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (skeptic @ June 12 2008,19:29)
What's the surface temperature issue?  I hadn't heard that one before.

The energy required for Walt's theory would turn the atmosphere to hot plasma, vaporize the oceans, and sterilize the earth. It's a rather major problem - but only one of many such problems.

Hydroplate has more holes than swiss cheese, and about the only people on the planet dumb enough to believe it are afdave and FTK.

Date: 2008/06/12 19:05:08, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ June 12 2008,19:51)

Quote (stevestory @ June 12 2008,18:14)
Glenn Morton tells her, "Walt's pre-flood arrangement is physically impossible. And if the flood had happened the surface temperature of the earth would get hotter than the sun by 10 or 100 times. Everything would have died and the oceans and atmosphere would be gone." Olegt is a physicist and he's told her that. I'm a mere bachelor's in physics and I've told her that. JonF is a scientist and he's told her. The people at KCFS told her.

FtK at some point it starts to look like you have a learning disability.


Walt and I discussed some of Glen Morton's issues with his theory as well as endless issues that came up at KCFS during those three months.  Believe me, I've heard it all over the years...over, and over, and over again.

I can't emphasize enough how many times I've heard the scalding water scenario.  


I've gone back and forth from creationist to evolutionist on so many of the issues in this debate, and each side always claims to be able to address and resolve the issues put forth by their opposition.

So, I give up...I have no way of knowing who's right, who's wrong, and whether the answers are assumptions, facts, or wishful thinking.  So, call me ignorant, and let's just leave it at that, huh?

Yes you do - all physics that we live by prevents Walt's theory from working, at almost every single point. This is not one "gotcha!" problem, every single event in the theory cannot work. The theory is so hilariously and obviously wrong and so full of problems that the only way you could possibly conclude otherwise is to be either insane or so self delusional that you wont' let yourself see any evidence you don't like.


Oh, and since you've brought up the scalding water thing so many times in the past, here's something to number 2.

Bullshitting - its not the water heating that is the problem. It's the energy released. The rocks being blasted out of the atmosphere on their own would have done it. And thats completely ignoring the whole moving continents bit, which would also produce enough heat.

The "geothermal heat comes from the flood!" bit is enough to make any geologist choke on his dinner. Yet another example of creationist handwaving about things they know nothing about.

Oh, and here's something kinda cool.  A tornado was just spotted by our neighbors a bit ago, and they saw it head toward our house.  It missed us, but from what we hear on tv, it touched down briefly at a nearby school.

Needless to say, we're hanging out in the storm shelter at the moment.

Date: 2008/06/12 21:51:42, Link
Author: Nerull
Don't talk about astronomy, Ftk. You pretty obviously know less about that than biology.

And no, Sal can't help you. He's no better on the subject.

Date: 2008/06/13 10:19:27, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ June 13 2008,10:52)
I don't know of a single creationist explanation (short of 'Goddidit') that clears up two issues at the same time.

Hmmm...that so?

Walt actually attempts to “clear up” several issues with his hydroplate theory.  Here’s a list of the issues he expands upon throughout his book.

And fails miserably. Walt's theory is about as coherent as the Time Cube guy. If that's the best example you can cite, you might as well concede the point.

Date: 2008/06/13 11:26:12, Link
Author: Nerull
FTK, do you dispute the basic physics that we verify every time we launch something into space?

Keep in mind that we depend on accurate physics simulation for every launch. If we were even slightly wrong, things wouldn't work.

We just lobbed a large object to Mars, based on our simulations, and it arrived needing only a minuscule course correction. Do you have any idea how hard that is? I've done it in simplified simulations which don't take into effect many of the things NASA has to, and even then getting an initial trajectory that close is very hard. It is like hitting a speck of sand with a bullet from 200 miles away.

It is only possible because we know the physics involved very, very, well.

Walt Brown's theories require this physics to be very, very, wrong. Are you really disputing something so fundamental? Are you going to claim that this level of physics is controversial and there are two sides? Because there are none. Even the craziest UD poster is saner than that.

Date: 2008/06/13 14:32:00, Link
Author: Nerull
An ape is an ape is an ape is an ape. There is certainly no reason to believe FTK is substantially different than a chimp.

Certainly not on brain power, anyway.

You wouldn't know science if it bit you in the ass.

Date: 2008/06/13 15:21:49, Link
Author: Nerull
The Cambrian doesn't exist, remember. How can there be an explosion there?

Date: 2008/06/27 10:21:34, Link
Author: Nerull
I've been working on a Hyroplate Orbital Mechanics simulator in my spare time lately. Written mostly in Python using Python-Ogre for graphics. I also wrote up a VSOP87E solver in C++ (the python version was too slow) for planet positions (Would FTK trust planet positions calculated by a theory with 'secular' in the name?  :D )

The app allows you to lob asteroids off of earth at various angles and velocities, and uses gravity integration to compute the trajectories. (Euler at the moment, but I plan to implement RK4)

Here's the latest screenshot so far:

Since some of the VSOP87 code is based on Celestia, I'll be GPLing it.

EDIT: Used a smaller image.

Date: 2008/06/28 08:19:24, Link
Author: Nerull
Hovind *and* Black Helicopters. I guess the delusions come in groups.

You are the people dragging america backwards. Keep lying for Jesus!

Date: 2008/07/01 09:31:15, Link
Author: Nerull
You are no better.

"Kinds" seems to be your only point. And that's pretty sad.

You don't even know how evolution is supposed to work, do you? The only thing you know are the lies you've been told.

It's not "Poof!". And its not quick morphs between stable states - its a constant state of change.

As for transitional fossils - we find them all the time. You've simply closed your eyes and refuse to see.

If you acknowledge that e. coli. changed, than you must acknowledge evolution. The micro .vs macro evolution thing is a strawman used only by the least intelligent, much like the thermodynamics thing. There is no difference. Small changes over time add up to very big changes.

Is your car a horse cart? No? Yet it was developed by a series of small changes. It is your belief that small changes can never amount to big changes, is it not?

Date: 2008/07/01 09:32:23, Link
Author: Nerull
And as for IDs predictive power - please give one single prediction ID makes.

Date: 2008/07/02 09:35:02, Link
Author: Nerull
Doesn't your bible tell you to pay taxes. In fact, doesn't it tell you to give away all your possessions? Do you stone disobedient children to death?

Or just maybe, you pick and choose which bits you want to follow, just like the people you whine about.

Date: 2008/07/02 09:36:49, Link
Author: Nerull
Whoops. This is what happens when you've got several threads open in tabs, and you hit reply on the wrong one.

Date: 2008/07/06 18:57:36, Link
Author: Nerull
Oh, wow. Busy programming all weekend and look what I miss.

It's like the kid who knows everything - just ask him. Except when you do he doesn't have an answer to anything. If you stump him, all he can do is spit and bluster and throw insults.

Really, I thought most people progressed from that form of argument by high school. Apparently not.

Date: 2008/07/06 18:57:36, Link
Author: Nerull
Oh, wow. Busy programming all weekend and look what I miss.

It's like the kid who knows everything - just ask him. Except when you do he doesn't have an answer to anything. If you stump him, all he can do is spit and bluster and throw insults.

Really, I thought most people progressed from that form of argument by high school. Apparently not.

Date: 2008/07/08 15:57:58, Link
Author: Nerull
And Joy shows up to boost the insanity level a little higher.

Date: 2008/07/08 16:32:06, Link
Author: Nerull
He's also talking about the mysterious "they" editing his posts to make him look bad.

He made himself look like a fool, and he knows it.

Date: 2008/07/09 13:29:46, Link
Author: Nerull
I presume you also think we should teach that, while the evidence says the earth goes around the sun, there are those who believe it is carried across the sky in a chariot, and since their claims are so vague they are hard to disprove, both claims have equal weight?

Date: 2008/07/09 13:35:53, Link
Author: Nerull
Tell your friends to stop lying.

Date: 2008/07/09 13:41:07, Link
Author: Nerull
I've got an exercise for FTK.

Let's start with my above posts. The heliocentric model of the solar system is a just-so story by the scientific establishment. The sun *clearly* goes around the earth. Some of us wonder how you can look outside every day and believe it doesn't! There is clearly something wrong with you.

The planets are moved across the sky to look like they are orbiting, but are really just moved around us by Gods. They get tired sometimes and have to turn around and find lunch, before going off in their normal direction again.

No one can present any *real* evidence that the earth goes around the sun. The scientific establishment can't be trusted not to lie to us. We aren't interested in just-so stories.

Geocentrism should be taught in schools along side heliocentrism.

Okay, now for the actual exercise.

Please explain how the above is any different than ID.

Date: 2008/07/09 15:01:09, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,15:36)
Quote (olegt @ July 09 2008,14:17)
Which god?

Who cares.  It's irrelevant to the scientific discussion about the matter.  We can't witness that primitive blob evolving any more than we can witness how the designer (what or whomever that may be) chose to create the universe.

All we can do is observe the empirical evidence around us and postulate from there.

Keep religion out of the discussion folks.

Okay, religion out of the equation, check.

Lets see:

Evolution: Mountains of evidence.

ID: ...

Well, nothing. Once you dump religion there really isn't anything else.

Date: 2008/07/09 16:30:57, Link
Author: Nerull
Biologists rely on evolution in the same way as astronomy and cosmology relies on the universe being old and logical. In order to understand what is, you have to understand how it got there.

If the universe is old, I can point to a nebula and tell you where it came from and how it relates to the rest of the universe. If the creationists are correct, this is impossible. Everything is there because god put it there, and for no other reason. We have no reason to assume a planetary nebula is produced when a star blows off its outer layers, because the universe hasn't been around long enough for a star to blow off its outer layers - it's just there for the cosmetic value, and no conclusions can ever be drawn from that.

Date: 2008/07/09 23:41:51, Link
Author: Nerull
So, there are 4 main people who run TT.

One is an ignorant asshole.

One is certifiably insane.

One is...well....Mike Gene.

So what's wrong with the next?

Date: 2008/07/10 21:57:57, Link
Author: Nerull
This is as good a place as any, I suppose.

I'm proud to announce - Hydroplate Sim Beta.

Simulate the orbital mechanics of Walt Brown's hydroplate theory.

The idea is you try to get an asteroid into an orbit fully within the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. Walt Brown claims this happened. Orbital mechanics says it can't. Now you can try it.

Since I forgot to have the installer display the readme, and I'm not spending another half hour to upload another one tonight (Damn dialup!), I'll just quote it here:


Hydroplate sim simulates the orbital mechanics of an asteroid being blasted off Earth. Creationist Walt Brown claims that the asteroid belt was created by rocks blasted off of earth when the "Fountains of the Deep" erupted during the biblical flood. The goal of this application is to demonstrate the way orbits behave in an easily accessable manner.


Left/Right or a/d - Rotate launch angle around the planet.
Up/Down or w/s    - Increase or decrease launch velocity.
Space             - Launch an asteroid.
t/r               - Increase or decrease timestep by 10x
Esc               - Exit the program.

Due to the high timesteps required to simulate interplanetary flight at more than a snails pace, the asteroid is created outside of Earth's Sphere of Influence. The gravity integration would break down if close to a gravity source at these timesteps.

What this means is the launch velocity does not take into account Earth's escape velocity - we will assume the asteroid has already escaped. The velocities required to actually launch a rock off earth would be far higher.

If your asteroid's trajectory takes it close enought to another planet, these integration errors will manifest themselves. The asteroid may go shooting out of the solar system, or other unrealistic effects. This cannot be avoided without slowing the simulation down. Pressing space will delete the current asteroid and spawn a new one with the current launch angle and velocity if this happens, or if you simply want to try again.

License is GPLv2. Source code available at

Errors about "incorrect configuration" mean you need the MSVC9 runtime, at

(I'll admit I was really bored to program this - but the astronomical bits are useful for another project I want to do)

EDIT: And here's a screenshot:

Date: 2008/07/10 22:55:16, Link
Author: Nerull
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

I must say that while I rarely agree with him and often find him irritating - Heddle was right. Kwok comes across as a pompous ass - and an idiot.

Date: 2008/07/11 07:45:56, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (lcd @ July 11 2008,07:34)
While I can see the real issue we would or actually do have with putting a large rock in such an orbit, as we say in Church, nothing is impossible for God.  If God willed it, then that's all that is needed.

Of course, as Setterfield has pointed out in his C Decay model, perhaps as an artifact of the constants still in flux.  We know from scientific studies in the past, light was much faster.  This could also have affected gravity at the time.

Uh, no. There is no indication the speed of light changed.

And maybe, just maybe, if it got exactly right, a change in gravity at the exactly precise moment in time of the exactly right amount could turn an elliptical asteroid orbit into a circular one.

And then it would throw all the planets out of the solar system, and everything on earth would die.

(Well, maybe not completely out, but it would certainly fuck things up.)

Date: 2008/07/11 08:01:47, Link
Author: Nerull
I just tried it in Universe Sandbox.

I put an asteroid in an elliptical orbit from the asteroid belt to somewhere around Earth's orbit.

Turned the suns gravity down to 50% at apogee. Still not enough - asteroid still has an elliptical orbit.

Earth, however, along with Mars, Venus, and the existing asteroid belt, were flung off into the outer solar system.

Date: 2008/07/11 08:09:21, Link
Author: Nerull
As for the 'goddidit' bit....

I don't really care if you just handwave and say 'god did it'. I'll think your wrong and laugh at your silly magical sky fairy.

But you won't be pretending its science, and trying to replace real science with it. You're just amusing and (mostly) harmless.

*That* is the purpose of "creation scientists" like Walt Brown. They want to replace real science with their own. The whole point of Walt Brown's theory is its supposed to explain all this without requring god to do anything. It cannot rely on god changing constants, etc. Walt pretends it works.

Simple physics says it doesn't. In fact, its hilariously wrong - not that Ftk will ever let herself understand enough physics to see it.

Also, a response to someone else: While complex slingshot trajectories are possible, since we are talking about thousands of asteroids blasted off in mostly random directions all ending up in roughly the same circular orbit in the asteroid belt - I don't really consider that in the scope of the simulation.

Another thing to keep in mind is my planets are most defiantly not rendered to scale. If they were they would be far smaller than a pixel. You think its hard to just lob a rock off and get near a planet in my sim - try it in reality. The asteroid is spawned 10,000,000km from Earth. About 25 times the distance to the Moon. And you can't even see it because its still inside the Earth sphere.

The physics side all uses accurate 1 unit = 1 meter scale, though.

Date: 2008/07/11 08:19:39, Link
Author: Nerull
I think its funny how even the other YECs think Barry is a loon. Answers in Genesis, for example. Institute for Creation Research also thinks C-decay is bullshit.

Certainly no scientist takes him seriously.

For a theory so groundbreaking, you would think it might get the author more than 2 lines at wikipedia. ;)

EDIT - adding more:

The entire basis of c-decay is based on old measurements of the speed of light, before we had equipment to measure it accurately. The theory has no other basis, so we'll just look at that.

It turns out Barry here just ignored any reading that didn't agree with his bias and only picked those that fit. That's not how a scientist plots a trend.

When you include the readings he ignored, the 'change' in the speed of light goes away. Who would have thought? ;)

But, I suppose, Christians rarely worry about honesty.

Date: 2008/07/11 08:37:14, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (lcd @ July 11 2008,09:35)
Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,08:19)
I think its funny how even the other YECs think Barry is a loon. Answers in Genesis, for example. Institute for Creation Research also thinks C-decay is bullshit.

Certainly no scientist takes him seriously.

For a theory so groundbreaking, you would think it might get the author more than 2 lines at wikipedia. ;)

EDIT - adding more:

The entire basis of c-decay is based on old measurements of the speed of light, before we had equipment to measure it accurately. The theory has no other basis, so we'll just look at that.

It turns out Barry here just ignored any reading that didn't agree with his bias and only picked those that fit. That's not how a scientist plots a trend.

When you include the readings he ignored, the 'change' in the speed of light goes away. Who would have thought? ;)

But, I suppose, Christians rarely worry about honesty.

I think you're trying to be funny or "save me" or something, but this Christian really does take honesty VERY seriously.

Thank you

So why do you lie? Why does Barry only select sources which fit what he wants his graph to look like? That's dishonesty.

Date: 2008/07/11 08:57:02, Link
Author: Nerull
From the master herself.

So, do you agree with AIG and ICR that Barry is dishonest, and this completely discredits his theory?

Date: 2008/07/11 09:15:33, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (lcd @ July 11 2008,10:11)
Quote (olegt @ July 11 2008,08:58)
I'm still waiting for lcd to provide some reference to data confirming Setterfield's hypothesis.

Setterfield has his own evidence in his paper.

To answer Nerull's question, no I don't think you're a liar.  It is perfectly reasonable for people to look at the same data, see what needs to be done and disagree totally on how it is supposed to be done.

I have that same issue whenever I get together with the other engineers and we're supposed to collaborate and do something.  The way it is solved and how we do it many times is not based on merit but who yells the loudest, who's in charge or who has the purse strings.

Now I hope you understand where I am coming from when I really wonder why some is accepted as science but other voices, Behe, Setterfield and others aren't.  As they don't control the purse strings nor are they in charge, their work is ignored or marginalized.

Okay, lets look at this from an engineer prospective.

You've done calculations on the stresses on a bridge. Some of them say its okay, and some of them say it's in danger of collapse.

It would be expensive to repair said bridge.

Is it honest to pick only the results which say the bridge is safe, and toss out the rest without consideration? Or does said engineer deserve jail time when the bridge collapses and kills people?

Is it okay for someone who claims to be a 'scientist' to ignore any data which doesn't fit what he wants the data to look like?

Even most YECs think Barry has no credibility because of this. The only people willing to overlook it are the fringe of the fringe. Ftk is one such - nothing is too silly or too obviously wrong if it confirms her bible. She would believe the sky was hot pink if one of her "Alpha male" (Her words) figures told her it was important to her beliefs.

Date: 2008/07/11 09:31:01, Link
Author: Nerull
See, lcd? These are the people you want to associate with. You already know whats wrong with Guts, here is Ftk.

Any evidence that might alter her worldview is greeted with "WAAAAH!!!! I'M NOT TALKING TO YOU!!!!"

That's why she's so gullible and eats this stuff up - she lacks any critical thinking ability.

Date: 2008/07/11 10:04:45, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,10:54)
I've learned over the years that it doesn't matter what evidence is put forth if you're conversing with a group of  people who have closed off their ability to remain open minded because of their philosophical beliefs.

You're right.

Some people are so thick headed that they'll believe the asteroid belt was created by rocks blasted off of earth - regardless of the fact that basic physics says its impossible.

Some people will believe the continents moved from Pangea to their current positions in 24 hours. With people on them who didn't find this an event worthy of note. Physics says they'd all be vaporized anyway. Can you believe that?

Some people are so attached to the young earth idea that they'll even decide the speed of light must have changed, regardless of the rather noticeable effect this would have had, and regardless of not having any evidence that it ever happened.

Isn't it amazing how closed minded people can be?

You owe me a new irony meter, by the way.

Date: 2008/07/11 11:00:29, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,11:57)
You're simply not equiped to evaluate.

Neither are you...that is extremely obvious.

The difference between you and I is that I am willing to read and consider the arguments from both sides and remain open minded.  You refuse to even purchase the books, and your knowledge about religious issues is non-existent.  Yet, you are content to huff about with your one liners and follow the "scientific consensus".  Though, in regard to the overwhelming "consensus", held by the majority of humans on earth, that there is an ultimate designer of the cosmos, you choose to stick with the "enlightened" few who denegrate that fact at every turn.

So, I'll throw your advise back in your own lap.  Start studying that of which you have no clue.

So, FTK, give us one single solitary piece of evidence that the universe is 6000 years old. Just one.

(Waaah waaah I don't want to talk about it Waaah).

You aren't open minded. If you were open minded you would follow the evidence. You just believe what your alpha males tell you to believe.

Date: 2008/07/11 15:21:09, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,15:31)

Hey, guys.  Here's the deal...once again:

I am more than willing to set up and participate in the phone debate that Brown has offered in his book.  That way, we would all have an opportunity at being "open minded".  The complete exchange could be recorded, transcribed, and available to all who are interested.  I listen to you folks all the time, and I agree you make good points about the age of the earth at times, and at others times I think you're off base.  But, you won't even agree to pick up the phone and engage in a conversation with the man you take issue with.  That makes it difficult to form solid opinions on the matter.  

Now, Nerull has this handy dandy little program he's all excited about so perhaps he or Dave (since he seems to be certain that his side is the final and only authority on the issue) might be willing to participate in the call.  

Nerull, have you read ever single bit of Walt's [url=]chapter and notes on Asteroids?  I'm not accusing you of being wrong, I'm just urging you to make sure you haven't missed *anything* before you consider talking to him.

You might consider that when you google on {origin asteroids} you will pull up a list of about 1,900,000 websites.  Look at which one is number one.  It looks like Brown's ideas are being considered by many.  It might behoove you to actually discuss the matter with the man himself if for no other reason than to point out where you think he's wrong.  He would be interesting in your findings.  

Now, please, please, please don't berate me as I'm trying to be good and not tease, taunt and flirt excessively.  Thank you very much.

Lets see....

The currently popular explanation for asteroids is that they are bodies that did not merge to become a planet. Never explained is how, in nearly empty space, matter merged to become these rocky bodies in the first place,4 why rocky bodies started to form a planet but stopped,5 or why it happened only between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.

Walt Brown, it seems, has never heard of gravity. This isn't going well for him so far...

The funny thing is, later on, he says the large asteroids were created when the rocks blown off earth came together under gravity - a claim he just said doesn't work.


Consequently, many rocks, assisted by their mutual gravity and surrounding clouds of water vapor, merged to become asteroids.

But, of course, that time was special. It couldn't have possibly happened in the early solar system


In general, orbiting rocks do not merge to become either planets or asteroids.

Or not! I guess the bit about the rocks from earth merging together is impossible too.

In fact, during the 4,600,000,000 years evolutionists say asteroids have existed, asteroids would have had so many collisions that they should be much more fragmented than they are today.

I got a kick out of this just because it shows real reason for Walt's ramblings. He makes a slip here.

What does evolution have to do with astrophysics and cosmology? I'd certainly like to know!

This slip shows he doesn't really care about any of that, its just ramblings because he doesn't like evolution

I also love how his explanation for asteroids ending up in their current orbits depends on drag from water.

Maybe I should add in some drag forces to my sim - that would demonstrate that drag will reduce the energy in the orbit, not increase it. You need to give a major boost in velocity at the right point to boost up to a circular orbit in the asteroid belt. Rocks blasted off earth and then effected by drag forces would have just been drug back down and hit earth even more often.

He also talks about thrust produced by ice on an asteroid. The thrust produced would be very, very small. It would take millions of years to have any significant effect at all. Since Walt's universe is only a few thousand - nope. Not gonna happen.


The materials in meteorites and meteoroids are remarkably similar to those in the Earth’s crust.32 Some meteorites contain very dense elements, such as nickel and iron. Those heavy elements seem compatible only with the denser rocky planets: Mercury, Venus, and Earth—Earth being the densest.

Rocks which formed from the dust that made up the planetary disk are kind similar to other rocks which formed from the planetary disk. Shock. Horror.

As for his stuff about how hard it is to capture a moon - funny, the planets seem to manage it fairly often. And they don't' require gas clouds.

I think Walt's problem here is he's looking at the two body problem. It is indeed impossible with 2 bodies.

Lucky for us, there are more than 2 objects in the solar system. When you throw in other objects with gravitational effects, like say...the sun. Mars and Jupiter, which exert gravitational effects in the asteroid belt, it becomes far easier.

For a recent example of moon capture, look at Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9. Jupiter captured it sometime in the 1970s, and it spent several years orbiting before colliding with jupiter. (Due to orbital perturbations, nothing to do with gasses)

This post is probably getting kinda long, so I'll cut it off and look at more later. So far the impression is that Walt is clueless. He just make stuff up to support his existing YEC ideas, and it shows. Badly.

Date: 2008/07/11 15:31:26, Link
Author: Nerull
You may not want to point out the google ranking of Browns website, Ftk.

Google calculates page rank based on how many people link to it. 99% of people linking to Browns stuff are doing it so they can laugh their asses off.

Date: 2008/07/11 15:39:20, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (JohnW @ July 11 2008,16:35)
Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,13:31)
You may not want to point out the google ranking of Browns website, Ftk.

Google calculates page rank based on how many people link to it. 99% of people linking to Browns stuff are doing it so they can laugh their asses off.

I have no idea whether that's true, but if it's not, it hardly helps FTK.  If the high ranking was entirely due to Brown admirers, all that would show is that there are a lot of clueless people on the Internet.  I know that already.

Well, I'm sure its not completely true. I exaggerated a bit.

Maybe even enough to overcome the people laughing are the fundies like FTK spamming the link everywhere.

That doesn't equal interest, and certainly not among the people who can actually evaluate the theory. FTK certainly isn't educated enough.

Hell, I know most of the stuff and it's still difficult. Walt's style is incoherent and rambling, with one paragraph contradicting what he said in the last paragraph. Its very tiring.

I'm starting to wonder if he's really all that sane, while trudging through this mess.

Date: 2008/07/11 15:52:12, Link
Author: Nerull
Another thing I noticed - he also says the Kuipter belt and oort clouds were created by this process.

The Oort cloud is almost a light year away. 1/4th of the way to the nearest star. It's also spherical, and not in the plane of Earth's orbit. That's going to be some major thrusting out where there isn't enough sunlight to create any thrust.

The Oort cloud is also estimated to have a mass several times that of Earth.

Date: 2008/07/11 16:01:20, Link
Author: Nerull
One other thing I thought of to ask Walt...

He says all comets come from Earth.

Does this include the occasional comets we get that fall in from the Oort cloud with periods of millions of years? Does he care to explain how they got there? How about hyperbolic comets, with enough energy to fling themselves completely out of the solar system. Where do those come from?

I ask because the time it would take for these objects to leave Earth, go out to the oort cloud, and fall back down is longer than Walt's universe has existed.

Date: 2008/07/11 16:15:32, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,17:03)
Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,15:52)
Another thing I noticed - he also says the Kuipter belt and oort clouds were created by this process.

The Oort cloud is almost a light year away. 1/4th of the way to the nearest star. It's also spherical, and not in the plane of Earth's orbit. That's going to be some major thrusting out where there isn't enough sunlight to create any thrust.

The Oort cloud is also estimated to have a mass several times that of Earth., that's not what he says.  Reread please.

Quoth Walt Brown

All the so-called “mavericks of the solar system” (asteroids, meteoroids, and comets) resulted from the explosive events at the beginning of the flood.

Sorry, maybe you should reread.

And I'd still like to know why we regularly see comets with periods several times the time Walt's universe has existed. If they were blasted off Earth and are returning, they must have been traveling for hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

Date: 2008/07/11 16:58:07, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 11 2008,17:53)
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 11 2008,13:11)
well, ...

I revised my earlier opinion, and I might do it again.

What are we to say?  That a tax supported school should not allow faculty to say things like that? Wrong. Should a tax supported school say the things PZ is saying vis the Eucharist? No. They should not say this about Vishnu. They should not say this about the rituals of Chak, or the Mayan Ikesh.

No, PZ can say what ever he likes on his own blog. If he said some of the things he says on his blog in his classroom, I would have a serious problem with it as it would be "creating a hostile workplace environment."

At some point, some student might take advantage of that vunerability PZ has created for himself. If the university wants no part of this fight, then they blank links from their official operation to PZ's "private" writing.

As an anthropologist, I have attended all these sorts of rituals and more, and I found them to all be sincere expressions of the partisipants' beliefs. PZ has crossed the line between promotion of his point of view, to that of bigotry.

PS: I hope that PZ doesn't learn the hard way that I was right about Paul Mirecki. There are a lot of Catholic cops, and Lutherens too.

Yeah. What kind of bigots say its silly to issue death threats over a cracker. I can't believe anyone would say that. There are clearly no more important issues in the world to worry about than weather or not some student ate his magic cracker.

Date: 2008/07/11 17:21:29, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 11 2008,18:10)
Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,14:58)
Yeah. What kind of bigots say its silly to issue death threats over a cracker. I can't believe anyone would say that. There are clearly no more important issues in the world to worry about than weather or not some student ate his magic cracker.

I think the classic lines are "But he started it!" followed by "Two wrongs don't make a right."

And then we got sent to our rooms.

Still waiting to hear what exactly is bigoted about it.

Date: 2008/07/11 17:25:17, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,18:10)
Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,16:15)
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,17:03)
Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,15:52)
Another thing I noticed - he also says the Kuipter belt and oort clouds were created by this process.

The Oort cloud is almost a light year away. 1/4th of the way to the nearest star. It's also spherical, and not in the plane of Earth's orbit. That's going to be some major thrusting out where there isn't enough sunlight to create any thrust.

The Oort cloud is also estimated to have a mass several times that of Earth., that's not what he says.  Reread please.

Quoth Walt Brown

All the so-called “mavericks of the solar system” (asteroids, meteoroids, and comets) resulted from the explosive events at the beginning of the flood.

Sorry, maybe you should reread.

And I'd still like to know why we regularly see comets with periods several times the time Walt's universe has existed. If they were blasted off Earth and are returning, they must have been traveling for hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

No, Nerull, you honestly need to keep reading.  Are you sure you read the *entire* chapter, notes and followed all the links to other parts of his book??

And I'd still like to know why we regularly see comets with periods several times the time Walt's universe has existed. If they were blasted off Earth and are returning, they must have been traveling for hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

I'm sure he'd be more than willing to answer that for you if you give him a ring-a-ling.

Why do I need to read the entire book to address the point that Walt claims EVERY SINGLE COMET ASTEROID AND METEOR was created from rocks blasted off from the flood?

This all adds up to several times the mass of Earth itself and even if you give him all his thrusting and dragging bullshit, it still doesn't work. No amount of endless footnotes will ever change that.

Date: 2008/07/11 17:37:07, Link
Author: Nerull
All the so-called “mavericks of the solar system” (asteroids, meteoroids, and comets) resulted from the explosive events at the beginning of the flood.

Speaking of selective reading, do you know what the word 'all' means, FTK?

Would you care to tell me how Walt is not saying that every asteroid, meteoroid, and comet in the solar system was created by the flood?

Date: 2008/07/11 18:01:19, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,18:44)
Quote (Nerull @ July 11 2008,17:37)
All the so-called “mavericks of the solar system” (asteroids, meteoroids, and comets) resulted from the explosive events at the beginning of the flood.

Speaking of selective reading, do you know what the word 'all' means, FTK?

Would you care to tell me how Walt is not saying that every asteroid, meteoroid, and comet in the solar system was created by the flood?, I'll give you a reading assignment instead, because as soon as one question is answered, they'll be another.  You need to read it very, very, very thoroughly.  He covers a LOT of stuff in the chapter, notes and links.  Now get to it!  

Miss Crabtree

That one single point is enough to destroy all of it. The rest is irrelevant.

Date: 2008/07/11 19:54:51, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Reed @ July 11 2008,19:44)
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,15:33)
That's pretty much what I figured.  Selective reading.


What you aren't getting, is that for anyone with any knowledge in the fields Walt Brown is commenting on can see that his theory makes about as much sense as the babbling of schizophrenic. Oh, the grammar and spelling is OK, and there's all kinds of big sciency sounding words and nice looking footnotes, but it's basically word salad. It's really that bad. You appear to have confused presentation with content.

The fact is the part Nerull quotes says all asteroids and comets originate from the earth. If Walt Brown says some originate some other way later on, he's contradicting himself, which doesn't help his case. If he doesn't, no amount of footnotes and verbiage will save him from the facts:
1) Long period comets have orbits longer than 5000 years
2) A long period comet approaching aphelion must, according to Walts crazy theory, have completed nearly a full orbit.
A quick search of shows more than 10 comets with a period > 1 million years.

Hydroplate theory, destroyed.

This is why people call you a lying creobot FTK. Because you never ever actually address any real arguments. I'll be happy to point out a few errors in detail if you promise to actually respond to them.

Assasinator: lucky for you, the book is online!. Warning: Do not expose irony or tard measuring devices to this link.

It's simple, but she won't let her self comprehend it. I've been here long enough to know that. It's like she's got a filter embedded in her brain that just keeps her from seeing evidence.

You really shouldn't have directed me to Walt's book, FTK. The asteroid belt was disprovable, but it was more complex. Now that I know the full scope of his claims, its even easier to disprove.

All I have to do is say - look at that comet. It's been falling longer than your universe has existed.

Date: 2008/07/11 20:14:58, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,20:59)
Quote (Doc Bill @ July 11 2008,19:05)
Hey, FtK!

Going back in time a few score pages, you owe me an explanation of 66 million cubic miles of water needed for The Flood.  Remember the geometry.

Did you run those equations, hon?  Simple geometry you would have learned in the 10th grade.  Pity you dropped out after the 5th grade.

Let me clue you in, oh, clueless hon.  I don't have to give Waltie a ring-a-ling because he published his "thesis" and not only can I read (gasp!) but I understand physics and math (double gasp!)  Therefore, and ergo, I read Walt's "thesis," the appendix, the footnotes and all that stuff.

Besides Walt's "geology" being totally non-descriptive of the earth we live on, his calculations are totally wrong, as has been pointed out many times before, and more to the point his most basic calculation involving how much water is needed to cover the earth to a depth of X feet yields the 66 million cubic miles of water for which you can't account.

Forget comets, FtK, you got a bad water problem.

Put up, FtK, or PLEASE STFU!

If you say you read all of it, then I'll just have to take your word for it I guess.  But, simple 10th grade geometry wouldn't be a problem for Walt...try reading his credentials again.

You made want to consider having a second go at it.   But, if it's just Walt's supposed difficulties with geometry you're worried about, you might drop him a line before the 8th edition of his book goes to print.

I'm not sure why I didn't see it earlier. Its staring me in the face...

The latest "Have you read *all* of it?" thing is just FTKs latest manifestation of the mental filter I mentioned.

If you haven't read every single page the barely coherent stream of consciousness he calls a book, you obviously can't critique any of his points, no matter how ludicrous.

It's what allows her to completely ignore evidence like comets.

She insists he has a point to counter everything, but has no idea what that point is. I get the district feeling FTK hasn't actually read it.

But there is nothing that can counter the comet evidence. It's a show stopper all on its own. If all comets came from the earth, we could not possibly see long period comets, because they will still be on the way out, and we wouldn't see them for a million years or so. Yet they're here. We see them. You can't ignore that.

Date: 2008/07/11 21:16:04, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Jasper @ July 11 2008,21:32)
Walt Brown asserts that the Oort cloud does not exist.

He used to say the same thing about the Kuiper belt, until it was directly observed.

In that case, I assume he has some other explanation for long period comets coming from every direction?

It doesn't matter if there is a huge cloud of them or a handful. The very fact that long period comets exist disproves it. A single long period comet would disprove it.

Also, we know the Oort cloud exists. We simply don't really know how large it is. All long period comets come from that region of space. We've even spotted a few objects in the inner Oort cloud from earth - Sedna looks like it might be part of the inner Oort cloud. Either that or a very extended Scattered Disk - something else that shouldn't exist. Sedna is another one of those objects with an orbital period longer than your universe as well.

Sedna will reach periapsis in 2075 or so. That means its on the way in. If it was blasted out there, it had to go out and come back. The Universe according to Walt Brown hasn't existed for long enough for that to happen either.

Date: 2008/07/12 13:30:22, Link
Author: Nerull
I am personally greatly offended by catching fish. According to my religion they are sacred. Based on your profile picture, you will be receiving your summons in the mail soon.

Date: 2008/07/13 19:23:45, Link
Author: Nerull
I don't PT much, but linking to LGF? A website where people wank off to fantasies about assassinating liberals? Yuck.

Date: 2008/07/14 09:26:25, Link
Author: Nerull
Not threaten to kill people?

Date: 2008/07/14 09:37:04, Link
Author: Nerull
In other crackergate news, anyone seen PZs stalker, Jason, spouting off anywhere? He apparently came to the pharyngula chatroom and got 'dirt'. What that would be I've no idea.

Our tongue-in-cheek topic? (Wacky cult wants magic biscuit back.) Some friends joking around? Those those not used to it, that can seem kind of odd to come in to. It can be kind of like the joking that goes on here.

I really can't think of anything that was discussed that counts as "dirt", unless they're just going to try and embarrass Skatje again over out of context jokes.

Date: 2008/07/14 10:10:03, Link
Author: Nerull
lcd, do you believe the Earth is flat, pi equals 3, and the sun goes around the earth? Those are all the "Word of God".

Do you believe children should be stoned to death if they don't obey their parents? Do you ever wear mixed fabrics? Those are the Word of God.

You seem to have no problem ignoring the bits of the word of god you don't like, or that are obviously wrong. It's only when something comes along that means you, personally, are not all that special, that you resist it.

Date: 2008/07/14 12:05:52, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,13:03)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 14 2008,10:30)
Quote (lcd @ July 14 2008,10:05)
As for scientific theories, are you sure you won't care if science is over turned?  Isn't what this is all about?  Fighting to keep one's belief in science over the Word of God?

Low, science is overturned all the time and the thought of being the one to do it give scientists serious wood (so to speak).

Your rather interesting way to describe how a scientist would feel overturning science.

Still Darwinism remains a core belief of many, even on this board.  I read what Louis posted but if that is so, then why is there such of fight over new ideas that threaten Darwinism and its stranglehold over science?

Because your aren't trying to replace it with evidence. Your trying to replace it with religious decree.

As you've found, there is no evidence. ID has lots of buzzwords, and none of which the proponents even know what they mean. There are no experiments. There are no test cases. There is nothing.

Date: 2008/07/14 22:08:23, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ July 14 2008,22:27)
Here’s what really cracks me up....the actual  bone fragments that you science dudes get so worked up about.  See Tikaaklik as well as the jawbone from the article Bill linked to in regard to the recovered fossils that “may” prove to be a bridge to establishing a relationship between Australopithecus anamensis Australopithecus .



It’s no wonder we unscientific folks think you’re all completely nuts.  We’re talking jaw and fish bone fragments, for Christ’s sake.  But, we’re supposed to believe they represent the proof that we evolved from fish and apes.

From what I understand, Shubin made several trips to a few places where he thought he should find these transitionals, but had no luck.  If I remember correctly from the book (I read it at Barnes & Nobles in two different visits), he said that they almost gave up hope and that they were afraid they wouldn’t get funding for further trips like this.  (If I’m wrong about this I’m sure someone will correct I said, I don’t have the book and I can’t quite remember how the story went.)  

But, just in the nick of time, they stumble along this Tikaaklik find, which looks like a freaking fish to me.  So, they find some little bone on this sucker that they think served as a intermediate wrist bone.  What the heck does that really mean?  There are other walking fish...I have no idea what makes this one bone fragment so unique that it just *has* to be an intermediate between fish and terapods.  I guess because this one was found in exactly the “right place”.

And, then there’s Bill’s jawbone.  Some science dude digs in the “right place” and finds some bone fragments that he deems transitionals.  


Makes you wonder what scientists would find if they went gung ho digging in the wrong places.  Honest to God, when I did a little research earlier this year and found out how few ape to human transitional bone fragments we actually have, I was stunned that scientists actually believe this crap.  

But, yes, I’m well aware that you have to be a genius mad scientist to understand how precious and meaningful these minute bone fragments really are.

I guess I do have to remind myself, though, that you are the same folks who seem to think everything we observe in nature arose from a lucky little blob.  Faith is a wonderful thing, eh?

Oh, and have fun with this oldie but goody as well [Fish-o-pod ‘Missing Link’ Discovered: Media Goes Nuts   04/06/2006 ].

Luvs, hugs and kisses, folks!

PS to blipey the troll:  Honey, it seems to me that for a guy who has such a long list of questions he’s waiting for me to answer, he would at least set a good example and answer the one question that I asked you months ago on the UD thread.  Heck it’s been so long I don’t even remember what it was or where it is.  I’m sure you recall that conversation though.


Crap, I screwed up! Quick, blather on and say the dumbest thing I can think up so everyone will be distracted and not point out how stupid Luskin is!

Date: 2008/07/15 15:53:33, Link
Author: Nerull
My favorite bit is the idea that a transitional fossil shouldn't look similar to the things it is a transition between. Because that makes loads of sense.

I suppose, to FTKs muddled brain, a transitional fossil between fish and tetrapods should look like a giant Alien Queen, not like something kinda in between fish and tetrapods.

Date: 2008/07/16 20:06:25, Link
Author: Nerull
You've managed a page, FTK. You can really stop trying to out stupid Luskin to make him look better. Really.

I mean, come on, you aren't really that dumb, are you? This has to be an act.

Date: 2008/07/17 18:26:15, Link
Author: Nerull
12 (Err...11!) posts to the end.

It's the end of the woooorld as we know it....

Date: 2008/07/17 20:34:21, Link
Author: Nerull
All this has happened before, and will happen again...

Date: 2008/07/17 20:45:16, Link
Author: Nerull
I'm sure FTK will be along shortly to tell us how Pivar really was one of the 16.

And he gave a presentation on evolution of balloon animals.

Date: 2008/07/18 12:52:42, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (lcd @ July 18 2008,07:45)
As for UD running out, on the contrary.  I think by the 1000th page we'll see more coming out of ID inspired research than ever before, that is if the Ivory Tower elite and government "yes men" to those people are really interested in science and not just perpetuating a new religious dogma from the Church of Darwin.

So, as many years as they've had - when do they ever plan to start doing ID inspired research?

As far as government yes-men - you realize the current government is notorious for trying to stifle science, yes?

You guys are great - I'd really never imagined people could be so clueless about the world around them until I ran into IDers. You know nothing about biology, you know nothing about physics, you know nothing about science in general.

But you are sure you know better than all the scientists!

Date: 2008/07/18 20:09:53, Link
Author: Nerull
I knew it.

I can predict FTKs every move! Time to call up JREF....

Date: 2008/07/20 18:18:42, Link
Author: Nerull
Remember, Quantum Woo. Quacks of a feather, etc.

Sure, she's clearly a loon. Batshit crazy, I'd say. But she likely listens to TPs woo, so all that is overlooked, much like the DI crowd who don't seem to mind how crazy or dishonest the people they march out are, so long as they support them.

Date: 2008/07/23 10:04:30, Link
Author: Nerull
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (lcd @ July 23 2008,09:47)
Quote (Assassinator @ July 23 2008,08:40)
It doesn't matter what you beleive, reality doesn't care about what you beleive, what I beleive or what anyone beleives. You knów about how our view on reality is developing, and that it's not in correlation with your interpretation of your holy texts. Yet, you keep clinging on your interpretation and reject anything that goes against it. I call that lying, dishonest would cut it as well. And Jesus doesn't fancy that, and I thought you were pretty fond of Jesus.

I have no reason to go against the Word of God.

What I find interesting is that I am supposed to not believe in God's own Words and what believe in the same stuff you do?  I'm supposed to change my belief in God into your belief in Darwin.

No thanks.

As for my believing in what the Bible says, not believing in God's Word is not an option for me.  Some may pick and choose what they believe from the Bible but as they say, the road to salvation is narrow while the road to damnation is well paved and easy to follow.

I choose the road that leads to salvation no matter how difficult it may seem.

lcd, do you believe it is moral and required to murder children who do not listen to their parents, under biblical law?

Date: 2008/07/23 10:32:50, Link
Author: Nerull
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (lcd @ July 23 2008,11:29)
Quote (Nerull @ July 23 2008,10:04)
lcd, do you believe it is moral and required to murder children who do not listen to their parents, under biblical law?

You mean those children who do not listen and then rob, kill, steal from and worse?  I do not have a problem with Capital Punishment.  Indeed, I think it is used too sparingly in the US.

You're speaking of this passage:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 KJV

18  If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19  Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20  And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21  And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

It is easily seen that this is not a run of the mill misbehaving kid.  This is one who has done much wrong.  So to kill a child is not really an issue.  The person is a drunkard, so they are not small, and they are breaking many laws.

So killing a child who sasses?  No.  Using Capitol Punishment on your offspring who is committing serious offenses such as murder, yes.

Obviously an adult, then.

Because minimum age drinking laws existed a few thousand years ago.

And, sorry, "strubborn and rebellious" describes 99% of teenagers. It doesn't say murderer.

Date: 2008/07/23 10:36:36, Link
Author: Nerull
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Further, my point is, while you are constantly going on about how you don't pick an choose what to believe, unlike all those other Christians out there...

And yet here you are doing exactly that. You are reading into it what you want to be there, not what it actually says.

Date: 2008/07/23 10:40:26, Link
Author: Nerull
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (lcd @ July 23 2008,11:35)
Quote (Nerull @ July 23 2008,10:32)
Obviously an adult, then.

Because minimum age drinking laws existed a few thousand years ago.

And, sorry, "strubborn and rebellious" describes 99% of teenagers. It doesn't say murderer.

Obviously as so many kids would have the money to buy booze and go out on their own.

Being an adult I'd suppose came a lot earlier than it does in today's world.

Okay, so its an adult....

Now why is he being dragged out for not listening to his parents again? I thought part of being an adult was going off to be independent.

If its an adult who is such a troublemaker, surely there are others to deal with that? The passage only makes sense with a child.

Date: 2008/07/23 15:23:05, Link
Author: Nerull
I've got one of my own.

Where did this come from and how did it get here, FTK?

Date: 2008/07/23 22:37:22, Link
Author: Nerull
I don't think anyone has any illusions about convincing FTK about evolution.

I try for more obvious realities, out of mostly an odd desire to study creationist behavior. FTK is a great case study.

She will accept anything, unquestioningly, told to her by her side. No matter how ridiculous, no matter how obviously wrong. Anything goes. If Dembski or someone like him told her the sky was florescent orange, FTK would be on here berating atheists for not seeing the obvious truth that the sky was florescent orange. Pictures of a blue sky - recommendations that she actually go outside and look at it, would be either completely ignored or met with cries of "I don't want to talk about that!", followed by more talking about it later on.

Hence why I like comets.

Walt's stuff is so obviously wrong even most YECs think he's a wackjob. Not FTK. But all it takes is that comet picture I posted. That comet has been falling towards the sun for millions of years, to give us the spectacular display it gave in 2007. Now it will leave. It may never return, and if it does we may not be around to see it.

According to Walt Brown, that comet can not exist. But it does. You can see it. It's quite beautiful, really. One of the most spectacular comet tails I've ever seen. It's there. It's reality. Brown has no answer, cannot have an answer. To acknowledge the existence of that comet is to acknowledge the existence of old solar system.

FTK soldiers blindly on, closing her eyes. She won't let herself see the comet, as beautiful as it is, because she's been told it doesn't exist.

Date: 2008/07/29 15:19:31, Link
Author: Nerull
Yes, those horrible college professors, out to make money.

That is quite possibly the funniest thing I've ever read.

Lcd, take my advice. Go outside. Open your eyes. Look around. Stop forcing yourself to be blind and stupid. Then you won't say things like how college professors are out to make money. You might have some idea of what they actually make.

Date: 2008/07/30 07:34:22, Link
Author: Nerull
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

When will you get some honest people on your side? Dembski, Gish, Hovind, all the people who are the "face" of creationism have a history of dishonesty and lies. We've tried to talk to them. We've tried to debate them. They don't listen - they just repeat the same things over and over again.

Creationists have been saying the same things for hundreds of years. Science has progressed immensely far in that time - creationists have done nothing. Except perhaps become more dishonest with time.

It's why they don't do science. Why bother? They just lie to people like you, who will believe them. It doesn't matter how many times each point has been debunked, how many times they get caught in lies. If they say the sky is pink, and only an evil cabal of scientists who hate your god say it is blue, the most religious of the religious will eat it up.

And there are scientists who go to churches and speak. Not all the religious are as radical.

IDers are a fringe group of liars, quacks, and the gullible. Dembski, et al, don't care about truth. They care that people keep buying their books, and paying their speaking fees. They will keep repeating the same stuff, for a few more hundred years, to keep that happening.

Date: 2008/07/30 08:05:42, Link
Author: Nerull
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (lcd @ July 30 2008,08:53)
Here's something my first boss told me.  I really didn't like the man but he had a few pearls of wisdom.  "When your reality clashes with another's perception, don't think your reality means squat to that person."

In your reality, Gish and others are the liars.

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

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

So lets do something simple.

Where did this "professors are rich and driving around lamborginis" thing come from? Let me guess - creationists.

They know better, lcd. They are intentionally lying to you.

Date: 2008/08/01 13:59:37, Link
Author: Nerull
That's how they all operate.

Why do you think their "majority" is only among laymen? They go into churches and lie, lie, lie, in the hopes that you will never try to find out anything else. And most people don't. So they sell books, and fleece more money from the flock.

If someone is willing to do real research with real evidence, then ID can claim to be a science. Probably not a correct one, but at least you tried. But you've gotta dump these "leaders". They don't care about science. They just care that you keep buying their books and paying their speaking fees. This will go on line this forever so long as people like that are in charge.

Date: 2008/08/11 12:46:34, Link
Author: Nerull
Lairs lie. They won't tell the truth about it because you asked nicely.

Dembski stole it. There is video proof that he did. There is proof in his books that he knew where the video came from. It doesn't matter what he or his congregation will admit to - almost everyone at UD will buy anything he says, hook line and sinker - it matters what the evidence says.

They are liars, and they are using you. And they don't feel at all guilty about it. How many do you need to catch them in to see it? We don't call them dishonest because we just like taunting them.

Date: 2008/08/12 13:24:36, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (cewagner @ Aug. 12 2008,14:18)
What part of selection is not direction?

None of it.

Selection is no different from ordering a truckload of stones and culling out all the stones that have masses greater than 500 grams. It will never build a house.

This reminds me of those netflix radio ads.


Q. If a rhombus has four sides, what is the inverse of blue?

A. Purple

Date: 2008/08/17 08:17:43, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (jeffox @ Aug. 17 2008,03:02)
TP, you wrote above:

As an engineer, I am disappointed (but not surprised) you aren't familiar with the significance of how the U.S. Nuclear Navy came to be.

TP, I was in "Rickover's Navy".  I was a qualified nuclear electrician on a 688 class submarine.


You see Rickover was one of those people who mixed "ignorance and arrogance" which you dislike.  

While I never met Admiral Rickover, I heard an awful lot about him from many people who did meet him.  Some from people who knew him well.  I never heard them speak that way about him.


He made the bold assumption that it was possible to build a nuclear powered naval vessels.  More than that, he decided whether or not it was possible, the US needed to do it.

Ummm, he wasn't exactly alone in doing that.  While I'll agree that he certainly was a key player, he didn't exactly act in a vacuum, either.  Most people were already aware of the tactical possibilities of submarines anyway - nuclear power only made them far more so.  Surface craft are nothing but targets anyway.  :)

Assumptions were made (read "arrogant guesses").  

A stretch, at best.  The stuff that I saw was pretty well-designed, science-wise.  Even the very early stuff was well within the scientific paradigm.

Models were built.  Testing was done.  Mistakes were corrected.  

Good engineering projects are like that.  Duh.

There was no room in "Rickover's Navy" for nay-sayers.  

I saw plenty of naysaying.  If anybody were to order me to put the plant into an unsafe condition, I could, and was literally supposed to, tell them NO, SIR!  As long as I was right I was OK.  It was a unique system, but it did work well.

This may not be quite what you mean by this, but then your point is rather moot.

Rickover wasted little effort worrying about brusing egos of those who thought their academic degrees or policial positions warranted respect.

Admirals can do that, believe it or not.  It's a tradition that goes waaaaaay back.

Because of her age, knowledge and attitude I strongly suspect Joy was a product of this effort.

I totally disagree.  Naval nuclear power and civilian nuclear power are two very different things.  Joy has also written about a "nuclear mafia" that I strongly think does not exist.  I've seen no evidence for it, anyway (and I should have, if it DID actually exist).

Are you familiar with the term "Skunk Works" as it applies to engineering projects?

I never heard that term the entire time I was involved with my submarine.  Or in my (somewhat extensive) nuclear training prior to my actual service.  To the best of my knowledge, this term was applied to some CIA-based secret aircraft somesuch.  Blackbird or something like that.  Real expensive stuff.  Good for what, I dunno.

There are times when the best course of action is act based on bold assumptions rather than wait on "PhD types" being scientifically modest out of fear of making mistakes.

Very, very rare times, I think.  Myself, I can't think of a single historical example that works, successfully, for the above statement.  I can think of many that make it untrue.  

Skunk works is about more than just bypassing red-tape.  It is about intentionally taking the risk of doing something wrong.

While I'm not a big fan of "red tape", I recognize that it's usually there for a reason.  Usually several good ones.  Intentionally taking the risk of doing something wrong is what I call TARD.  I think most adult humans would agree there.

A Skunk Works project might be wrong about getting promised funding.  It might even be wrong about the feasibility of completing the whole project.  Skunk Works projects attract a certain personality type.  Those who can be arrogant in the face of ignorance due to a knack for overcoming adversity.

So you're saying tard attracts tard to do tard to and/or for the tard.  How tard!   :)

Like all things, there are multiple sides to the issue.  Boldness also has its downside.  

Now, here we can agree.  I wouldn't call tard boldness, however.  No, I call tard tard; and I think that all tard is bad.  It's certainly not science or scientific.

I suggest the Yin/Yang conflict provides balance most of the time.  No one view is the Ultimate Truth.

Interesting philosophical opinions.  I don't think that they apply to your above assertions, however.

Joy's view has merit as does yours.

I disagree that Joy's view has merit.  Nuclear mafia, indeed!  I do keep my viewpoint open enough to allow a change, should Joy actually begin making scientific sense and tone down the rhetoric.  I also don't think that your point(s) above are meritless, I just disagree (based on pretty close personal experience) with your assessments of Rickover, the U.S. Navy, and Joy.

Skunkworks was a division of Lockheed Martin, developing aircraft. They built the U-2, F-117, SR-71, and F-22. They are currently working on the F-35. Not all of their projects are secret, since you know about the F-22 and F-35.

The name is trademarked by Lockheed, but has been adopted anyway to describe branches of companies that are secretive and given largely free reign to play with ideas.

They don't do what they do by ignoring science and pretending to be physicists, though. Someone like Joy wouldn't last a day. You have to know your stuff, not bullshit.

Date: 2008/08/19 12:58:33, Link
Author: Nerull
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 19 2008,11:05)
neither of those are even close comparisons, for example, is it possible to rape your wife willingly?  As to the executions, I was not aware of that but I'll give it a look.

Still that doesn't change the fact that these "war crimes" are committed on our own troops purposely, has anyone ever died as a result of that?  How can they be so horrible?

And Louis, someone else raised the topic, I'm just interested in their reasoning here.

Some troops experience waterboarding as part of training to resist torture.

It wouldn't be very useful training if we were not using torture techniques. In carefully controlled environments. And even then, the people who have gone through it describe it as the most horrifying experience they've ever gone through.

But its not torture, nope.

Date: 2008/08/19 20:28:53, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 19 2008,20:31)
Not that I really want to continue this but I am so often amazed at how incapable of rational thought many of you are.  Louis if you don't know the difference between rape and sex with your wife then I feel sorry for your wife.  The appropriate analogy that you're making is the same as equivicating a boxing match and beating someone senseless in the parking lot.  I would hope you can make the distinction.

Move this to something closer to home, is the use of a taser the same as torture or even something so simple as excessive force?

Since you are the one claiming that since people hit each other in boxing matches, beating someone to a pulp in a parking lot is just good fun, perhaps you shouldn't bring that up.

Date: 2008/08/20 21:45:14, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 20 2008,21:54)
UGH. So when I moved I was traveling light so I yanked my old 160 gig HD out and threw the computer away. I tried to install it in this new computer tonight. It shows up in device manager, says it's working fine, but i got no drive letter. Somebody online says it's because it's a FAT32 drive on an NTFS machine. Ugh. I go to Admin Services and it says foreign drive. Before I can do anything I have to make it a 'basic drive' but then I'll lose all my data. Ugh. So I download a couple data recovery programs. Nothing. They don't even see the drive without a letter. So reluctantly I let windows make it a basic drive. Now I get a drive letter. The recovery programs find nothing. Nothing. 25 Gigs of music gone. Just like that. I'm waiting on a third recovery program to download. If it finds nothing I give up.

If you find yourself anywhere in the vicinity of that retard Bill Gates, please kick him square in the face for me. The fact that in 2008 I can't move a hard drive from one goddam Windows computer to another goddam Windows computer without losing all the data deserves some kind of vengeance.

(Dear Dr. Dembski/Davetard: I kid. Please don't report me to DHS. You gay little fairies.)

That sounds like data corruption.

The FAT32/NTFS stuff someone told you is bullshit. There isn't an OS made that can read NTFS but not FAT32.

Date: 2008/08/21 10:49:36, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 21 2008,00:18)
A long, long time ago (four years) I was a power user and ran lots of premium software, and NAG libraries, and finite-element methods, and extensive Mathematica programs doing simulations and Cellular Automata runs and etc etc. And so at the time I knew all the deep deep computer junk, even as far as details about the IEEE 754 specs, etc, But now I just want a computer that fucking works. I want to hearz my musics without screwing around and I don't want to bother with tables and MBR backups blah blah blah. I swear to god if I have another event like this I'm just saying to hell with it and buying Mac. I guarantee if i took a hard drive out of a Mac and put it in another Mac it would just fucking work.

If the filesystem is corrupted, it doesn't matter what OS you use. Macs wouldn't have any better luck reading it than Windows. It's a problem with the data on the drive, not the software.

Date: 2008/08/21 13:39:02, Link
Author: Nerull
When used properly, NTFS will fail far less often than FAT32. FAT32 is about as simple as filesystems get. There is no state protection at all. If the PC goes down mid-write, the half-written data will be left on the drive and you just hope it didn't screw anything important up.

NTFS is a journaling filesystem. If the same situation happens, it can recover rather than leaving the filesystem in an inconsistent state.

NTFS should, and my personal experience, including accessing the file system from different OSes, backs this up, is far, far, more reliable than FAT.

Date: 2008/08/21 16:39:40, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 21 2008,14:51)
"More reliable than FAT" isn't much of a recommendation, you know. I haven't noticed MS filesystems really competing with various filesystems developed for Unix. For that matter, any filesystem has the difficulty of being implemented on hardware, so I don't get to feeling good about it until there's multiple redundant copies involved across media, whatever the filesystem employed turns out to be.

"Network it" doesn't do much in a dual-boot laptop situation, where the host OS is not the one currently running. If I cannot read and write a common filesystem from my multiple OSs without fear that simply doing so will lose me a bunch of data, that filesystem will not be my choice for a data partition, despite the file size and journaling issues.

ETA: Of course, maybe I've been missing an approach to reliable multi-OS access for NTFS, in which case I am all ears.

NTFS and the "various filesystems for UNIX" use the exact same method for keeping the filesystem consistent, so their reliability should be about the same.

And what you want is

Date: 2008/09/06 11:48:45, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 04 2008,19:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 03 2008,22:57)
I can't wait for the debates now. I wonder if they'll frame her as a dribbling fundie?

Just now getting a chance to check in here today, and I noticed Rich's snide comment.  I swear to God I burst out laughing.  After her outstanding speech last night, it may be Biden that is left dribbling and sputtering.  

That gal certainly doesn't come across as anything other than intelligent, extremely well spoken, and likeable.  She's fiesty as hell, and I'd bet money that neither Obama, Biden or even McCain himself could match wits with her.  

If her debate style is anything similiar to what we saw from her speech last night, it will probably end of being one of the most enjoyable debates I've even seen as far as political side shows go.

How about those speech writers, eh?

What, you didn't think she wrote any of that, did you?

According to McCain's campaign, Palin will not be allowed to speak outside of scripted speeches and campaign appearances.

Apparently they don't think she is very intelligent, well spoken, or likable without someone to tell her what to say.

Date: 2008/09/15 12:35:02, Link
Author: Nerull
Luskin is incompetent as a lawyer - every time he opens his mouth on law he makes a fool of himself. Even the Discovery Institute has to backtrack and say he was wrong. Which would be why they don't allow him to work as a lawyer in any official capacity. He's an idiot, and they know it.

Now why on earth would you trust anything he says about biology, a subject he knows even less about?

Date: 2008/09/15 12:43:22, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 15 2008,13:15)
Hmmm....I thought I already did.  A life is a life whether it's in the womb or outside of it.  I've seen many, many pictures of infants in the womb...including two of my own.  It's a human life we're talking about, plain and simple.  I have no idea how you can get around that fact.  We don't murder people....we instinctively know that is wrong.  You can call it a God given instinct or merely a Darwinian fluke that we have a conscience and a sense of what is right and wrong...but, we all have it, and we can choose to follow it or ignore it.  

Either way, our conscience knows there is something morally wrong with taking a life.

Which is why the anti-abortion crowd is almost always the same as the capital punishment crowd...

Date: 2008/09/15 13:07:07, Link
Author: Nerull
Of course not. Like all the innocent people killed in the wars they cheerlead for, they don't care about life. They care about controlling women.

Date: 2008/09/15 23:06:47, Link
Author: Nerull
According to your own Bible, that "child" is not innocent, and deserves to be tortured for eternity.

Date: 2008/09/16 00:46:03, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 16 2008,00:07)
Nerull, is that really true?  I would love to hear it from FtKs mouth herself.  

yet she avoids the question like it were an icefish.

FtK, do aborted babies go to heaven?

I'm well aware it is not explicitly spelled out in the bible.  In your opinion, do aborted babies go to heaven?

The concept of "original sin" seems to be accepted by many Christians. One must be "saved" before you can be forgiven for what someone else did and go to heaven. Babies are not.

Date: 2008/09/16 10:53:53, Link
Author: Nerull
I would have thought the last 8 years would have woken up the "Waaaaah! They're all the same! It doesn't matter who I vote for!" bunch. How bad does it need to get?

Date: 2008/09/16 16:05:59, Link
Author: Nerull
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - stevestory]

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 16 2008,12:02)
Nerull subtract your vote from the total to get a round idea of how worthless and irrelevant your input is.  That is true even assuming the manifestly false notion that there is a connection between the actions of a politician (especially at the presidential level, and I am open to the consideration that local politics could possibly operate under different dynamics).  The last 8 years have been replete with douchebaggery and fucktardation.  So were the previous 8.  The most concise summation of this phenomenon is "They are all a gang of shit-asses".

Louis says all have sinned and come short of the glory of god, whether you believe in sin or god or not.  Fundie logic false dichotomies.  Do folks less than 18 years old have the 'right' to complain?  Did blacks or women have the 'right' to complain before they were granted suffrage?  It's all bullshit.  

I tend to agree with Heddle here, I think, albeit, obliquely.  The best thing that could possibly come out of participating in the voting process is the social reinforcement of personal identity.  Perhaps that wasn't his point.  Anyway, it makes you feel good and warm and fuzzy like you are contributing and for some folks that is enough.  Clearly.  Don't worry about the rest of that stuff, just like "Love Jesus", "Cast Your Vote" is a matter of blind faith in a black box of secret machinations.  I remain bewildered at the level of blind child like faith that the social prometheans, such as Louis, put in political processes when so much hay is made of ridiculing that same apparatus in the minds of god-believers.

Louis, the word you are looking for starts with an "O", not an "H".  I think we would both agree that martyrdom is a rather stupid choice, don't you?  If, not, go crucify yourself for the Labour Party and see if anyone gives a flying rat's cunt.

If you can equate a blowjob on the job to wars, turning the economy to shit, and trying to see how many freedoms we can take away, then I'm sorry.

You are a fucking moron.

Date: 2008/10/05 14:05:08, Link
Author: Nerull
I can see why FTK likes Palin - they're just alike.

The debate was filled with instances where she got asked a question and said "Well, I'd like to talk about something else...." or didn't even bother with that and just said something completely unrelated.

If it wasn't on the script that she seemed to be spending the entire debate looking down reading, she wouldn't say it.

And, of course, she's got a nasty lying streak.

It's getting to the point where its hard to find something Palin says that is actually true. If she said the sky was blue, I'd go out and check.

Didn't support "Bridge to Nowhere" - Oops, she did.
Didn't accept bridge money - Oops. Did.
Had a policy discussion with British Ambassador - Oops - he wasn't there.
Pulled investments out of Sudan - Oops - she opposed that effort.

Yeah, she's got some "executive experience" - and her administration is full of friends from high school rather than qualified people and she's now under ethics investigation and she's barely done anything yet. Real great leadership there.

Date: 2008/10/05 14:59:04, Link
Author: Nerull
Of course, he's not nothing left.

McCain loses on the war, on the economy, and every other issue he can speak about. The polls for the last week or two are shaping up for a major victory for Obama. He's getting desperate and all he can do is dig up old smears that didn't work the first time around.

Date: 2008/10/05 15:13:40, Link
Author: Nerull
And, of course, if Palin wants to say that the fact that you were once on the same charity board, but were not close to, someone who went to far in anti-war protests when you were about 6 years old, perhaps she should remember her husband, former member of the AIP - from its founder:

The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government...and I won't be buried under their damn flag...

I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions.

Then he was killed in a "plastic explosives sale gone bad".

I'll leave the reasons why a secessionist party was buying plastic explosives up to you.

Date: 2008/10/05 19:05:27, Link
Author: Nerull
It must be nice to live in a simple, ignorant world, where "What newspapers do you read?" is not a softball question.

I'd imagine its filled with fuzzy bunnies and teletubbuies.

Meanwhile, in the world we call "reality"....

Date: 2008/10/06 12:59:27, Link
Author: Nerull
Which is why Hillary Clinton is the democratic nominee for POTUS.

Date: 2008/10/07 13:09:30, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 07 2008,12:31)

Yesterday, John McCain delivered an unhinged anti-Obama diatribe in New Mexico, and when he posed a rhetorical question -- "Who is the real Barack Obama?" -- someone shouted, "A terrorist!" McCain paused momentarily, but did not comment on the remark.

Also yesterday, Sarah Palin repeated one of her unusually stupid attacks, rehashing the nonsense that Obama "pals around" with terrorists. One man in the audience, responding to Palin's smear, shouted, "Kill him!" Palin also did not comment on the remark.

At the same Florida event, Republicans shouted abuse at journalists, hurling obscenities. The Washington Post reported, "One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, 'Sit down, boy.'"

And just to top things off, last night, the Republican Party of Pennsylvania announced its belief that Obama is "a terrorist's best friend."

Today's GOP--appealing to the better angels of our nature.

They're creating a monster. Their only remaining option is to bring out the white hoods and burning crosses. The question is, will it get out of control? The mob never tends to give much heed to its authorities once set off.

Date: 2008/10/08 08:56:01, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 08 2008,05:50)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 07 2008,21:45)
if I'd had to take a shot every time McCain said "my friends", my liver would be filing for divorce on the grounds of Depraved Indifference.

How long has McCain suffered from this verbal tic?  Any Arizonans out there who can tell us whether he was doing it during his early House and Senate campaigns?

Part of this insta-poll stuff all the networks are doing now shows live viewer reactions to things said in the debate. McCain's numbers take a noticeable dive every time he says "My friends".

Date: 2008/10/08 08:58:45, Link
Author: Nerull
McCain didn't go off the deep end during the debate. He managed to put in a pretty average performance.

The problem, though, is he needed a spectacular performance. Average won't rescue you from losing by double digits, and that's not even taking into consideration the electoral vote map, where McCain is in very dire circumstances indeed.

Date: 2008/10/08 11:20:27, Link
Author: Nerull
So, heddle, what do you think of McCain's stance that planetariums are a waste of money?

Date: 2008/10/08 11:42:41, Link
Author: Nerull
So when McCain said we shoudn't fund "silly things like planetariums", he wasn't referring to all of them, like he clearly said?

Date: 2008/10/08 12:22:40, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 08 2008,13:19)
Quote (Nerull @ Oct. 08 2008,11:20)
So, heddle, what do you think of McCain's stance that planetariums are a waste of money?

What a stupid statement to a time when the nation is drowning in debt, people are losing their homes, some are losing all of their retirement or savings, etc.  Lately, there have even been instances of suicide, murder, etc. due to an enormous financial crisis that the government has led us into.


Right. A tiny sum for education: Right out.

Spending trillions to kill more people: Excellent use of resources.

And its people like Bush and McCain that lead us into the financial crisis in the first place. And you want to let them try to fix it?

Date: 2008/10/08 12:30:57, Link
Author: Nerull
Since the planetarium cost several times less than Expelled, and is far more educational - I wonder if FTK will say "FUCK EXPELLED" as well?

And, of course, unlike Expelled, planetariums make money. It will pay itself back.

And how about that AIG museum? That makes the planetarium look like pocket change. I assume that should never have been built?

Date: 2008/10/08 15:10:37, Link
Author: Nerull
So, to recap, when Obama requests money for an educational tool that makes money, and hence helps the economy, this is bad.

When McCain requests $10 million for "William H. Rehnquist Center on Constitutional Structures and Judicial Independence", three times what the planetarium cost, during the same time period, this is important, wise spending.

Date: 2008/10/08 15:32:42, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 08 2008,16:24)
Quote (Nerull @ Oct. 08 2008,13:10)
So, to recap, when Obama requests money for an educational tool that makes money, and hence helps the economy, this is bad.

When McCain requests $10 million for "William H. Rehnquist Center on Constitutional Structures and Judicial Independence", three times what the planetarium cost, during the same time period, this is important, wise spending.

I'd still have disagreed with him on funding, but I wouldn't have minded the planetarium issue being brought up if McCain had used some of that "straight talk" he's supposed to be so good at.  Calling a planetarium projection system an "overhead projector" is blatantly dishonest.  It's like calling the Spirit and Opportunity rovers radio-controlled toys.

[edited teh speling...]

Straight Talk go thrown under the bus long ago. He's been outright lying for a while now - dishonesty is an improvement.

Date: 2008/10/08 15:41:56, Link
Author: Nerull
His theory about the grand canyon alone makes much more sense than a lot of secular theories out there.

You are completely and utterly insane, FTK.

Date: 2008/10/08 15:57:17, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 08 2008,16:51)
HUSSEIN.... Way back in February, Karl Rove heard a growing number of Republicans blasting "Barack Hussein Obama," and warned his fellow Republicans to drop the line. Rove argued it would only perpetuate the notion that Republicans were bigoted, which in turn would hurt the party.

That same week, at an event in Ohio, McCain was introduced by some conservative loud-mouth named Bill Cunningham, who blasted "Barack Hussein Obama." McCain, who was not on stage during Cunningham's harangue, later expressed said he wanted to "disassociate" himself from the remarks. McCain added that he would take responsibility to ensure that similar comments are not repeated at future campaign events.

That was February. This is October.  
For the second time in three days, the speaker at a McCain campaign rally used Barack Obama's middle name "Hussein" in a demeaning fashion to ignite the crowd.

Speaking in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Bill Platt, the GOP chair of Lehigh County, twice referred to "Barack Hussein Obama" minutes before John McCain and Sarah Palin were set to take the stage.

On Monday, a local Florida sheriff preceded Palin's speech by declaring: "On Nov. 4, let's leave Barack Hussein Obama wondering what happened."

To be fair, a campaign aide later conceded that this was "inappropriate rhetoric." But the trend nevertheless seems to point in one direction: whipping the angry, far-right Republican base into a frenzy. That includes the increasing frequency of "Hussein" references, but it also includes looking the other way while campaign supporters exclaim "treason!," "terrorist!," and "kill him!" during official rallies.

Josh Marshall, not exactly one for off-the-wall theories, argued the McCain campaign may very well be doing this deliberately: "It is obviously with tacit approval (to believe anything else is to be a dupe at this point); and quite probably on the campaign's specific instructions. Given the regularity of the cries of 'treason' and 'terrorist' and the like, and the frequency with which the screamers seem in oddly convenient proximity to the mics, we should probably be considering the possibly that these folks are campaign plants. It happens all the time. It's just that usually they don't scream out accusations of capital crimes."

Apparently the Secret Service are taking it seriously, so if it is a plant and they find out about it I suspect that's one gamble that defiantly won't pay off.

Date: 2008/10/08 18:35:53, Link
Author: Nerull

Where did it come from, FTK?

Date: 2008/10/13 09:44:31, Link
Author: Nerull
There has never been a single documented case of "extra registrations" actually leading to extra votes. On the other hand, the popular republican tactic of purging voter registrations does cause real people not to vote.

I especially like their latest attempt to purge a WWII war hero with 10 medals of honor. That certainly backfired.

And allowing groups that do voter registrations to pick and choose which ones they send in is defiantly a greater potential for fraud. What happens when you get a group who decides all minorities are obviously fake and doesn't turn them in? ACORN can and does flag suspect registrations for the state to investigate, but they cannot choose not to turn them in on their own.

Date: 2008/10/13 09:53:25, Link
Author: Nerull
We know that DaveScot can be incredibly stupid when he wants to be, but if I was one of the ID supporters at UD, I'd be starting to question weather DaveScot was a troll that was just trying to make them look bad.

Turning the leading ID website into Stormfront is certainly not going to help their chances of ever being accepted as "mainstream". Though I suppose it'll help them recruit KKK members and neo-nazis.

Date: 2008/10/13 16:02:47, Link
Author: Nerull
Calling radio stations! The nerve! They should just sit and listen to conservative hate radio tell them they should all be shot like good little sheep.

Date: 2008/10/14 11:13:05, Link
Author: Nerull
Is registering to vote with ACORN any diffrent than registering to vote anywhere else? When I registered, I did so at the county courthouse, no 3rd parties involved. No IDs were checked, there was nothing to stop me from submitting fake registrations, and the end result is the same. Probobly worse, since no one is flagging the suspect ones.

Date: 2008/10/15 17:19:36, Link
Author: Nerull
Err, "appalacia" being very racist isn't exactly news. This is the land where almost every house flies a rebel flag. The primary vote in the area was ludicrously lop-sided, far moreso than any other part of the country.

Date: 2008/10/15 20:15:33, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 15 2008,20:00)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 15 2008,17:44)
What on earth is your point here? You're angry that actual racists are being intimidated into voting for Obama for fear of being called racists?

No, I don't care if you take actual racists out and shoot them like vermin.

What I find unsavory, but I'm just an overly sensitive fellow, is that "racism" is more and more (or maybe I just didn't notice before since I didn't pay much attention pre-Palin) a catch-all explanation for everything that could possibly go wrong for Obama, including the unthinkable possibility of a Democrat voting for McCain.

And I'm sure you are also refusing to vote for Palin since everything bad said about her is clearly just because of sexism. Right?

Date: 2008/10/16 09:40:48, Link
Author: Nerull
Waiting for lolcat treatment.

Date: 2008/10/16 18:54:57, Link
Author: Nerull
"Joe the Plumber" has now had more press confrences than Sarah Palin.

Date: 2008/10/17 10:26:16, Link
Author: Nerull
Who replaced heddle with DaveScot, really?

Date: 2008/10/20 16:31:01, Link
Author: Nerull
Wow. Is there anything they don't lie about?

Date: 2008/10/20 20:52:50, Link
Author: Nerull
And who spent 6 years in jail for defending their country? I know wingnuts are bad at geography, but Vietnam is not in the US.

Further, what the hell does that have to do with being president?

Would you vote for Charles Manson because he's spent time in prison? Do you learn economics there? How about diplomacy?

Date: 2008/10/21 17:46:57, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 21 2008,18:21)
Some more Obama, the son of God Praise and Worship. It will bring you to enraptured tears. May Obama's countenance shine upon thee!

This from the guy who's favorite candidate thinks she's on a mission from god.

Date: 2008/10/23 19:37:12, Link
Author: Nerull
I'd have to agree. Watching Dave lead the charge into turning UD into the bastard child of Stormfront and Prison Planet, embracing theories that would make 9/11 truthers look sane, was about as entertaining as UD has ever been.

Date: 2008/10/28 14:44:29, Link
Author: Nerull
The Face on Mars?

I think that's a good example. Stupid people, much like IDers and Daniel here, leaped to the conclusion that it must be designed. When we look closely, of course, we can see its just or minds seeing patterns in shadows - it doesn't really look like a face when you see all of it, and looks quite natural, and exactly like what we would expect a wind worn mountain to look like. But UFO nuts, and IDers, don't operate at that 'pathetic level of detail.' Only the superficial matters - it looks kinda like a face if the lighting is right, therefore design.

Date: 2008/11/05 16:52:46, Link
Author: Nerull
Graph showing the shift in voting since 2004:

Date: 2008/11/05 17:49:05, Link
Author: Nerull
He looks so depressed.

Date: 2008/11/09 09:57:59, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 07 2008,22:28)
Don't worry, Palin haters.  She might try to appoint herself Freshman Senator from Alaska since those idiots elected a 7 time felon to represent them.

I believe the Alaskan Supreme Court as the power to block her appointment of herself, but I may be wrong.  Not sure if they would do so if they could, however.

If it's not illegal to appoint yourself to an elected office someone should look into that....

ETA: I don't want to single out Alaskan idiots, my home state of Missouri once elected a dead man to Congress, srsly.

Alaska has special elections, not appointments, after a previous governor appointed his daughter. I gather she was rather unqualified. Cronyism/Nepotism is quite common in Alaska, it seems.

Date: 2008/11/27 17:41:36, Link
Author: Nerull
Ah, good ol' wget. Essential tool in the belt of any half-assed unix guru. Always useful.

Date: 2008/11/28 22:17:38, Link
Author: Nerull
With Barry throwing around Big Words in spittle-laden rants, could the return of good ol' meltdowns be far away? Who wants to place bets on the time until the first notpology?

Date: 2008/12/02 11:09:58, Link
Author: Nerull
Darwin theorized that mankind (both male and female) evolved alongside each other over millions of years, both reproducing after their own kind before the ability to physically have sex evolved. They did this through "asexuality" ("without sexual desire or activity or lacking any apparent sex or sex organs"). Each of them split in half ("Asexual organisms reproduce by fission (splitting in half)."

-- Ray Comfort

Date: 2008/12/02 23:39:05, Link
Author: Nerull
Religion is not an enemy of science. It doesn't make an enemy of anything - it is just reality, and the study of it.

It is the religions, who hold to old tribal mysticism and refuse to let it go when proven wrong, who declare science their enemy.

The same story repeats itself over and over again throughout history. Someone discovers something new and profound, and people like Daniel spend all their time covering their eyes and trying to pretend it isn't true.

Date: 2008/12/03 11:48:19, Link
Author: Nerull
So what are those characteristics, and how do they measure them, and how do they they tell the diffrence between something designed and something that only appears superficially that way? (Like an arrowhead shaped rock)


Date: 2008/12/04 11:11:41, Link
Author: Nerull
So, Daniel, just how is that the most successful individuals don't manage to breed more often?

Does God get personally involved every time something has sex, to make sure no genes that might provide an advantage get passed on?

Date: 2008/12/04 14:02:54, Link
Author: Nerull
What I would do is:

1. Download only the html - images and such aren't required.

2. Track only the 'n' most recent threads, to save bandwidth and time.

3. Feed the html for each post and comment thread into a subversion repository, which will track changes. Possibly after being fed through a script to strip out everything except the post and comments (Ads, sidebar stuff, etc.), and detect 404s.

What you could also do is store posts and comments in a database by comment id, so that when a comment goes missing it can be pulled from the database with a simple query. This wouldn't track changes without some more work, but it would save deleted comments and posts.

Date: 2008/12/04 15:35:58, Link
Author: Nerull
Well, they aren't actually in a directory, that's just mod_rewrite at work.

The posts are actually stored in a database by Wordpress, normally accessable with the format<postid>

mod_rewrite rules can change things to make it more human friendly, which is what UD does. But the old style still works.

For example, is DaveScot asking how the bigfoot shaped rock on mars is explainable by evolution.

Date: 2008/12/04 15:43:13, Link
Author: Nerull
One problem I've found simply going by the numbers is that every post seems to have 50 different revisions, which of which has a different number. Unfortunately they are blank, so you can't use that to see how things have been edited.

Date: 2008/12/04 15:49:44, Link
Author: Nerull
I'd tend to agree that its a lot of work for not much purpose, which is why I haven't tried it.

Date: 2008/12/05 11:08:21, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 05 2008,11:27)
Maybe I can help you all understand my perspective better with a theoretical question.

If God really did create life, and science cannot consider any supernatural mechanisms, what would the state of biological science be?

I'd argue that it would be exactly in the state we find it in today - with no plausible explanations for the origins of any living system.

It's like you are charged with coming up with a theory that explains the manufacturing of automobiles - but you're not allowed to consider human intervention.

Your theory would offer inexplicable conclusions based on real observations:  "Here's a little red wagon - it has four wheels and a steering mechanism", "Here's a lawnmower - it also has four wheels but it has an engine", "These are obvious precursors to automobiles, therefore automobiles assemble themselves", etc.

Yes, and lightning is thrown by God when he gets angry.

How about this? Every time throughout history someone has tried to explains something not fully understood with "Goddidit", they've been wrong. What makes you special?

Date: 2008/12/05 23:12:07, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 05 2008,23:50)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 05 2008,08:49)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 05 2008,08:27)
Maybe I can help you all understand my perspective better with a theoretical question.

If God really did create life, and science cannot consider any supernatural mechanisms, what would the state of biological science be?

I'd argue that it would be exactly in the state we find it in today - with no plausible explanations for the origins of any living system.

It's like you are charged with coming up with a theory that explains the manufacturing of automobiles - but you're not allowed to consider human intervention.

Your theory would offer inexplicable conclusions based on real observations:  "Here's a little red wagon - it has four wheels and a steering mechanism", "Here's a lawnmower - it also has four wheels but it has an engine", "These are obvious precursors to automobiles, therefore automobiles assemble themselves", etc.

Instead of more babbling, can you tell us what it means for an enzyme to be 'rational'?

It means they make sense.  They function as if designed rationally.  They behave as if they were put there by someone who knew what they were doing.  Do you need more?

When an enzyme attaches itself to a substrate in six places, and five of the six are a perfect fit while the sixth is not, it may seem as if that sixth active site is a mistake.  But when that "imperfect" site just happens to twist the substrate in such a manner that it allows the molecules on the sides of the enzyme to perform the exact interactions required to weaken the substrate so that the "imperfect" twist now causes it to break at that precise point - with the resulting product being exactly what is needed for the next step in a biochemical pathway - that's no mistake.  The enzyme is acting as if it was designed by a rational being.  The design is rational.

How, pray tell, would natural selection build such a thing?  


Believing in accidental, arbitrary mechanisms is like working on a car but, instead of choosing the correct tools from your toolbox, you let a small child hand you the tools randomly until he just happens to hand you the right one.  You then use that tool and wait.  You continue the process until the job is done (if ever).  Such a process may seem feasible, but what happens when the tool you need is a 3/8" drive ratchet, with a 6" extension, and a 12mm socket?  How long will you be there waiting for him to hand you that combination?

Of course, you could just do what God did and choose the correct tool out of the toolbox yourself.  Of course that'd be too simple for you - wouldn't it?

So your argument, essentially, is that god is a really shitty mechanic who takes spends a few billion years working on a car, and even then it still breaks down regularly, with parts that barely work and are prone to breaking?

Date: 2008/12/05 23:26:08, Link
Author: Nerull
Which reminds me, these links are great:

Date: 2008/12/06 14:11:15, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 06 2008,14:19)
Noted Scholar notedscholar is sometimes on PT and UD.  he also has the blog 'science and math defeated' and the odds are is that he is a sock on a whole new level.  fractally Poe or something.

The Hardest to Kill is the First to Die: The Singularity of Paleontology
By notedscholar
Have any of you ever noticed how absolutely implausible it is that the Dinsosaurs actually became extinct? Now, please note this: I am not saying that they did not become extinct. I cannot after all prove a negative - it would require searching all four corners of the Earth and below the Earth (we’ve already got above the Earth covered!). But consider the following:

Go outside. Find a bug and step on it. If you succeed, then you can be fairly certain that, barring extraordinary numbers, that particular species of bug could plausibly become extinct. Now go into a forest and find a large adult bear. Try and step on it.

If you succeed, you will have demonstrated at least the logical possibility of the C-T Extinction Event. However, you will likely fail. By the transitive property, if you can’t extinctify bears, and dinosaurs are harder to extinctify than bears, then you likewise can’t extinctify dinosaurs. QUED, my friends. … Or is it?

Clearly that conclusion is also hopelessly implausible! What, then, are we to do? According to influential logician L. Gamut, two implausible propositions, call them p and q, cannot stand each other for very long. Some kind of reflective equilibrium must be reached, al carte both R. Dahl and G. Habermas. Now I have no idea what to do about this. It could be that the implausible simply happened. But we are compounding implausibilities! The extinction of dinosaurs requires the negation of the force of all kinds of apriori evidence to the contrary.

Discussion: Which theory of Dinosaur Extinction do you favor? Post in the comments! If you’re not familiar with the subject, you can quickly explore the going theories here.

Wow.  What?

I'm sure there are several bear species which would be quite relieved to learn they cannot go extinct. Especially the ones which already are.

Date: 2008/12/06 23:40:55, Link
Author: Nerull
404ed in 5...4...3...

Date: 2008/12/07 14:13:59, Link
Author: Nerull
There is also the bit that, as a whole, UD commenters are dumb as rocks.

They don't understand anything, they just parrot what they've been told. Just look at the EF.

UD: Darwinists cannot answer the EF! It proves design! It's the greatest scientific accomplishment of Dr. Dr. Dembski!

Everyone Else: Er, no, it's useless.

UD: Noooooo! It PROVES ID!!!!

Dembski: Well, it really is useless.

UD: We knew it all along! Really!

Date: 2008/12/07 20:59:38, Link
Author: Nerull
Have they come up with an actual definition of CSI yet?

Empty buzzwords do not a theory make.

Date: 2008/12/09 01:49:38, Link
Author: Nerull
Hey FTK.

What's this?

Date: 2008/12/15 21:50:01, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 15 2008,22:26)
René Descartes walked into a pub.The barman asked if he'd like a pint.Descartes said, "I think not".And promptly disappeared.

Ha! Everyone knows René Descartes was a drunken fart.

Date: 2008/12/16 16:05:08, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Marion Delgado @ Dec. 05 2008,23:19)
In my opinion, even junior high kids nowadays can figure this stuff out for themselves. If you don't believe me, ask one to program your VCR sometime!

What's a VCR? Is that like a DVD player?


Date: 2008/12/20 02:07:46, Link
Author: Nerull
To me, your argument sounds like the equivalent of pulling a card from a deck, revealing it to be a queen of spades, and declaring that the universe was obviously designed for the sole intent of you pulling that queen of spades from that deck.

We are the way we are because that's what happened. Yes, it could have happened many, many, many different ways. There is no 'reason' that it didn't, and also no reason to think that those ways are somehow worse than the way it happened. There are 52 different cards you could have pulled from that deck, but you pulled one in particular. That doesn't make the other cards 'wrong'. If you did it again, the outcome would almost certainly be different. If you ran evolution all over again, things would certainly be different. There is no reason we have to be the way we are. Evolution didn't have us at the top as a goal, it just happened. It didn't require a designer for you to pick the card you did from the deck - that's just the way it turned out. Likewise, it didn't take a designer to make us the way we are, verses any other way. That's just the way it turned out.

For a similar argument, see the recently discussed puddle example. If a puddle could marvel at anything, it might marvel that it fits so well into the hole it is in, and determine that the hole is early meant for it. Of course, in reality puddles adapt to whatever shape you put them in - but if the puddle doesn't understand that, it can easily conclude design. Similarly, life works pretty well here, in general. That's because its been evolving here for a few billion years.

Date: 2008/12/20 05:07:05, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Missing Shade of Blue @ Dec. 20 2008,05:34)
And it's not like we started out five million years ago with populations with all different kinds of color biases, and they went extinct one by one until we are the only ones who remain.

Except that there are.

Humans see green-blue because the apes tend to eat is green. Birds see color differently than we do, because they are adapted to different things. They have tetra-color vision, in fact. They can often see UV, something no mammal can do. Most mammals are dichromatic, many, but not all, primates are trichromatic. In some populations it is a genetic trait, but not a common one. Only some of them have it, because the selective pressure on that species isn't enough to spread it. Why would a designer give some primates a genetic trait for tricolor vision and only give it to a small portion of the population?

Date: 2008/12/20 07:45:12, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Missing Shade of Blue @ Dec. 20 2008,06:29)

I wasn't denying that there are species with different color perception than humans. What I was saying is that the continued success of specifically hominid trichromatic color vision millions of years after it emerged can't be explained away by an anthropic argument. We didn't start out with a vast number of different hominid species with different inductive biases which were gradually pruned away until we (and chimps, gorillas and orangutans) were the only ones left. What happened was that hominid color biases were fixed millions of years ago, and then they continued to be successful. What I am asking is how evolution knew which biases to pick (out of the infinite number of choices) all those years ago.

Also, the question about the designer. I want to assure you that I'm not coming into this with any intent to vindicate ID. While I probably have less of a distaste for ID-type hypotheses than a lot of the posters here, I still see it as a position of last resort. Even if it turns out that this particular case of apparent design cannot be explained evolutionarily, I would look for other non-teleological explanations before turning to some kind of design hypothesis.

And how did you know to draw the queen of spades from that deck?

And who says our color vision is fixed?

Date: 2008/12/20 23:00:31, Link
Author: Nerull
Given the way color vision works, blue-green would almost be required to evolve before grue-breen. The eye works by filtering light through different colored pigments, much in the same way digital cameras work - consumer grade cameras have built in filters, like our eyes, scientific grade cameras usually place filters in front of the entire sensor, but still work in a similar manner.

Too add in a timer that swaps around colors at a certain date requires adding on to the existing color vision mechanism. This means that, in order to spread through the population, there needs to be some reason why grue-breen is selected over blue-green. The more complicated something is, the easier it is to break, so this seems unlikely.

Date: 2008/12/22 22:51:10, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Missing Shade of Blue @ Dec. 22 2008,21:35)
Then you haven't reduced the complexity, you've simply shifted it from the software to the hardware.

But this just begs the question. In what sense is the second UTM more complex than the first one? Is this sense language-independent?

How do you think this helps you, particularly if you're trying to establish an analogy with natural selection?

I wasn't trying to argue from analogy here. I was trying to argue that in principle there is no description language-independent notion of simplicity. This was supposed to be an argument against those who were saying that green really is simpler than grue in some objective sense.

I moved the discussion up to the complexity of the computers themselves in the first post I made on this thread. This was in response to those who were suggesting that although green may not be simpler than grue in purely linguistic terms, green-computers would be simpler than grue-computers.

It seems to me you are falling subject to the "spherical cow" story - abstracting to the point there it becomes a hindrance and not a help.

You are using binary sequences to claim that a color filter and a photon detector is not simpler than a color filter, a photon detector, a biological timer that is set to go off at some distant point in the future, and an input inverter. Think about it.

Date: 2008/12/24 21:42:19, Link
Author: Nerull
Of course, since grues only appear when it is pitch black, do they really have a color? And why do they find adventurers so tasty?

Sorry, I haven't been able to get Zork out of my head since this discussion started.  :D

Date: 2009/01/01 13:50:56, Link
Author: Nerull
Presumably he has some grand new ideas about physics, but the magical keyboard fairies prevent from from typing them.

Date: 2009/01/26 12:05:59, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 26 2009,03:56)
Does the efficiency of a photovoltaic cell stay the same at higher intensities? Say I've got a 1m^2 PV cell at 20% efficiency. In direct sunlight we're talking 1.2 kW * 0.2==0.24kW. If I hook up an array of mirrors and increase the intensity on the cell by a factor of ten, does the 20% efficiency still hold? Will I get 2.4kW?

I'm not sure what the math is, but you will, up to the point where you fry the cells.

Most solar concentrator designs seem to be parabolic mirrors aimed at a solar cell. As you can imagine, it can get rather warm. As in the link above, IBM has been working on cooling technology with a reflector that produces enough heat to melt steel.

Date: 2009/01/26 14:22:42, Link
Author: Nerull
You would want an equatorial axis mount, and a clock drive to move it, I would think. If you are talking C-Band sized, a mount and drive meant for telescopes will be rather expensive at that weight capacity.  You don't really need that sort of precision, though.

Date: 2009/02/06 23:13:30, Link
Author: Nerull
Scenes like this, in Kansas of all places, must scare the crap out of the fundies.

They've lost the next generation.

Date: 2009/02/08 20:03:32, Link
Author: Nerull
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

You might start with reading those textbooks you speak so highly of. You seem to cite many things, but understand none of it. Your 'points' are so bad they aren't even wrong. You knowledge of chemistry, for example, is severely limited, and in no state to be making pronouncements.

And you challenged some barely-paid tour guide working his summer job who likely had no idea what he was talking about and may have just been bullshitting anyway. Good for you. Great job. That defiantly proves all scientists are wrong.

Date: 2009/02/08 20:11:38, Link
Author: Nerull
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 08 2009,21:00)
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 08 2009,19:41)
My question is why am I labeled as a propagandist when I consider evidence logically and come up with the conclusion that the mathematical improbability of life starting randomly by solely naturalistic means is astronomically high.

Solipsism is not logic.

Define "astronomically high."

Kristine, I'm not a  philosopher.  Doesn't solipsism say that there is no external world and that only what is in my own mind that is reality.  I guess your saying my question is an evaluation in my own mind that my thoughts were logical.

You can evaluate my statements and the conclusion that I make.  Evolution is claiming itself to be "fact." SO you all are putting the burden of proof on yourselves.  The champion is always challenged.

I gave chemistry facts that would hinder or prevent spontaneous generation--not theories.  I never get answers--just usually names, or diversions by one means or another.

I think she may have meant sophism, which is the rhetorical art of speaking out of ones posterior.

Date: 2009/02/08 21:58:49, Link
Author: Nerull
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 08 2009,22:44)
I am not a chemist, nor a philosopher, nor a scientist.
Can I be a "science student?"  Can I be a well read layman?  Is this a crime?

No, but that's not what you are doing.

You are declaring that all of it is wrong, when you do not understand any of it.

Date: 2009/02/10 21:28:06, Link
Author: Nerull
Another thing you've got to learn. Having a PhD doesn't make you intelligent or correct.

Look for any off the wall crazy idea you can think of, and you'll find a handful of PhDs pushing it. Aura feeling, alternative medicine of all sorts, psychic powers, moon landing conspiracies, 9/11 truthers, alien abductions, Illuminati, etc, etc, etc.

Hell, just turn on the TV during infomercials and watch all the PhD endorsements for bullshit products fly by.

What matters isn't what a handful of PhDs claim, what matters is reality and evidence.

Date: 2009/02/11 19:27:22, Link
Author: Nerull
My high school bio teacher swore he'd seen bigfoot.

Date: 2009/02/11 23:10:52, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 11 2009,21:18)
Have you ever seen a man who couldn't walk get up after African pastors prayed for him in the name of Jesus?  I have and I knew the man who received the miracle. This took no knowledge except of a promise and a principle.  Mark 16:17,18 (Jesus speaking) "And these signs shall follow them that believe:  In MY NAME they shall...lay hands upon the sick, and they shall recover."  John 14:14 If you shall ask anything in my name I will do it."

The family did not believe in Christ, they were steeped in the fetish, animism, and witchcraft.  But afterward the oldest son spoke before the extended family (maybe 20 people there in the yard).  We believe in spells and the fetish, we see spirits in the woods and we are afraid of them.  We see the spells destroy us, but your God is greater than all of that!"

My sister is a believer also.  She loved milk, but she was diagnosed with "an allergy to milk".  Couldn't even drink acidophilus. After 20 years of this condition she decided she wanted to drink milk, so she started praying and got prayer in church.  She can drink milk now without getting a stomach ache.

Have you ever been divinely protected?  Once about 23 years ago, I had not been a believer long.  I decided to walk to the store about 8 blocks away.  I had always driven it so I was unaware of the two dogs that resided in a certain yard.  On this particular evening, they were running free--big dogs, one a german shepherd.  Hair raised, they were prancing with that expression of the hunt in their eyes, coming right toward me.  You know how a dog cowers when you throw a rock at him.  Well I did nothing, I didn't have time, but they did.  They both looked up at something behind me, yelped, cowered and pranced away with tails down.  There was nothing there that I could see, but they obviously responded to something they saw.

If you think that there is no spiritual world, your spiritual are eyes are shut. If you think that the natural world is all you are all wrong.  I am more sure of that than you are in evolution--because I have seen it and experienced.

Now you can mock, attack my credibility, laugh, whatever.  I really couldn't care less.  I'd rather please God than you people that spread your pernicious beliefs throughout our schools and the media.  

The true church invisible is not a building, nor does it have the name of a denomination on it.  It will survive all onslaughts of opposition.  Jesus said, My word will never pass away.

Can any of you explain the nation of Israel to me?  How could a people who didn't have a nation since 70 AD, when Titus ransacked Jerusalem, return to their land 1900 years later?  Britain and the Balfour Act of 1917?  It is stated in several passage of the OLD TESTAMENT, before this happened, that God would gather his people back to their land--this is speaking in a double prophecy (which is common in scripture) of the first return from exile in Babylon (Read Jeremiah, Daniel) in the last days.  

Daniel, Revelation, the antichrist--a world leader with a messianic like following, who will oppose Israel and also Christians to the point of execution--are all  getting closer to us and the return of Israel is a sign of the last days.

Time is short.  I could tell you more if anyone is interested.  But I will not give what is holy to dogs.

You love you some Jebus, we get it.

Now, how about that commandment you all seem to ignore - the one about bearing false witness?

Date: 2009/02/12 09:54:14, Link
Author: Nerull
Never seen a preacher heal someone who couldn't walk.

I *have* seem them put people in wheelchairs and pretend to heal them. For the more honest ones, the person may actually have a disability, they just use a wheelchair for convenience, but they are capable of walking. I know people like this.

The more dishonest ones use actors or have people sit in them who never use wheelchairs.

People who can't really stand are ignored and not allowed into the 'healing' area.

Go talk to these people sometime, instead of just relying on what the preacher tells you. They generally are not so enthusiastic about it afterward, since they know they've been played.

Date: 2009/02/12 11:25:06, Link
Author: Nerull
Oh, but he's lot lots of proverbs about humility! That counts, doesn't it? Even if he uses them to puff himself up and lord it over everyone?

Date: 2009/02/13 10:57:05, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 12 2009,23:03)
Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 12 2009,10:07)
RFJE, in all seriousness, I think it's extremely dangerous for your sister to defy medical advice simply to test her own faith this way. Doesn't your Bible teach you not to put your God to the test? You believe in Jesus; even he would not leap from the mountain with the faith that angels would rescue him.

Anyway, it's my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong, people) that lactose intolerance is due to a dominant gene, so there is no "illness" about not being able to drink milk any more than having brown eyes is an "illness."

Hi Kristine,
First of all I wanted to apologize to you for my initial approach.  I was new and could have been more gentle.

Second, I agree that it would be dangerous if she was  ordered not to.  I don't think she had lactose intolerance, the MD told her she was allergic to milk.  She couldn't drink  acidophilous milk either.  I did not go with her to to the doctor (it was when she was 12 and she is now 46) and this is what she always told us the doctor said.

In any case, I don't think she saw it as putting God to the test.  She had a relationship with God and that was between her God.  In any case, she has been drinking milk for years with never a problem.

I have never known any Christians who would advocate such foolishness as to not seek medical help, or to follow a doctor's orders.  Anyone who would not bring their sick child to a doctor in the name of their faith, and then that child is hurt or dies, should be prosecuted.  There are extremists in every branch of life.

As for the case in Africa, you have to understand that they are a more spiritually based culture.  The idea that there is no spirit world to them to mock, just like atheists here mock Christians.  And I am talking about predominantly the village culture, (which is where I worked mainly) not urban upper class.

Some good missionary friends of ours were Presbyterian--great folks!  Presbyterians are not closed to miracles, but are very conservative in their views towards that subject.  They believe that was mainly confined to the apostles. But they had been in Africa for 10 years when we came.  They told us  they were praying with a man to receive Christ one time and the fetish rings(worn for spiritual protection) on his hands suddenly flew off his hands.  

If you read about the evangelistic crusades in Africa there are many miracles reported by people who are listening to the preaching--Africans in the bush--not a TV evangelist telecast.  

Finally, one last thought, this is getting long.  Jesus couldn't do any miracles in Nazareth, his childhood home because of their unbelief. (Matt. 14:53-58)  I think America is like Nazareth.  Many people are offended at anything that has anything to do with God (v.57) just like they were at Him.


Spiritual isn't the right word. Superstitious might fit better. And missionaries have been taking advantage of them for ages. Do you think it an accomplishment to convert these people, when they also believe the catholic church when they tell them condoms are evil and cause aids, and that the little girl down the street is a witch? Do you feel proud, every time they kill one?

They don't need preaching, they need education. They need proper schools, and teachers. But you aren't interested in helping people - you just want more souls.

Date: 2009/02/21 16:01:51, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,16:37)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 21 2009,14:08)
Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 21 2009,19:56)
This is my last post.  I am going to study.  This has been a good experience for me.  The next time I will be much more informed from both sides--don't worry.  

As you have charged me with stupidity, hypocrisy, pride,  perversity, and ignorance, I will charge you with spiritual blindness, and people who are making their contribution for the spiritual ignorance and moral decay of our society.  

You can't even see the signs of the times.  Spiritually speaking, elementary.  You need to wake up.

Spiritually blind? Fuck off you patronising twat.

There are no "sides" in this. It's about the evidence. Scientists follow the evidence, creationists and other clowns try to shoe horn it into their preconceived notions of what they want to be the case. It ain't science no matter how pretty their degree certificates look.

Good riddance.


I'm trying to understand why you would get so flustered Louis.  Are you a believer?  If so, why would you curse me?    It's called the Adamic nature, or the flesh.  I have it too.

And if I were not being dissected like a lab rat I could for a minute give into that nature and do the same, but I choose not too.  

You insulted me in one of your posts by inferring that I "play" with myself.  I have a wife Louis.  And I did ignore that as I have many insults.  Y'all have a great life.

That God person you keep ranting about - he did tell you not to lie, didn't he?

Why do you always ignore him?

You think he gave you one of the most powerful tools in existence - a learning mind - and you choose to waste it. You don't want to learn. You spit in God's face, and then you break his commandments.

You spend so much time trying to "save" other people - have you ever thought about yourself?

Date: 2009/04/06 12:35:29, Link
Author: Nerull
Since most dictionaries use 'usually' along with 4 wheels, that does not preclude vehicles with other numbers.

Date: 2009/04/12 15:37:22, Link
Author: Nerull
Arps observations of quasars being related to other nearby galaxies has essentially been refuted by more detailed redshift surveys and deeper observations, though he continues to stick to his theory, his defenses essentially amount to hand waving. He is not taken seriously in cosmology.

Its not an academic source, but the wikipedia summary isn't too bad, and at least gives a starting point:

Arp's hypothesis that quasars are local and contain large intrinsic redshifts has never gained any significant support in the astronomy research community. Arp's work is based on a limited number of specific quasar-galaxy associations. Most astronomers believe these associations are simply the result of chance and point to the hundreds of thousands of quasars documented in more recent redshift surveys. These surveys show quasars to be distributed randomly over the sky, rather than associated with radio galaxies[citation needed]. Furthermore, there is now a detailed model of quasars as the ultraluminous cores of active galactic nuclei, effectively the centers of Seyfert galaxies. This model is consistent with the results of more sensitive observations which have been able to resolve host galaxies around quasars with the same redshift as the quasar. The consistency of the standard quasar model with the assumption that all quasars are at cosmological distances leads most astronomers to apply an Ockham's razor conclusion that intrinsic redshifts do not exist.

Arp still believes that quasars nevertheless have a high intrinsic redshift[1]. To explain the fact that essentially all quasars are associated with host galaxies, he proposes that whatever results in the intrinsic redshift for the quasars also affects the redshift of the galaxy in the same way. He explains the angular size of the host galaxies, which is typical of that expected at cosmological distances, by proposing that the galaxies are ejected with the quasars from active galactic nuclei and only evolve into normal-sized galaxies over time, by a process different from the standard models of galaxy evolution.

Date: 2009/04/12 16:24:14, Link
Author: Nerull
Any chance of adding .png to the allowed filename list for avatars?

Date: 2009/04/27 08:49:37, Link
Author: Nerull
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 27 2009,09:01)

The current cycle has been stuck on "no spots at all" for a long time now and people are wondering when the heck they're going to start reappearing.

Huh. Last year I took the telescope out with a piece of paper and projected the sun onto the paper. I thought I saw sunspots, but maybe I just need to clean the telescope?

There are sunspots, but not very many.

Date: 2009/05/09 11:29:11, Link
Author: Nerull
Several, actually.

Good to see you've got that lying thing down, though. Jesus approves.

Date: 2009/05/29 00:53:46, Link
Author: Nerull
If this is the procedure I think it is, it consists of removing the factory installed IR filter in front of the CMOS sensor, and replacing it with clear to improve sensitivity. It does require surgery inside the camera and is a bit of a delicate operation.

Canon made a series of 20Ds that never had the filter installed for a while, but they were discontinued.

Date: 2009/11/13 15:41:41, Link
Author: Nerull
Have fun:

Date: 2010/02/01 13:54:42, Link
Author: Nerull
Wow. I'd mostly been ignoring this thread, but the TARD is strong with this one.