AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Occam's Toothbrush

form_srcid: Occam's Toothbrush

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.242.200.172

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Occam's Toothbrush

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/04/30 01:16:39, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
what I don't get is why anyone is giving this afdave turd the time of day, let alone actually arguing with him.  he's clearly not here to learn anything, doesn't have anything to teach anyone else, and doesn't contribute anything but a bunch of irrelevant non-sequiturs, unfunny jokey asides, and empty promises that he might eventually participate in a real debate about any of the issues he pretends to think are in question. why bother?  at least with idiots like Ghost of Paley you get the illusion of an actual discussion about issues this board exists to explore; afdave isn 't even pretending to discuss anything, he just aspires to be a provocative #######.

Date: 2006/04/30 01:38:15, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
afdave:  I would be glad to believe what you believe if I could be convinced of it by sound arguments ...

norm:  Whoever instructed you in what a sound argument is lied to you. Please explain what you think a sound argument is.

It's plainly obvious from a cursory reading of a handful of afdave posts that his definition of "sound argument" is "any argument which purports to demonstrate, however lamely and illogically, that which I have already decided I believe."  My question is, why give him the satisfaction of even responding to his crap, let alone participate in his delusion that he is engaging in debate?  The best face I can put on his blithering idiocy here is that although he could never convince anyone here of anything (both because his arguments are unsupportable and because he wouldn't know how to construct them properly if they were), he imagines himself as a lone soldier bravely pinning down a superior enemy force and keeping it from being effective elsewhere.  Why do you waste your time, and why do you give him the exposure?  And don't start with the "for the benefit of the lurkers" saw; there would be no lurkers if people weren't moving his drivel over here from PT and putting his name in lights at the top of discussion topics.  Just ignore him and he'll go away; as it is it looks like you're all hard at work trying to create the next Larry Fafarman.

Date: 2006/05/01 03:38:57, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
[cue smart people who should know better taking afdave's moronic bait]

Date: 2006/05/02 06:33:19, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Your child would have no grasp of language and would have no tools with which to abstract any of these concepts.  Without the word "why," you can't ask why, much less speculate about possible answers.

I know that misses your point, but that's what your scenario made me think of.

Date: 2006/05/02 07:16:18, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I like how afDave ignores all relevant questions to him and keeps asserting the same idiotic, unscientific ideas as if he is really on to something new


I "like" how everyone keeps encouraging him by endlessly responding to him, regardless of his demonstrated inability to offer or even understand anything constituting reasoned arguments or evidence, thereby continually pushing his moronic threads to the top of the board and creating the impression (for anyone who doesn't already know better) that he might actually be sustaining his side of a debate.  Of course, when I say "like," I really mean hate.

Don't feed the moron.

Date: 2006/05/02 12:20:28, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Somebody wanna fill me in on wtf any of this has to do with evolution?

Date: 2006/05/04 02:58:53, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
I vote "who cares."

If he could deliver on any of it he would just do it instead of holding phony narcissistic votes as if everyone's hanging on his every word while he rations out his genius to us in carefully measured doses.

Date: 2006/05/04 03:08:22, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
SAAAMOKIN!

It's amazing that this nerdy ectomorph would ever think he could refer to someone else as a "girly man."

Date: 2006/05/05 05:13:19, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
are you saying that GoP is literally a geocentrist

He looks more like a GoPcentrist to me.

Date: 2006/05/05 05:21:04, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
I can't be the only person who has recognized the immutable 1st Law of Trolldynamics:

Ignore them and they will go away.

Y'all should try it sometime.

Date: 2006/05/09 05:50:32, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
In the end, what they really don't understand is HOW we know the things we know. So it makes them suspect what we know.

I see it as the converse; they know the things they know, and for them the HOW is that they've simply decided that they know--the scripture/cult leader/voice in my head said so, so it must be true.  Having chosen such an empty and useless methodology for supporting their knowledge, they assume that science must have based its findings on the same arbitrary, made-up, and useless HOWs of knowing, which are then open to be attacked despite any actual understanding of what those HOWs are (but don't you dare attack my HOWs, you anti-religious bigot..... even though I can describe your HOWs as a religion if it suits my argument, etc. etc.).

Date: 2006/05/09 06:17:46, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
It seems that the ToE would actually PREDICT continual brain sophistication (oops ... there's one of those evil "directional" words) ... er, shall we say, er ... I'm at a loss ... anyway ... ToE should predict continual brain sophistication so that at some point there may actually be some kind of Super Homo Sapiens species who might be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, play 100 simultaneous chess games, memorize large books in minutes, etc, etc.

What a maroon.

Everything has a cost.  Bigger brains, among other things: 1) Consume more energy, requiring more food intake/metabolic processing and generating more heat that needs to be dissipated; 2) Take up more space, requiring tradeoff with other critical skull-based systems and/or making the head larger, affecting balance and needing more robust bodies to support the weight--as well as increasing the chance of accidental damage; 3) Require more developmental complexity, creating more things that can go wrong, larger maternal pelvises (ever watched a human birth?  $hitty 'design' there, huh?), etc., etc.  If all of these factors don't add up to an organism that survives and reproduces more effectively in its environment than the original model, the bigger brain doesn't happen.

afdave is/was supposedly an engineer.  I don't know what he worked on, but an automobile-industry engineer with his moronic mindset would churn out designs for cars with ever bigger and more powerful engines, proposing 20,000-HP monsters that would weigh 30 tons, cost millions of dollars and travel like rockets down the freeway, consuming hundreds of gallons of gas per minute, impossible to control.  That model wouldn't sell and would become extinct, as would his job.

He really doesn't think at all, does he.

Date: 2006/05/11 04:45:41, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Is it the scientific stance that man and woman are now interchangeable and biologically indifferent?

Uh, "indifferent" doesn't mean "not different," it means unbiased, or neither right nor wrong.  I think you're looking for "undifferentiated."

And wtf does biology have to do with marriage?  Marriage is a social, legal, religious--human--construct, not a biological one.  If you want to start looking at biology as a deterministic factor in our concept of marriage, you'll have to start dealing with the prevalence of homosexual behavior in the biological world.  Good luck with that.

Date: 2006/05/11 05:31:22, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
It's amazing how easy it is to prove a broad, overarching thesis with a single piece of anecdotal evidence.  The mainstream media is clearly racist against white people, I'm convinced.  No doubt about it.  In fact, I think this story proves not only that, but just about anything else one might want it to prove.  Gravity a myth?  Yep, look at the Carr case.  Pigs fly?  Carr murders.  2+2 = 3.14159? Carr Carr Carr Carr Carr.  

GoP, you're a genius.

Date: 2006/05/12 11:05:12, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Hi Larry!

Douchebag.

Date: 2006/05/16 05:14:14, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I WILL become an evolutionist if the evidence is convincing enough to me

Tautology.  Once the evidence convinces you, you will be convinced.  This ignores that you've already decided what to believe, in the face of a planet full of evidence you've already demonstrated you're not willing/able to understand or accept.

Date: 2006/05/17 12:20:57, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
They try so hard, and yet reading UD is still like watching a monkey hump a football.

I don't know.  I might expend the energy to click on a link to see a monkey humping a football for a few seconds.  UD isn't even worth that effort.

Date: 2006/05/19 05:24:12, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
there is a relatively small but rapidly growing group of scientists who are disillusioned with Darwinism

Where's the data to demonstrate that the number of scientists who are 'disillusioned' with 'Darwinism' is 'rapidly growing?'  Can you show that this is the case or does it just suit your purposes to claim that this is so?  

I think what scientists are 'disillusioned' with is morons like you continuing to use the strawman of a 150-year-old body of work to attack a field of work which has progressed, well, 150 years since there was anything which could have been called Darwinism. But again, it suits your purposes to call it that, however dishonest it may be to do so, so as a dishonest creationist, you lie for Jesus.

What I don't understand is why the others here bother trying to teach you anything when you clearly have no desire to learn, and are primarily here to feed your own egotistical delusion that you are fighting a good fight against evolutionary theory.  You're every bit as dense, pedantic, and unable to learn as Larry Fafarman.  Come to think of it, PT was so willing to feed that troll that he'd still be the #1 OT blatherer there, if he had been able to control his egomania enough to keep himself from being banned.

Date: 2006/06/06 02:04:18, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
I really think GoP's main satisfaction in any of this is in making all of you think he really believes this crap.

Date: 2006/06/06 02:05:46, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Who is dumber, the fool, or the fool who argues with him?

Date: 2006/06/16 05:28:30, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I’m apparently too stupid to understand Darwinian logic.

No, just too stupid to understand that headline writers, not biologists and paleontologists, write headlines.

Does GilDodgen think that defending his ideas also obligates him to defend every representation of them, however brainless, in the media?  Maybe since my IQ is well above room temperature (tickle said 145, how impressive), I'm too smart to understand GilDodgian logic.

Date: 2006/06/16 05:31:29, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
...Holding my breath in rapt anticipation of GoP's next post assuring that he will, eventually, someday, post the next part of his 'model'...

Date: 2006/06/16 05:33:04, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Notice I did not say I was holding my breath for the actual model, just the next assurance that it will supposedly eventually be posted.

I need some oxygen here.

Date: 2006/06/16 05:35:57, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
I can only imagine how many astrophysicists and cosmologists have gathered here, lurking, waiting with bated breath for GoP to post the theory they expect will revolutionize their field.  

Of course, they knew that an evolutionary biology message board was the place to come for this, since where else would one communicate such a model if they had one?

Date: 2006/06/22 05:22:27, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
a theoretical prediction: subject biomass to the right conditions of temperature and pressure for around a year, and you'll end up with fossil fuel.

So, all that's missing is the experimental verification.

Under the right conditions, it apparently takes a lot less than a year:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

Not to support any of AFD's idiotic conjecture but he can't be wrong about everything...

Date: 2006/06/22 07:42:38, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
What is the basis for Dave's puffery?  An SAT score from 28 years ago...

...taken several years and a stint in the military after the age for which SAT scores are relevant.  I mean, he claims to be an engineer, and I would think he'd had at least that much additional education by the time he took the test.  He11, you're not even supposed to have a 12th grade education when you take the test, think about it.

It's a test for 16 year olds, Tardboy; taking it when you are that much older and more educated normalizes your score to, well, normal.

Date: 2006/06/23 05:56:18, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Lyin' Sal lyin' for Jesus again.

"Darwinist" states:  2 + 2 = 4
Sal quotes him as: 'Darwinist said, "2 = 4", what a maroon.'

Dembski states:  2 + 2 = 400000000
Sal quotes him as: 'Dembski said "2 + 2 = 4", what a sexy genius.'

Date: 2006/06/25 12:38:26, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Let me get this straight.  GoP would have us believe that he can present a convincing model of a geocentric, geostationary universe, but we're supposed to wait until Tuesday for the next installment.  Hmm.

If he hasn't worked it out yet, how does he know it's a viable model?

If he has worked it through already, why do we have to wait until Tuesday?

I can see why you're all waiting spellbound for the next installment of his bu11sh!t.

He's laughing at your credulity even as you think you're circling like wolves, waiting to tear him to pieces.  The sport is making you all think he believes this crap.  Why waste your time?  Let me guess, if you don't argue with his silliness "the lurkers" are liable to think there may be something to his BS.  Come on.

Date: 2006/06/28 02:57:04, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Yes.  Very disappointing.  Granted, some of Lenny's specific posts were less than constructive, but wholesale deletion and banning of a person's comments because of who they are without regard to content is arrogant and fascist.  It's a shame PZ has stooped this low because of, as I see it, mere ego.    
Quote
Simple rules are best.

Simple rules for simple minds.

Do I get banned now?

Date: 2006/06/28 05:32:07, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Lenny is not going to appear on any threads which I control, at all. This is the only appropriate and impartial way to do it. If I let him through on comments with which I agree, then he's just going to shriek louder that I'm oppressing him if I pick and choose which of his comments I allow through.

Which sounds very much as if you are negating what he has to say because you disagree with him--outright censorship of opposing opinions--not because of him "dragging the thread right down into the sewer".  Which is it?  Is this about behavior or viewpoint?

I respect your viewpoints and read your blog every day, but I think it's sad that you've responded to Lenny's accusations of "dick-waving" with this, well, dick-waving.  Lenny can be annoying but I think the cure is much worse than the disease when you start banning people who are so passionately on the right side of most arguments.

Date: 2006/06/29 02:44:24, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Seriously, I believe the ultimate power should always be in the hands of the people instead of elected officials and especially not in the hands of appointed officials.

What a super idea!  This would obviate the need for all these messy laws.  Let's just arrest everyone, put us before a jury of their peers, and the jury can just make up what we're each guilty or not guilty of, right off the top of their heads!

"Tard" doesn't even begin to cover it.

Date: 2006/06/29 06:35:44, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
AFDolt's reading comprehension seems to be just as good as his reasoning ability.

Dolt claims:    
Quote
ONLY ONE STUDENT IN TEN BELIEVES THE 'EVO-MALARKEY'

Article says:    
Quote
One study....found that one science student in ten did not believe in evolution.

You stupid git.

Date: 2006/06/29 07:19:25, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
the exposure to the truth should help, no matter what light it's presented in.

The truth is that dolts like you believe what you want to believe, then distort the evidence to fit your conclusions.  The only question is whether you realize you're doing it or not.  I'll take this as one of the few instances where it was an honest mistake.

Date: 2006/06/29 07:33:27, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
AFDolt's article seems to reference this study, which actually looked at survey responses by medical students, not scientists.  So the only errors Dolt made were embracing the conclusion of the referenced study because it seemed to fit his preconceptions, not bothering to find and read the actual study to discover that the article he quoted misrepresented it (medical students are not scientists nor are they trying to be), and failing to notice the difference between 10% of a group self-identifying as uninformed idiots (like him) and 90% of a group self-identifying as uninformed idiots (like him).  Par for Dolt's course so far.

Date: 2006/06/29 07:35:44, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
AFDolt's article seems to reference this study, which actually looked at survey responses by medical students, not scientists.  So the only errors Dolt made were embracing the conclusion of the referenced study because it seemed to fit his preconceptions, not bothering to find and read the actual study to discover that the article he quoted misrepresented it (medical students are not scientists nor are they trying to be), and failing to notice the difference between 10% of a group self-identifying as uninformed idiots (like him) and 90% of a group self-identifying as uninformed idiots (like him).  Par for Dolt's course so far.

Date: 2006/06/29 23:26:43, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I guarantee you, though, that my wife is more beautiful than his and my penis is longer and thicker than his.

A lofty claim, but can you back it up with evidence?

Date: 2006/07/03 12:32:59, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Paley is obviously a troll and this thread a big joke

Yep, but for all the time and energy misguidedly invested in arguing with his bloviations, one could forgive a casual observer for thinking he was just as much a legitimate scientist and thinker as anyone else on this board.

What's the satisfaction in having your chain yanked by someone who lives for only that?

Date: 2006/07/11 01:25:26, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
I will soon be posting a detailed analysis of GoP's model which will completely demolish it and destroy his "credibility."  Keep a look out for this tour de force on, um, Thursday.  No, make it Friday.  Actually, I have a lot of work to do and I won't be getting to it until next week.  But really, it's almost ready to post, just needs a little polishing, definitely have it by the end of the month.  No later than middle of August at the latest.  So watch out Paley, by September 1st at the very very latest, you will be humiliated and discredited.  Unless something comes up, in which case count on a firm date of sometime this fall, early winter at worst.  Barring illness.  Or act of FSM.  And it goes without saying, if a hurricane hits the mainland US in 2006 I will be somewhat delayed, so you can be sure that a total deconstruction of your specious claims will be in the offing by 1/1/07, rock solid, not a minute later than that.  (This schedule assumes 4 built-in snow days and does not account for flooding, tornadoes, visitation of earth by aliens, or the return of Jesus Christ in a rusty red '78 Datsun pickup truck.  These events, or anything else, like my being completely bereft of ability to provide the information I am promising, may push back the scheduled date of arrival.) So watch out, Ghost, your days are numbered.

Date: 2006/07/12 03:31:47, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
He had to throw some old, basic stuff out of his head to make room for that humungus 151 IQ of his.

I have a theory that states it requires an IQ greater than 151 to comprehend the fact that an IQ of 151 isn't particularly high.  So far I have only one data point, DaveTard, but using the ID standard of evidence that's actually way, way too much.  On the other hand, it's not my job to match ID's pathetic level of lack of detail in making up stuff.

Date: 2006/07/17 09:27:21, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Dembski's little fan club all make their pokes at Dembski.

...pokes at Downard.

Date: 2006/07/17 10:54:58, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
I just want to take a moment to recognize the heroic fortitude of GoP, who, while bedridden with an illness so grave so as to make him utterly unable to further substantiate his geocentric model, bravely soldiers on with his life's mission to prove that Hitler was a liberal.  Inspiring courage, man.

Date: 2006/07/17 13:50:25, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Which part of, "I want to warn you guys that I'm posting a model I haven't finished yet" is giving you trouble?

If you have an unfinished model, just post it, instead of constantly telling us you're too ill to go on, too busy, etc., meanwhile posting prolifically on other matters. Nobody's buying "writer's block" from you, bub.  More like the opposite, when it happens to suit you to be unshutuppable.

Just think, in 1000 years, cosmologists will remember GoP--"he had that workable model of the geocentric universe that we're still seeking, but unfortunately he got bogged down in "Hitler was a Liberal" and never found time to finish it.  Plus, he got sick a lot.  And, you know, he was really busy, a lot of stuff came up, his car broke down, the condenser fan on his fridge went out that one time, and remember that flat tire back in '09, and a bunch of other pitiful excuses, but whew, that model would have sure revolutionized our understanding of the universe.  Oh well, I guess we're stuck with what we have.  But at least we got that "Hitler was a Liberal" stuff worked out for us, praise FSM, he did find time in his busyillnesswritersblockexcuseland for that."

Date: 2006/07/17 14:04:20, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Well, the time has come.  Ghost of Paley is ready to present his geocentric model for the enlightenment of all interested....Grab some beer and popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the show.

The beer is flat and the popcorn is stale.  Out with it, or retract your assertion that you have a model.  Fraud.

Date: 2006/07/17 23:31:56, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I only have time to go through the comments in the administrative windows which list them in order received on the whole site. I can respond in that window quickly by appending at the bottom of the comment. If I have to drop out of that window to do it another way it will take too much time.

Commenting is what I like doing here. Moderating is a pain that I can do without. If appending my comments directly onto others is too much to ask in return for all the time spent moderating then I’m going to quit moderating. Someone else can do it and I’ll just be a regular user once more.

I could actually hear DaveTard sniffling and whimpering while I read that.  I even think I saw an electronic tear fall on my screen halfway through.

Date: 2006/07/18 02:17:21, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
DaveTard sounds like a girly man complaining there, doesn't he?

It's just mindboggling to me that "girly man" gets thrown around as an insult so casually on a site that has a photo of Bill Dembski prominently featured at the top of every page.

Date: 2006/07/18 23:16:01, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I'll also work on my geocentrism.

Or at least work on some fresh excuses, right?  One's as good as the other for you.

Date: 2006/07/19 10:29:53, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I wonder if Dembski is using medicines developed through research into evolution to cure the alleged sick offsprinng

I don't see why not.  Because as a certain retired engineer in LA with no life, too much time on his hands, wacky theories about the real explanation behind meteor showers, and more alter egos than David Bowie will tell you,
Quote
scientists can just use evolution theory without believing that it is true

Date: 2006/07/19 23:30:29, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
   
Quote
scientists can just use evolution theory without believing that it is true

Of all the monumentally stupid things Larry F has said, for some reason, that one's always given me the worst, most blinding headache.

I think you're unfairly understating the potency of Fafafafafafafa's argument here.  Larry didn't merely say that, he said it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, which as you know vastly inflates the convincitizational power of any specious argument.  What keeps me awake at night is the possibility that he will discover the tactic of typing in all caps, which would make the argument so unbelievably powerful that, hey, I think he just convinced me in advance!

Date: 2006/07/20 09:28:59, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Is it Tuesday yet?

Fraud.

Date: 2006/07/20 10:52:46, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
As an atheist, I suppose I have nothing to look forward to after death except decay and dirt.  Ghost, on the other hand, seems to have a plan whereby he can continue to be an a$$hole forever.

Date: 2006/07/20 11:33:07, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Last I checked you hadn't proved ANY of this, little man.

Well, you know, he's been sick and all.  If it wasn't for his little infection you'd be convinced already and you know it.

I wonder how long before Ghost starts making excuses instead of arguments on this thread too, then launches a whole new topic he cannot follow through on, hoping to see the last one(s) fade off the front page.

Fraud.

Date: 2006/07/22 00:30:30, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Google davescot site:pandasthumb.com

Or better yet, Google "davetard site:antievolution.org"

Date: 2006/08/05 01:34:51, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Tick....tick....tick....tick....tick....

<crickets chirp>

Tick....tick....tick....tick....tick....

<yawn>

Tick....tick....tick....tick....tick....

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

Fraud.

Date: 2006/08/18 12:36:42, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
don't worry, I'll let this thread alone.

Followed by  
Quote
Believe it or not blah blah blah etc....

Typical GoP lying/inability to shut up.

How's your geocentric model, fraud?  Must have been pissed to see Arden post to it and put it back up the list, just as it was about to fall off the front page.

Fraud.

Date: 2006/09/05 12:21:35, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Fraud.

Oops, did I just put GoP's utter failure to (even really try to) substantiate his geocentric BS back on the front page again?

Sorry.

Fraud.

Date: 2006/09/21 04:24:32, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Google the term "copyright law" and start clicking

What would be the point?  Google is obviously part of the E.A.C.* and would just rig the search results to support any claim an E.A.E.** like you would make.


*Evil Atheist Conspiracy
**Evil Atheist Evolutionist

Date: 2006/09/25 05:10:43, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
The account that I heard over the weekend about a person being clinically diagnosed with fullblown AIDS and then being medically declared free from AIDS following intercessory prayer must be one of those “delusions” us Christians are so prone to. I wonder if the attending Dr was delusional as well?

So god's plan was to give that individual HIV through whatever mechanism (poof?) and let them die a horrible, painful, protracted death from AIDS, unless that person got some "intercessory prayer" treatment, in which case god would poof it all away like a bad dream.

This god needs to find a constructive hobby, like burning ants with a magnifying class or tying firecrackers to puppies' tails.

Date: 2006/10/03 05:31:49, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
That's funny, to me it seems like the whole thing is about Bill getting paid.  Dembski, that is.

Date: 2006/10/06 09:01:30, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
My theory is based on what I call "cognitive distance" or CD.

In order to provide a theoretical framework under which to best understand CD, I have developed what I call RD, "rational distance," which provides a similar rough-and-tumble numerical output which represents the difference between this person posting utterly mindless drivel and them having any idea what the heck they're talking about.  Simply assign four completely made up numerical values to whatever variables you might desire to pull out of your rectum, multiply those numbers together, and divide by the scientific content of Intelligent Design (zero).  The result is the approximate "Rational Distance" between "Cognitive Distance" and any kind of a useful notion.

Date: 2006/10/21 23:23:44, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Zero, it seems to be a recurring theme that you post a bunch of incoherent off-topic babble somewhere, note that nobody has responded to your incoherent off-topic babble, then quote a huge section of said incoherent off-topic babble and concomitant lack of response to another board, with a complaint that you're being ignored on the first board.

If you want to be part of the conversation here or there or wherever, why not trying to post something germaine to the topic of the board you're on, instead of a bunch of coincidence-whoring gobbledygook?  Perhaps no one has yet mentioned to you that they find your posts irrelevant, impossible to decipher, and apparently symptomatic of some emotional and/or mental disorder?  I think you should consider that you're not being ignored because your ideas are controversial, but because they're less than sane.

Date: 2006/10/24 04:27:01, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
The God of the gaps
Empirical evidence...as plain as the nose on your face:

Eze 22:30 And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge,
and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.
Mathematically, "gap" = 24.  "None" =  48
between A & Z , beginning and end, is 24.
Between G & D is O
Jhn 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

What, exactly, is your point?  That if you calculate the (completely meaningless) number value of words, you can find bible-related coincidences between those numbers and virtually anything you want?  Who cares?

--------

I found myself saying, "hereoisreal" is so full of sh*t I think he's about to pop."  hereoisreal = 115.  I opened the nearest book, "Supervisors' Safety Manual," and found that the caption at the top of page 115 is "Atmospheric Pressures."  Pressure, pop, get it?  Wow.

"Wow, have you ever looked at your hand, I mean really looked at it," I thought.  Then I realized that the only picture on page 115 was of a person with eczematous dermatitis--on his hand!  I kept the book (because it doesn't belong to me).

Date: 2006/10/24 05:46:10, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I and N are the first and last letters in the bible

To the extent that the bible is written in any particular language, isn't that language Hebrew, which has neither an I nor an N?  Would you agree that the significance of all these moronic bible number coincidences is dependent on a particular english translation of the bible?  Does that mean that non-english speakers are irrelevant to the truths supposedly embedded in these coincidences?  Do we find the same supposedly significant coincidences in other languages, where not just the text of the bible would be different, but where you would generate different numbers from given words, based on different alphabets?  Or are the coincidences different? What if coincidences in other languages contradict the content of the ones you find?  Does that make yours wrong?  What if I post a slew of similar coincidences, based on the same translation that you are using, and they seem to say that you should jump off the roof of a tall building?  Will you do it?  Could you please just do it anyway?

Date: 2006/10/26 02:26:21, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Shirley, is zero real?

O + 4 = 4

O + (-4 )= -4

Zero

1 * 4 = 4

1 * -4 = -4

Is one real?

It's like being sucked past the event horizon of a black hole, if black holes were made of stupid.

Date: 2006/10/30 03:58:26, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Better go with a Bach Fugue, just to be sure

Or...

Date: 2006/10/30 08:55:58, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
For instance...

Don't forget the tattoo!

Date: 2006/11/01 02:26:56, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
What a rich source of tardation!  I mean, the first three words you see on the site are...

UNDERSTANDING EVOLUTION SUCKS!

Obviously they think so, since they've made no attempt to understand evolution or apparently anything else.
   
Quote
Make no mistake, the theory of evolution is definitely objectionable AND inadequate and it definitely sucks.

followed immediately by
   
Quote
If you are closed or narrow minded about the theory of evolution, please leave now.  Only those with a free mind that are willing to be objective about the theory of evolution need enter.

So, um, you need to have a free mind and be willing to be objective about....having already decided that evolution is objectionable and inadequate.  OK.

Then we've got the hot-off-the-presses evolution news that the fundies lost in Dover.  10 months ago.

UNDERSTANDING EVOLUTION SUCKS SUCKS!

Date: 2006/11/01 06:02:34, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Is it just me, or has GoP become much less strident and obnoxious the last couple weeks? Did they change his meds?

Date: 2006/11/02 03:21:11, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Based on your experiences and observations in
life, what, if you were a betting person, are the
chances that God is dead or that there never
was one?  50/50, 10 to one,
100 to 1, 1000 to one, million to one?

Why would you assume that, to the extent one might consider the existence of the supernatural, one would focus exclusively on a singular entity?  Or that one would describe the entity or entities using the proper noun "God" that gives away that you're unable to consider anything but the assumed existence of the one entity you are obsessed with?  How could a god or gods, had it/they once existed, now be dead?  What or who would kill a god?  Since there is no empirical evidence for a god or gods ever having existed, what could constitute evidence of their death?

Oh yeah, you wanted a simple answer.

One.

Zero, based on your experiences and observations in
life, what, if you were a betting person, are the
chances that Osiris is dead or never was?

Date: 2006/11/02 04:13:12, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Nothing vague about it.  Probability is expressed as a value between 0 and 1.

50/50 = 0.5, 1 in a million = .000001, etc.

How about my question?

Date: 2006/11/02 05:58:57, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Nuts don't just come in jars

So do sperm donors!

Sorry.

Date: 2006/11/02 23:17:48, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
"they want to spend the next 20 years talking about how the IRS oppressed them"

Federal penitentiary isn't much of a bully pulpit.

Date: 2006/11/02 23:34:23, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Dude, reach around to the back of your neck, just above the hairline.  You'll feel a small on/off switch.  Now, I know you can't see it, but it is labeled "brain on/off switch."  I don't know exactly how yours is set up, but from what you've contributed to this board so far I think we all can agree that yours is currently in the off position.  So flick the switch to the opposite position (I know your brain is still warming up from a long dormancy so I'll just tell you that the opposite of "off" is "on," which means you have just turned your brain "on."  Got it?).  OK, now that that's done, ponder my simple question:

How in the h3ll could anyone answer a question about a probability calculcation any more simply than saying,

ONE?

Do you only recognize English statements that contain chapter and verse citations?

Date: 2006/11/03 02:26:53, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
If atheists/scientists/materialists love Darwin so much then why don't they go around executing the weak?

With all the time spent wrecking the careers of IDists and preventing them from doing any ID research (or even submitting any proposals for doing so), where would Darwinists find the time to also execute the weak?  There are only so many days in the materialist week.

And if non-atheists love the weak so much, why do they revere a god who visits so much pain, misery and degradation on the weak?

Date: 2006/11/03 02:33:26, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Dave is just a bandwagon MorphoDyker

One of my fondest ID/Evolution-related pleasures is imagining the disgust in D'Tard's soul when he reflects on all the times he pleasured himself while fantasizing various arrangements with Janie and Kate Lou FCD.

Date: 2006/11/08 09:07:09, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Since zero's postings have absolutely nothing to do with evolution, intelligent design, the price of tea in China, or anything else rational, and are not generating any conversation or responses (expect to point out their total lack of coherence and relevance), I vote to delete or close the thread and ask him to quit with the bible numerology stuff or bug off.

Not that I get a vote.  Just sayin'.

Date: 2006/11/08 09:15:17, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Are animals good or evil?

No.  We aren't.

Date: 2006/11/09 12:28:05, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush

Date: 2006/11/10 09:35:54, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Here's what those guys looked like a few beers later...

Date: 2006/11/10 18:07:09, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
The palindrome of Bolton would be "Notlob."  It don't make sense!

I'm not prepared to pursue my line of inquiry any longer as I think this is getting too silly.

Date: 2006/11/10 18:12:18, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Is this the same guy?



No, seriously.

Date: 2006/11/13 12:06:26, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I would imagine trying to reason with retards has limits.

Apparently you're not familiar with the AFDave thread.

Date: 2006/11/16 07:27:31, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
I must say I'm disappointed that this board doesn't pay more attention to the speeding juggernaut that overwhelmingevidence.com is becoming.  I bet you're scared that OE's gathering momentum threatens to crush your puny materialistic theories, so you choose to avoid it altogether.  But the evidence of the staggering popularity of this site is undeniable:

1)  Someone posted a comment there as recently as 44 hours ago.

2)  There have been over two (well, actually exactly two) new blog posts entered there in the last two days.

3)  The incredible appeal of this site to its target audience, high school students, is obvious--otherwise why would the top 4 users be 1) a 56-year old woman, 2) a college sophomore (schen24), 3) a 33-year old woman (siddigrl), and 4) a 38-year old guy (troutmac)?  Huh?  Huh?

Just more uncomfortable questions the materiodarwiniacistic cult chooses to ignore.

Date: 2006/11/22 11:38:20, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
crackpotsezwot?

Date: 2006/12/13 15:19:41, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I have every reason to suspect that the Judge took a payoff from the ACLU.

Of course.  No honest, competent or sane judge would have ruled Dover like the lying, plagiarizing, activist, wacky Judge Jones.  The UD pundits convince us beyond a doubt that the opinion was just bad, corrupt, awful law.

So, uh, how come none of these same people are arguing that the Dover policies should be enacted elsewhere, to bring about a similar lawsuit in a jurisdiction not presided over by such a leftist loony like Jones--the only judge in the world who would have ruled against it?

Because they know they'd lose anywhere.  Easier to just play the martyr over Dover than actually do anything, since everything they try to do just turns to shit.

Date: 2006/12/17 16:40:47, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Darwinists ....a bunch of curmudgeonly old men who can’t bend but break under the weight of new ideas – and evidence.

Um, just to clarify, does the farty flash thing consist of "new ideas," "evidence," or both?

Date: 2006/12/18 07:35:23, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
(we are keeping the original, however, so that when the history of evolution’s demise is written, all versions of this animation will be available to historians).

Dembski's fartimation will one day doubtless be seen on a historical par with events like Martin Luther burning a paper bag full of dogshit on the porch of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, ringing the door bell and running away, or the time Brutus, Cassius, and their fellow conspirators committed an atomic wedgie unto Julius Caesar on the floor of the Roman senate.

In both cases, the sheer juvenile hilarity of the practical joke shaped the course of all subsequent human events in a way actually getting off one's xtian ass and doing some scientific research to back up one's scientific claims never could.

Date: 2006/12/18 15:44:27, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Or, to cut more directly to the moist Tardy goodness...

It’s interesting though that the National Academy of Science’s membership is quite the reverse of the nation as a whole with people possessing advanced scientific degrees representing 99% of its membership. I don’t think any organization so skewed from the population as a whole should be given the advisory role in gov’t that the NAS enjoys. It’s a clique of educated experts. Poorly educated, willfully ignorant, and uninformed people need not apply.

Date: 2006/12/18 16:54:43, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (phonon @ Dec. 18 2006,16:10)
   
Quote
There once was a judge in ol’ Dover…

Who was certain he was related to Rover,

So he saw his chance

Dropped his pants

And when the ACLU arrived, bent over.

Hey now, give tribune7 some credit, that was actually clever.

God Unspecified omnipotent eternal holy divine creational entity, no.

Let's parse it out:

Judge Jones, a dog, received anal sex from the ACLU.

How is that clever?  I challenge you to come up with a limerick about Judge Jones and the ACLU that is substantially less clever.

Date: 2006/12/18 17:02:39, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (cdesign proponentsist @ Dec. 18 2006,15:57)
Here's a little treat to roll around in your brain. Truly cognitive dissonance at its finest...

   
Quote
. CJYman  // Dec 18th 2006 at 8:30 am

It’s truly a horrible day for Lord Charlie when his followers can’t attack opponents’ arguments and are thus reduced to attacking farts and jokes.

Comment by CJYman — December 18, 2006 @ 8:30 am

It’s truly a horrible day for Dr. Dr. Dembski when his followers can’t attack the criticisms of his arguments and are thus reduced to attacking criticisms, parodies, and mockeries of his farts and jokes.

So there.

Date: 2006/12/20 08:46:49, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Let's try a poll: if you don't think Dave looks dumb, post it.

I don't think he looks dumb.

Date: 2006/12/21 10:44:18, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Dave thinks that describing something in computer terms is an admission that it's designed.  The sun goes in cycles, like a CPU.  Designed!

Similar to how saying "the sun came up at 6:19 AM this morning" is an admission that you are a geocentrist.

Date: 2006/12/21 11:02:41, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 21 2006,10:18)
Google trends:

"intelligent design"

http://www.google.com/trends?....ate=all

Fizzling.

But look at the staggering popularity in Denmark!  Considering that the Danish population is 1/60th of the US, that means ID is approximately 40 times as popular in Denmark as in the US!  Danske Waterloo!  Danske Waterloo!

Date: 2006/12/21 12:43:38, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
What is not reported in the press is that it is possible the influx of affluent pro-ID families and their influence in Cobb county sent the SAT scores into record territory for Georgia. The stickers were evidence the parents were deeply interested in their children’s education. It was because of the public schools in Cobb county that affluent and educated pro-ID families were flocking there.

Is there any theoretical limit to the number of wild assertions, utterly unsupported by any cited evidence yet still "possibly" true, that these nefarious newspapers refuse to report?
   
Quote
What is not reported in the press is that it is possible the earth's core consists entirely of rich, chewy nougat, surrounded by dark chocolate and coated in crushed walnuts.  It was because of the delicious confections locked inside our planet that affluent and educated invisible planet-tunneling space alien families are flocking to Earth.

Sure Sal, anything's possible.

Date: 2006/12/21 16:09:40, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
What advanced educational equvalency does one acquire by reading one's wife's subscription to Mad magazine for 20 years?  D'Tard might be able to flesh out his CV a little.

Of course, why do you need a CV if you're already a master programmer, a computer engineer, a self-made millionaire, a certifiable genius, a ship captain, owner of many landmark high-tech patents, and the 2nd vice-dictator of the best little blog on the censornet?

Date: 2006/12/22 04:24:37, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I hereby request that atheists who read this voice their displeasure that such a campaign is being conducted.

I hereby request that you mail me a check for one million dollars.

We can both dream, can't we.

Date: 2006/12/22 09:27:15, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
when they try to explain how the flagellum could have evolved stepwise, they propose each of the imagined steps, but have absolutely no experimental support whatsoever for how the postulated step could have happened by chance and selection.  It's pure speculation.

As opposed to your rigorously scientific *poof* scenario, for which you offer oodles of repeatable experimental data.

This guy couldn't get a clue if you ran up and stabbed him in the eye with one.  Why not just leave him to blather to himself?

Date: 2006/12/22 15:35:59, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
You see it a lot at Panda's Thumb, a comment section will degenerate into two people bitterly yelling at each other.

I think you're exaggerating a little here; norm and raging bee don't do that more than three or four times a week.  Five, tops.

Date: 2006/12/26 04:18:38, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 24 2006,16:26)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 24 2006,16:09)
   
Quote
2. TRoutMac  // Dec 13th 2006 at 4:28 pm

Bring it on, Panda’s Thumb. Bring it on. Show us who the real fascists are.

TRoutMac

Comment by TRoutMac — December 13, 2006 @ 4:28 pm


(http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1855)

I do actually want TroutMac to come here. Anybody got an email address for him? No use debating him over at OE, where all dissent is censored. Anyway, if anyone wants to invite him to his own thread here, you have my blessings.

Excellent! If he comes here, we can have him present his evidence for Judge Jones having taken a bribe from the ACLU. I can't wait. :O

What matters is not whether TM has evidence.  The point is, you can't prove the ACLU didn't bribe Judge Jones.  By ID standards of evidence, this allegation is conclusively proven.  They don't have to match your pathetic level of detail in providing any basis for their claims.

Date: 2006/12/26 04:30:14, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I suspect that a good underatanding of ID will allow us to predict exactly when the world will end.

I suspect that a good understanding of ID will allow us to understand why a dropped piece of toast always lands buttered side down.

Date: 2006/12/27 04:34:31, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
In terms of aggregate minutes, I think writing blog posts about how ID isn't religion is now the fundamental activity of ID proponents.

That, and talking about god.

Date: 2006/12/27 07:11:47, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
We don't know the identity of the Intelligent Designer, but we know that we should capitalize His name. Oh, and we know it's a He, and the He and Him should be capitalized.

Oh please, there is no connection between he-who-must-be-capitalized-(even-his-pronouns) and the identity of the undesignated telic entity who hath created us.  There is a litany of possibilities for who the designer could be:

1)  Space aliens (don't ask who designed them, materialist pawn; you're just satan trying to trick us with demon logic)
2)  God
3)  Yahweh
4)  The father
5)  The son
6)  The holy ghost
7)  G-d
8)  Allah I mean, Jah oops, Ahura Mazda, er, Siddha, um, nevermind, move on, nothing to see here
9)  Jehovah
10) Jesus
11) Elohim
12) Abhir
13) Shaphat

See, the possibilities are endless; there is no religion here.

To recap, there is no relationship whatsoever between the supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal creating telic entity IDers refuse to ever talk about and the supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal creating telic entity IDers can't shut up about.

Date: 2006/12/27 11:07:43, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Suggested New Years Resolution for IDers:

1)  Do some freakin' science.

Date: 2006/12/27 11:45:05, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 27 2006,11:30)
http://www.google.com/trends?....te=2006

Demsbki's farting flash is a bit like when The Great Gazoo joins the cast of "the flintstones" - You're on your last season.

Look at the staggering popularity in Denmark!  And Sweden!  Svensk Waterloo!  Svensk Waterloo!

Date: 2006/12/27 12:30:42, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I guess I would assume I'm like most people and oppose taxes just on general principle.

Yep.  I don't need any government that can't sustain itself on fresh air and sunshine.  For instance, if I need a road to drive somewhere, I'll just buy one.  If my house catches on fire, I'll put it out myself.  If someone steals from me, I'll just do my own police work, then try them in my own court.  My kids don't need any education that I can't give them myself.  All of this would be easy, if the IRS would just let me keep 100% of the money I earn.

Date: 2006/12/28 04:11:24, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (UnMark @ Dec. 28 2006,00:51)
The Flying Speghetti Monster is missing from the list, too.

I only included beings we have verifiable scientific evidence for.  I read every page of the bible and didn't see your "FSM" mentioned once.

Can someone email Carol Clouser and ask her what the ancient Hebrew word for spaghetti is?

Date: 2006/12/28 04:18:44, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 27 2006,13:39)
Oh so you can only say disparaging things about UD here?  Sorry ... I didn't know that rule.

No, you can only say stupid, dishonest, unsupportable YEC things here.

But that's not prescriptive, though, just descriptive.  So it could change. <not holding breath>

Date: 2006/12/28 05:20:28, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Honest mistake: When, you know, you say something and then say the exact opposite and then you claim you never said the first thing and then you say you said it, but you meant to say something else entirely and then you say that that other thing you meant to say is not what you claimed you meant to say and you never said it was and then you run away.

You need to add "...petulantly and repeatedly claiming victory" at the end there.

Date: 2006/12/28 07:31:51, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (afdave @ Dec. 28 2006,07:26)
OK fine.  I can bash UD as good as anyone.  Look at this piece from UD ... DS is so dumb ... he really thinks this will have an effect on ToE!  Can you believe that?
     
Quote
SILENT MUTATIONS
"Silent" mutations are not always silent  Mutations leading to identical amino acid sequences can change protein folding and function
[Published 21st December 2006 07:21 PM GMT]
A mutation in a human gene that does not change the resulting amino acid can nevertheless change a protein's function, according to an online report from Science. The research marks the first time that the phenomenon has been confirmed in mammals.

"The habit we all have of disregarding nucleotide changes that don't change protein sequence may not be a good one," coauthor Michael Gottesman at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., told The Scientist. "This may be a generalizable phenomenon that may lead to changes in function we haven't been thinking about."
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/38329/
UD Article

DS then says ...        
Quote
Whatever the mechanism it really makes hash out of neutral theory and molecular clock theory.

Also note I’ve blogged in the past about how a design theoretic view predicts things like this. In this comment I described how the NTSC video signal evolved as intelligent designers added additional ways of encoding information to the carrier without effecting the preexisting ways and said we should look for DNA to have multiple encoding schemes one atop the other.
Poor guy.  I wonder how far away his other synapse is.  (Thanks SPH)

For D'Tard to have more than one synapse, he would need at least three neurons.  Clearly he does not have more than two (if you listen hard you can hear them faintly rubbing together in the sections you quote), so I'm not sure what your point is.

And it's "as well as," not "as good as."  Are the fundies attacking grammar now too?

Date: 2006/12/28 09:59:51, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I don't know how many times I have sat in conferences while an evolutionist has argued until he was blue in the face showing his grand thesis and quoting experts on how Dinasour X did this and that, only to find out 3 years later after a new fossil was found for Dinasour X that disproved all he taught.

The difference between that "evolutionist" and AFDave is that after the 3 years and the new fossil, the evolutionist changed his mind about his thesis and went back to work, whereas Dave would just keep making more and more convoluted and dishonest arguments to make it appear that the evidence still supported his unchangeable conclusion, all the while declaring victory every time he spoke.

Date: 2007/01/01 09:35:08, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
at 5,000 the AFDave train comes to an end

It can't end soon enough.

Date: 2007/01/01 09:37:33, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Did I mention it can't end soon enough?

Date: 2007/01/03 12:55:16, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
In the years since, she has written for....a magazine for truckers.

Hustler?

Date: 2007/01/03 16:49:04, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 03 2007,16:25)
   
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 03 2007,07:25)
a vast cackle of drag queens and male old ladies group of five young men from a TV show called "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" bustled into my home, squealing outrage at the sins I daily commit against the gods of good taste and appearance and swooning at thoughts of Deadman and Rich.

And well they SHOULD:
Rich may need a LITTLE work on the delts, but YOU'RE just jealous, Lou.

Please, stop with the homoerotic imagery!

I mean, I don't have a problem with it, but I wouldn't want you to draw Ghost of Paley to this thread.  He can smell manly muscle pics three domains away, like a shark smells blood.  You set out to mock Denyse O'Bleary, then the next thing you know you have an implacable troll on your hands....

Date: 2007/01/03 16:53:34, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
<delete double post, grrr>

As an aside, how come I visit dozens of message boards run by (apparently) complete tards, where comments show up right after they are posted and the board overall works the way it's supposed to, while the one run by scientists seemingly can't get out of its own way?

Date: 2007/01/05 10:35:14, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush

Date: 2007/01/07 09:02:56, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 07 2007,08:27)
A demonstration of the power of selection:
         
Quote
Stephen Meyer on Engineers and ID
by GilDodgen on January 6th, 2007 · 5 Comments
"And the question of origins is essentially a question of engineering. How did these systems get built? And when you have so many top-level professors of engineering — in mechanical, electrical or software engineering — saying, I think we’re looking at systems that clearly show evidence of design, I think the Darwinists have a serious problem."

Then, like the Three Stooges singing "hello, Hello, HELLO...":

5 RESPONSES SO FAR
1. Atom // Jan 6th 2007 at 11:57 pm
I agree.
2. IDist // Jan 7th 2007 at 12:10 am
I am a software engineering student..what we see in life is programming, software engineering, DESIGN!
3. benkeshet // Jan 7th 2007 at 1:03 am
Agreed.
4. kairos // Jan 7th 2007 at 8:33 am
I completely agree too.
5. Joseph // Jan 7th 2007 at 9:06 am
I have always thought as Dr Meyers answered above.

{edit} These guys should GET A ROOM.

I, like, totally agree with what you just said.  I always have.

Date: 2007/01/09 12:00:57, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (lkeithlu @ Jan. 09 2007,05:58)
At the top of his game? Why, may I ask, is he no longer at the top?

Perhaps Dell found someone with a 160 IQ (as measured by scores from SATs taken at the age of 25) or who had a more advanced science degree (obtained through decades of reading Scientific American).

Date: 2007/01/11 11:44:29, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
The ONLY thing that would have “won the day” for ID in that trial would have been to have a school board that was not religiously motivated which also understood ID.

Duh, school boards unmotivated by religion and who understand ID don't have to be sued under the establishment clause, because they aren't interested in inserting religious apologetics into science curricula.
 
So if by "winning the day" Joseph means that there would not have been a decision so devastatingly unfavorable to ID, he would be right--because there would have been no need for one.

Date: 2007/01/12 17:22:12, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Looks like D'Tard's pic was taken about 20 minutes after he woke up on Rosarita beach.

Date: 2007/01/13 12:11:32, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (keiths @ Jan. 13 2007,10:29)


You wouldn’t be wondering if you’d had a number of other men’s wives yelling at you in the height of passion “I want to have your baby!”. It’s a little disconcerting at first but you get used to it. It’s a dirty job but someone has to do it. Some guys prefer to make the world’s children smarter by becoming teachers and some guys prefer to make them smarter through better genetics. It’s all good. -ds

Is D'Tard absolutely sure they weren't actually yelling, "I wish you'd shave your back?"  Because that wouldn't support his "making the world's children smarter" meme quite as much.

Date: 2007/01/14 06:10:26, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (afdave @ Jan. 14 2007,06:00)
The universe has the APPEARANCE of old age ... AND IT IS.
Bat echolocation has the APPEARANCE of design ... BUT IT'S NOT.

Tard Force One, who enjoys mocking others for their typos and misspellings (in only the most wholesome and christian way of course), hath adopteth not one but two utterly grammatically retarded sentences unto his holy signature.

Date: 2007/01/14 06:17:59, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush

Clearly this thread's time of reckoning is at hand.  I say I win.
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 09 2006,12:28)

Date: 2007/01/23 09:23:01, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Avo:

What.  Is.  Your.  Proposed.  Scientific.  Theory.  Of.  Intelligent.  Design?

Just once, any IDer, anywhere, ever, please tell us what the theory is supposed to be.  

What is your model, how can it be tested, and what does it predict?

In your response, please feel free to omit references to the alleged inadequacies of any other theory.

Also please keep in mind that part of the bargain is that you need to be prepared to update or discard your theory should it be falsified.  If you cannot commit to this, please leave science alone and go back to church.

Date: 2007/01/24 10:44:34, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design.

Pathetic.  How about,            
Quote
The theory of gravity states that the tendency of objects to be attracted toward one another is best explained as being the result of gravity.

There.  I've explained nothing, I've claimed nothing, and no matter what experimental result you get, I can always say, "well, that's gravity at work."  

Or maybe
 
Quote
The theory of evolution states that certain features of biological organisms are best explained as being the result of evolution.

And it must be true, because we've proven Lamarckianism to be incorrect!  Nothing wrong with assuming there are only two possible choices, is there?

If that was all evolutionists had to offer we'd be laughed out of the universities.  Perhaps you should consider why your ideas are so poorly received by virtually everyone who knows anything about biology.  It's not them, it's you.

Go back to church; you obviously have nothing to offer to science or discussions of science, or any intention of doing so.  That you cannot resist manufacturing bogus sciencey support for your superstitious beliefs isn't science's problem; it's yours.

Date: 2007/01/24 12:41:08, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I am going to make individual assignments to the people here.

1. Let me know why you disagree with Mike Gene's essay on the flagellum, and give some good arguments about how its assembly process evolved.

2. I want thoughtful critiques of separate chapters of Denton's book, Evolution in crisis.

3. Where did Berlinski go wrong in his assessment of the Nilsson-Pelger paper?

4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.

It's so sad.  Avo thinks he/she can easily demonstrate the unfairness of our demands to actually cite ID theory and evidence by turning the questioning around and demanding the same pathetic level of detail we all know we'll never get from him/her or from ID.  Of course, it will impact Avo's thinking not one bit that the people he/she's arguing with can immediately begin to thoroughly answer her questions, and he/she will never own up to the real meaning of the contrast between this and his/her/ID's own total inability and obstinate refusal to forthrightly answer ours.
 
Quote
If you don't like the theory of evolution, no-one is going to be impressed with the nasty taste in your mouth.  What's your evidence for not liking it?

Right.  Because, Avo, you're not just disliking it, you're trying to convince others they should dislike it too.

Date: 2007/01/26 12:46:00, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
If he's going to rely on homo jokes to prove how funny and tough he is, he needs to work up some new material.

It's hard to understand why D'Tard would have to spend any time proving his toughness, when all one has to do is view this to understand just how hard the man is:



Well hard.  I'd sooner tangle with GoP's three toughest boyfriends.  Can you imagine the knuckle-scuffing that would result from trying to punch through that manly beard?

Unfortunately for Tardboy, it also apparently proves that a SAT-derived 150 IQ, a Scientific American-derived PhD in science, and self Dell-made millionaire status are not sufficient to qualify one to take a half-decent self-portrait, even in the age of digital photography.

Date: 2007/01/30 18:36:11, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
This quizzlestick person over at OE must be loki.  I mean, come on:
     
Quote
Critics of Intelligent Design often present the same few objections to our theory: They claim that we do not yet offer a testable theory, and that we avoid peer-review of our discoveries because we have something to hide.

Yep, the same tired old objections to our theory:  1)  You don't have one.  2)  There's no legitimate research to back up the theory you don't have.

I mean come on, evolutionistas, is that the best argument against ID theory you can come up with?   That it doesn't exist?  As we all know, you can't prove a negative, so the theory that there is no ID theory is itself fallacious.  QED, design.  
Quote
Those of us who have spent hard years grappling with the finer points of Intelligent Design know that nothing could be further from the truth: There is no group I know who work harder to attempt to explain these difficult scientific topics than ourselves.

We don't have time to do scientific research, we're too busy "explaining the difficult scientific concepts."  To ourselves.  
Quote
Intelligent Design is the tiny-seed from which will grow an enormous tree of science

It's a lot bigger when it's hard, I swear.  No really.  Stop!  Come back!

Date: 2007/02/05 11:05:29, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I guess I should be relieved that you spared me your recipe for blueberry pie.

Avo's recipe for blueberry pie would likely consist solely of long-refuted criticisms of your blueberry pie recipe.

Date: 2007/02/06 14:39:37, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
If mankind is part of nature, then even from a secular/Darwinist perspective, the whole idea that we should be freaked out about global warming seems utterly ridiculous to me.

Like, totally.  From a secular/Darwinist perspective, why get "freaked out" about nuclear war?  Heck, if mankind is part of nature, so's the firestorm!  Why not just shoot yourself in the head?  It's all just part of nature, right?

Tard this massive and dense must have an event horizon; be careful not to get too close.

Date: 2007/02/07 10:39:43, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Darwin’s Final “Resting” Place
GilDodg'em

"One day our sun will turn into a red giant. When that happens its corona will expand beyond the orbit of the earth. The earth’s atmosphere will be stripped away, the seas will boil away, the sands will fuse into glass, and all life will be exterminated. There will be no record of anything anyone has ever done, created, or thought."

Duh, unless in the four billion years between now and then, our descendants happen to begin living on other planets.  

Of course, if the DI succeeds in "renewing" science, we probably won't be able to achieve that.

Date: 2007/02/12 17:55:21, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
And so much is at stake. If there is any evidence of intelligent design in the universe, not only is materialist atheism wrong, but whole rows of pasty-faced profs spluttering the formulas for selling out to materialism on behalf of dying institutional churchianity to increasingly empty pews are now … obviated.

It was a dark and stormy night...

Really, is it possible to construct a more ham-handed, artless, incompetent chunk of English language than "pasty-faced profs spluttering the formulas for selling out to materialism on behalf of dying institutional churchianity to increasingly empty pews are now obviated"?

If D'OL is a journalist, I'm a nuclear physicist astronaut billionaire porn star hitting 75 home runs a season while curing cancer and raising the dead.

Date: 2007/02/13 12:39:01, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
One of the kids in the Columbine massacre was wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with “Natural Selection”. It’s reasonable to ask about connections between Darwinism and individuals that are taking it upon themselves to thin the herd.

Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marine. It’s reasonable to ask about connections between service in the Marine Corps and individuals that are taking it upon themselves to assassinate world leaders.

Right, Tard?

Date: 2007/02/15 03:42:25, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
11

DaveScot

02/14/2007

6:31 pm
At the peanut gallery Occum’s Toothbrush observes:

Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marine. It’s reasonable to ask about connections between service in the Marine Corps and individuals that are taking it upon themselves to assassinate world leaders.

Right, Tard?

Yes, plaque monkey, that is right. Marines and their rifles are deadly weapons and they aren’t always playing with a full deck, if you know what I mean, and I think you do. Oswald fired three shots in five seconds with cheap Italian bolt action rifle from a distance of one hundred yards at a moving target and scored one head shot. Awesome. Marines should be monitored closely after release back into the wild.

By the way, I take it as a compliment when an asshat like you calls me “Tard”. Thank you

I don't understand why D'Tard thinks he's getting anywhere with this big, bad, tough Marine act.  I mean, there's one simple response that destroys the illusion of DT's toughness like a Mannlicher-Carcano-fired 6.5mm bullet destroying Kennedy's skull:

Date: 2007/02/15 04:08:19, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
I'm not a scientist (because I've only subscribed to Scientific American for a total of maybe 3 years), and I can't claim to be a genius (because I took my SATs when I was 16, not 24), but if I was a 1337 h@xxor like D'Tard, I would put my Dell-trained mind to work on the only existing digital photo of myself and crop it thusly:

But then again, who are we to judge the time management of a person who is simultaneously performing advanced mycology experiments, sailing the seas as captain of a great ship, managing a vast fortune, trying to resist impregnating the women of the world, and licking the boots of the great William A. Dembski?  I'm sure he's just too busy to be concerned with minor aesthetic matters.  Like getting dressed in the morning.  Or scraping the Twinkies residue from the corners of his mouth.

Date: 2007/02/18 06:37:33, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
When you click the "Learn more about Josh here" link, Bozeman grows an inch, from 6'3" to 6'4".

Date: 2007/02/18 06:59:26, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (jujuquisp @ Feb. 17 2007,22:33)
Check out the part of Bozoman's website that lists all the women he thinks are beautiful.  It's kind of sad seeing the masturbatory fantasies of a 28 year old man being announced online.  There are lots of Thai and African-american women on his list.  I'm sure Evansville has a plethora of that type of lady for him.

This is priceless:  
Quote (Bozeman @ mom's basement)
my favorite Juggy Dancer from The Man Show. She's so hot in all her brownness



Scary.  I wonder what else is going on in that basement.
Quote (Bozeman @ mom's basement)
It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.

Yes, it will, Precious. It will get the hose.

Now it places the lotion in the basket.

It places the lotion in the basket.

Put the fucking lotion in the basket!

Date: 2007/02/19 12:56:49, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Mark Frank

I am afraid I am not prepared to conduct a discussion where my replies are queued up

I guess that rules out realclimate for you and a million other blogs with moderation. [shrug]

Should you want to continue the discussion on Alan Fox’s blog

Fox’s blog has no google rank. I prefer that when I write on certain subjects it gets indexed on google with a high ranking. Because of Alan’s anything-goes-as-long-you-don’t-cuss policy his threads inevitably turn into all heat and no light insult fests when there’s any disagreement. If I want to trade insults and avoid having it show up on google searches I’ll be sure to come over to Alan’s blog to do it, ok?

P.S. I want to keep this comment thread on topic so this response and yours will both be disappearing soon. Don’t freak out when it does.

Date: 2007/02/21 05:57:04, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush


The tinfoil hat came out crappy.

Date: 2007/02/22 06:27:27, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Alan Fox @ Feb. 22 2007,02:44)
 
Quote
Seriously, I’m serious considering dropping all my debate with Darweenies since I saw this from evolutionnews.org with the youtube video:...


from poster "Borne" on UD

So I presumed Borne's blog would have some sparkling interplay between him and those "evilutionists". The reality is the only input from "Darwinists" I can find is one comment from Ed Darrell to which Borne responds majestically with " bull shit".

I bow to your debating skills, Borne.

Let's review the powerful scientific tools with which the stupIDs intend to fashion their "renewal" of science:

1) Youtube videos.
2) Flatulent flash animations.
3) "Street theater" including fraudulent accusations of racism and reporting scientists to Homeland Security.
4) Press releases.
5) Lots of talking about god.
6) Lots of lying about ID being about god.
7) Cheesy poofs.

Am I missing anything?

Date: 2007/02/22 11:54:27, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
The phrase
Quote
the hairy teat of Intelligent Design

juxtaposes so elegantly with



Tell me you haven't thought the words "hairy teat" while gazing at this picture.

Date: 2007/02/22 13:04:17, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 22 2007,12:21)
 
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Feb. 22 2007,11:54)


Tell me you haven't thought the words "hairy teat" while gazing at this picture.

No, not hairy teat...

Althought I admit I DID think of Cheesy Teat...  But only for a moment, and it was only a fleeting manly, cheesy teat kind of thought, and then I started thinking about baseball immediatly afterword.  So there.

Denial.  You'll feel a lot better if you just admit it.  The first step to getting help is admitting you have a tard problem.

Date: 2007/02/25 10:38:30, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 25 2007,07:48)
Nightlight applies the logic of "designed vestigial structures" to devastating effect:
             
Quote
The generalization of this argument is very powerful against neo-Darwinism (RM+NS) — any biological phenomena being pointed as a “proof” (or indicator) of underlying randomness or mechanical nature of evolution, which also has an analogue in technological, scientific, or cultural evolution cannot serve neo-Darwinian cause since we know that latter forms do have intelligent causes.

Let's really push this generalization to demonstrate its POWER.  

- a lawn sprinkler demonstrates that rain is not a natural phenomenon, but rather the product of intelligent agency.

- man-made ponds and reservoirs demonstrate that lakes and seas are not natural phenomena, but rather the result of intelligent agency.

- a trench dug by a back hoe demonstrates that the Grand Canyon is not a natural phenomenon, but rather the result of intelligent agency.

- a breeze generated by a window fan demonstrates that wind is not a natural phenomenon, but rather the result of intelligent agency.

Does that mean that because humans have so far been unable to achieve a net energy gain from nuclear fusion, the sun is currently not designed, but will become designed if and when this problem is solved?

Date: 2007/02/26 08:09:05, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 26 2007,06:55)
DO'L foams at the mouth

       
Quote (DO'L 2006 Winner of The World's Worst Writer Award @ 26 February 2007)
The new “anti-God” crusade: Further evidence of materialism’s failure?
O'Leary

O’Leary looks at the spate of anti-God books and other promotions for the new Church of Atheism, and suspects that atheism was way more fun in the days when it was just a quiet, Godless Sunday at home.


The world's biggest hack refers to herself in the third person (it's so creepy when she does that), and begins to rant about ID vs. Atheism.

Once again we see that ID is all about the science.

She writes a series of sub-headlines, then a few sentences for each that basically just all say "Atheism bad, God good" without even so much as an attempt at backing up a single statement.

I guess we're all just supposed to smack our foreheads in a moment of epiphany and say "WOW!  I guess science sucks because the Witless Wonder said so!"

It really does just boil down to her conclusion:


       
Quote
Put another way: Once you do think that materialism is not true, Darwinism is not true either. That raises the question of why any clergy should feel the need to sell “evolution” to their congregations, as part of their ministry.


Yes, once you've closed your mind and started out with the conclusion, there's really no need to think any further about it, so STOP DOING IT!

I think there's more to D'OH!'s post than you realize.  I applied my handy Explanatardy Filtard to this passage and found an intriguing pattern:
   
Quote
The new “Anti-God” cRusaDe: FurTher evidence of mAteRialism’s failure?
O'Leary

O’Leary looks at the spate of anti-GoD books and oTher promotions for the new Church of Atheism, and suspects that atheism was way moRe fun in the Days when it was just a quiet, Godless Sunday at home.

Coincidence?  I think not.

Date: 2007/02/26 10:22:11, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 26 2007,10:19)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 26 2007,06:29)
 
Quote
[off topic] Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” Wins Oscar
DaveScot

Uh, what exactly IS the topic at UD?

The topic is,once again, "DaveScot is right about Global Warming, and everyone else is wrong".  It must be tough to be right all the time.

More simply, "davescot is right, and everyone who does not fawningly suck up to him is a homo."

Date: 2007/02/26 12:02:00, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Some vintage GilDodgen tard over at UD:
           
Quote
Here’s a thought about anthropic “coincidences.” Michael Denton, in his book Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe (a tour de force which cannot be summarized here), points out that if metals could not have been smelted and refined at temperatures reachable through carbon-based fire, technology could never have arisen.

Uh, I guess that depends on whether you know what the word "technology" means.
     
Quote
tech·nol·o·gy[tek-nol-uh-jee]–noun
1. the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science.  
2. the terminology of an art, science, etc.; technical nomenclature.  
3. a technological process, invention, method, or the like.  
4. the sum of the ways in which social groups provide themselves with the material objects of their civilization.

To paraphrase at a level more appropriate for the average tard on the street, "technology" means "how we get stuff done."  Using a rock to crack a nut is a technology.  Which part of "technology" requires "smelt(ing) and refin(ing metals) at temperatures reachable through carbon-based fire?"

I think I can see where GD went wrong with this:
         
Quote
Here’s a thought

See, that's your problem right there.

Date: 2007/02/27 09:32:43, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 27 2007,09:22)
 
Quote (djmullen @ Feb. 27 2007,05:07)
 
Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 26 2007,06:11)
When my wife makes chili, she counts out exactly 239 beans and adds them to the pot because just one more
bean makes it 240.

Zero

Are you sure that's not 420?

No, but by chance, G x O x D (7 x 15 x 4 ) = 420

T*A*R*D = 1440!

Date: 2007/03/01 06:10:03, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 01 2007,01:30)
   
Quote (Ichthyic @ Feb. 28 2007,23:01)
in that screen, go towards the bottom and enter the web address where you store the image for your avatar

And that's where I hit the wall. I don't have a web address where I store my image. I have a jpeg file.

I just go to Imageshack or similar free web hosting site; on the front page there's a "browse" button to find the file on your PC, and a "host it!" button to upload it.  When the image is uploaded it provides a list of URLs you can copy n paste depending on what you want to do with the pic.  For AtBC the last one, "Direct link to image," is the one to use.

Date: 2007/03/02 04:04:42, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 01 2007,20:31)
 
Quote
Turkey's First ID Conference
GilDodg'em

... about a dozen local mayors sent telegraphs of congratulations...

Next:  ID Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Turkmenistan.

The stupIDs should check whether these local mayors subscribe to Scientific American*; if so, they are scientists and could be added to the dissent from darwin petition thingy.

----------

*Other acceptable forms of scientific certification include house boat ownership, SAT-measured genuis IQ, selfDell-made millionaire status, or an addiction to cheesy poofs.

Date: 2007/03/02 06:35:46, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 02 2007,06:00)
     
Quote
Apparently the atmosphere concerning ID in Turkey is not nearly as hostile as it is here in the U.S.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't an honest to goodness Muslim show up over at UD a short time ago and promptly get chased out with pitchforks and torches?

Have you ever noticed with IDers that in one sentence they will declaim the staggering growth of ID's megasuperhyperpopularity (particularly in Denmark and now apparently Turkey), then in the next sentence whine that they are subject to hostility, censorship, and oppression so overwhelming that they can't even propose any actual theory or potential supporting research*?

Which one is it?  Is ID more popular than Jebus Walmart or more hated than Satan Howard K. Stern?

----

*Additionally, on a personal level, the intellectual climate is so smothering that Denyse O'Dreary has been rendered incapable of constructing a grammatically-correct English sentence, Bill Dembski cannot surface long enough to write a book he's already been paid for, and D'Tard has been reduced to a gibbering, cheesy-poof smeared heap of quivering Marine lard.

Date: 2007/03/02 07:29:39, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Zachriel @ Mar. 02 2007,06:50)
Perry Marchall put it this way:

1. All languages, codes, protocols and encoding / decoding mechanisms that we know the origin of come from a mind - there are no known exceptions

2. DNA is a language, a code, a protocol, and an encoding / decoding mechanism

3. Therefore DNA came from a mind.

I'm surprised that this response has lasted over an hour:
         
Quote (peanutaxis @ 03/02/2007, 6:23 am)
Ah, that is an interesting argument! Following the links I can see that the refutation will involve the first premise, and again goes back to whether information can pop out of disorder. (I am now wondering whether even the bonding of two hydrogen atoms involves information)?!
Nevertheless that is indeed a powerful argument. I think I may begin praying to the ID: Vishnu

Possibly the most delicious aspect of enjoying ID tard is their incredibly low capacity for detecting sarcasm and irony whenever it's cloaked in the faintest pretense of ID-friendliness.

I'm waiting for the day when everyone on UD realizes that everyone else is a loki troll and the whole thing just vanishes in a puff of satirical smoke.

Date: 2007/03/02 14:37:25, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
As we all know, RM+NS cannot possibly add new information to the genome.  What you atheist fundamentalists call "evolution" in this case is clearly just a loss of function: the creationist meme's gene for telling the truth about itself has deleteriously mutated such that the resulting meme, ID, is incapable of admitting it is creationism.  No information was added and no new species has formed; this is clearly mere variation within a created kind.  I believe it shows the inevitable degradation of genetic information since the ark, which doesn't matter anyway because Jeebus will be calling me (not you) home any day now.

Date: 2007/03/03 08:17:23, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 03 2007,02:20)
Jason Spaceman found this nice bit of tard from Joseph Farah in the WingNutDaily.
   

Wouldn't that be a tardbit?

Date: 2007/03/05 13:56:34, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
ID predicts:

Indianapolis 29, Chicago 17.

Take that, materialists!

Date: 2007/03/06 11:53:25, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 06 2007,11:31)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Mar. 06 2007,09:57)
Jad found a buddy who even quotes him in an online article.

EEWWWW - JAD's buddy is the guy that thinks man-goo will cure cancer!  I wish I would have thought of that great line back before I was married though...

Did you date a lot of women with cancer?

Date: 2007/03/12 11:43:30, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Have you ever done some work, or some task, and then had it completed wiped away? ...maybe you made a sand castle at the beach and the waves destroyed it immediately. Have you ever had the thought, "I just wasted my time."

The answer is yes.  Yes, I have tried to make a logical, evidence-based comment at Uncommon Descent.

Date: 2007/03/16 11:22:32, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 16 2007,09:38)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 16 2007,08:53)
It is often said here that the ID movement has gotten to the point where the genuine article is virtually indistinguisable from parody. Will it please the court to recognize the Plaintiffs Exhibit No 1968.  

In this exhibit, we have a known ID proponent arguing that the theory of evolution must be a theory of abiogenesis:
         
Quote
Consider the title chosen for Darwin's famous book… "Origin of Species." I would suppose that the first form of life to appear on this planet was some species of something.

And a bit later:
         
Quote
What this all boils down to is that essentially there can be no difference between the phrases "origin of species" and "origin of life." If you explain the origin of species, you will have explained the origin of life. So, to defend Darwinism by asserting that it's not a theory about the origin of life seems rather absurd.

Okay, seriously.  Which one of you guys stole TRoutMac's password and posted this?

   
Quote
I admit that I also believe, in one sense, that humans are "related" to rocks.


http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe....nt-1503

The stupIDs seem to operate on the assumption that since ID is 100% right and evolution 100% wrong, any and all arguments that might support ID and/or discredit evolution are therefore correct.  No argument is too idiotic to embrace, if it can be construed to support ID.

Date: 2007/03/21 07:12:05, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Every now and again when I want to feel good about our shared humanity, I curl up with Darwin’s DESCENT OF MAN and read passages like the following:

<snip racist drivel typical of Darwin's era for his nationality, race and class>

Every now and then when I feel like experiencing the contents of my stomach squirting uncontrollably out through my mouth and nostrils, I like to curl up with something by Dembski's good friend Ann Coulter:
   
Quote
I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo.

--Coulter's syndicated column, 12/21/05

I'm sure Dembski would gladly give Chuck D a pass on his racist meanderings if we explained that they were intended merely as "street theater."

Date: 2007/03/23 07:01:52, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 23 2007,05:34)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 23 2007,00:05)
...ID is a fertile ground indeed!

Likewise, my dog's run is fertile ground, for roughly the same reason.

At least your dog isn't pretending that his output is scientific.

Date: 2007/03/23 07:22:48, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
yes, she's still spry!

I thought one had to be like 80+ before taking 'spry' as a compliment.

Date: 2007/03/27 04:12:22, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 26 2007,21:32)
   
Quote
Being built like an average NFL football player has its advantages but at my age I should be shooting for middleweight boxer instead.



Indeed...

(Former Dallas Cowboy OL Nate Newton)

Date: 2007/03/27 10:29:16, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 27 2007,08:50)
Someone tries to buy a clue:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-103358

 
Quote
12

Patrick

03/27/2007

9:36 am
A bunch of Darwinists are keen to point this out:

http://richarddawkins.net/bday1message.php?id=310

I figured I’d post it minus the usual insults.


'The usual insults' = Dembski is a Tard who couldn't find his arse with both hands.

It's not Dembski's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories about where his arse is.

Date: 2007/03/28 05:44:28, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 27 2007,14:03)
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 26 2007,21:32)
DaveTard..

https://www2.blogger.com/comment....5459449

             
Quote
Being built like an average NFL football player has its advantages but at my age I should be shooting for middleweight boxer instead.




Richard - Thanks for the link - At the end of the post, DaveScot tries to lure FTK to his little Texas Love-nest with his water-sport skilz.


I just hope FTK realizes that Dave assumes they're doing it, you know, for the kids:
   
Quote (Davescot @ his own deluded little world)
...once you've had a few wives of other men yelling at you in the throes of passion "I want to have your baby" then you'll understand. It's a little disconcerting at first but you get used to it after a while. It's a dirty job but someone has to make the world a smarter place. Some choose to teach children so they'll be smarter and some choose to make them smarter via genetics.

Date: 2007/03/30 07:28:33, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 30 2007,05:34)
 
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 29 2007,22:24)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 29 2007,21:56)
   
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Mar. 29 2007,18:47)
     
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 29 2007,18:37)
*Backslides, copies pic* Sorry, I know you guys don't understand it.

I understand.  

After all, I declared publicly that I'd "do" Ann Coulter.  ;)

You guys are both total perverts.

:O

Aw, come on -- haven't you ever heard of a  "bedroom conversion"?

I'd have Ann quoting from "Das Kapital" within weeks.   ;)

That cloaca wouldn't give you pause?

I thought everyone already knew Lenny was a herpetophile.

Date: 2007/03/30 08:30:42, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 29 2007,23:37)
It is a matter of faith the same as a belief in no God.

That's just retarded.  Do you also consider lack of belief in Santa Claus a matter of faith?  Your absurd position would require us to label as 'faith' any lack of belief in anything which had not been conclusively demonstrated  to be nonexistent.

I don't believe the moon has a rich, creamy caramel center not because I have 'faith' in my position, but because I've seen absolutely no evidence to support it being true, and because there are other, very well-supported theories of what the moon is made of.  It's concievable that the moon really is that delicious, but labeling me as having 'faith' in my position (which is not even a true position but just acceptance of the null hypothesis of the proposition "the moon has a caramel center") simply because I assume it is not so, is just stupid.

"Atheism is a faith" is a bogus rhetorical device which does more to reveal the benighted intellects of the credulous, superstitious twits who use it, than it does to illuminate what atheism is actually about.

Date: 2007/04/02 10:51:57, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 02 2007,09:47)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/off-topic-glass-houses/

   
Quote
LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.


OK, so Al Gore is the most arrogant, wasteful, hypocritical, just plain bad person ever to walk the earth.  So stipulated.  WTF does that have to do with the question of the degree to which global warming is man-made and what we can and/or should do about it?  Nothing, of course.  It's just like Dembski's idiotic maunderings about that horrible racist, Charles Darwin, as if smearing the character of someone 150 years dead somehow forever falsifies arguments that person made.

UD Tards, suck my tu quoque.

Date: 2007/04/03 08:06:34, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 02 2007,11:35)
I fixed a small mistake in my "alternative" proof of the I-J Theorem. I plan to do a new calculation to see if anything meaningful arises.

Do you own a time machine?  It seems that virtually everything you talk about doing occurs in the future.

Date: 2007/04/06 08:07:36, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (blipey @ April 05 2007,17:36)
Well, the time draws nigh.  DaveScot will be seen in person in May, the 13th to be exact.  I will be passing through Austin and will be visiting the Master of Tard (unless he decides to dodge...).

So, I am once again collecting things that people would like to know about DaveTard.  These can be science questions, political questions, details about his appearance, whatever.  I'm most interested in what his reactions will be to being questioned in person and how he deals with people while not behind a keyboard.

So, anyone with burning questions, let me know here and I'll see what I can do to help you out.

Ask him what he uses to get those pesky ground-in cheesy poof stains out of his muumuu.

Date: 2007/04/07 18:17:43, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 07 2007,17:59)
 
Quote (steve_h @ April 07 2007,17:42)
Parody site owner (possibly Dembski under an assumed name) promoted to contributor status at uncommondescent.com.  Is this the best the ID movement has?

Galapagos Finch, Galapagos Finch, William Dembski, William Dembski, Demsbki/Finch

Sadly, yes. Bad parody and farts, but no science. Unless you redefine science as "bad parody and farts", which the could actually try.

As the Wedgie Document clearly states, it is DI's 20 year goal to "To see bad parody and farts as the dominant perspective in science."

Date: 2007/04/10 15:17:49, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Davescot @ whattamaroon)
there’s one report of a cat rapidly using up the last bit of its ninth life from a huge abdominal tumor is now on the mend and feisty enough to shove the other cats aside to get to the food dish

I propose a new standard for FDA drug approval: One report. About a cat. If somebody says somebody's cat benefitted from a certain drug, that's science and by golly, you're in.

Date: 2007/04/11 12:23:35, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
A majority of American doctors believe God or another supernatural being intervenes in patients' health, a study has found.

A majority of Americans cannot identify the nation of Israel on a world map.  According to ID logic, does that mean geographers should just accept that we don't really know where Israel is?

Date: 2007/04/24 04:33:25, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 23 2007,18:16)
 
Quote (phonon @ April 23 2007,17:29)
Awesome! A new book about the Physics of Christianity!
http://www.uncommondescent.com/philosophy/frank-tiplers-new-book/

So E no longer equals M C-squared . . . . . ?

Apparently you didn't get the memo, it's really E = God.

It's the science equivalent of solving algebraic equations by multiplying both sides by zero.

Date: 2007/04/27 07:54:41, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Thanks for compliment on the diet but it’s no big deal. I’m an extreme mesomorph. We’re the ones who can pile on or take off bulk with little effort - our bodies are like putty we can sculpt quickly and easily. You recognize us by our V shape. My hips are 13 inches wide and my shoulders are 21. Even when I let myself go to a new record high of 240 recently my chest and shoulders were still much wider than my waist and hips. I dropped 40 in three months no sweat. I’m considering how far down to go. 160 was my Marine Corps weight and my aging joints will appreciate that but I like how I look more between 180 and 200. Either way it’s another 3 months of focused but not very intense effort. I need to add 10 pounds of lean muscle mass (which just means eating lots of protein and working out with as much heavy weight as I can tolerate 20 minutes a day) for the higher weight and actually lose muscle mass for the lower weight. I hate the thought of sacrificing any lean muscle mass as it’s a lot easier to lose than to regain and the older you are the harder it gets. Mesomorph is the only body type found on professional body builders, most boxers, sprinters, quarterbacks and others needing a lot of upper body strength for their sport.


What a tool!

Date: 2007/05/01 10:55:43, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 25 2007,16:16)
I saw somebody (PrincessEve)on the thread about an real life working example of the EF (so far nothing doing) saying of YEC Scientists        
Quote
They hypothesize and test theories and adapt to the findings and discard unworkable theories, just like evolutionists do


If that's true, where is it happening? Is it written down, in a paper or magazine, or journal?
Is ISCID it? They have not published in years.

Like Princess Eve said, they hypothesized, tested theories, adapted to the findings, and discarded unworkable theories, just like evolutionists do.  Ergo, nothing to publish.

Date: 2007/05/08 07:42:33, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ May 07 2007,19:49)
You have to admit, in a way it's pretty cool that UD basically seems content now to present ID as nothing more than a rather pretentious form of creationism. They've completely quit pretending that ID is anything more than fundie apologetics and wingnut politics.

To me this means they'll continue to say crabby, moronic things for decades, but as a political movement it's DOA. As a scientific movement it never even rose to that level.

Truly, the real ID action is now over at Overwhelmingignorance.crap, where a blog post entitled Has This Site Gone Extinct? gets a snappy response in only 13 days, resulting in a fast-paced conversation that so far has flooded the intartubes with 5 total posts over an eyeblink-like 27 days.

Hilariously, they conclude that the fetid moribundity of their site has resulted from the recent efforts to ban trolls--while lamenting that they cannot compose a Trolls' Greatest Hits list to whip up enthusiasm for the site, because "unfortunately, unless the data was backed up all those troll posts were zapped."  Hmmm......

"Man, our site would be doing better, if only we hadn't banned all the people who were posting on the site just to mock it, and if only we could recover their deleted comments so there would be something here worth reading."

For some reason I think there might still be some trolls left unpurged over there.  Will the last loki please turn out the lights on your way out?

Date: 2007/07/02 06:57:20, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
What is it about the crank mind that makes them so enamored with huge, garishly-colored fonts?

Time cube!

Date: 2007/07/02 17:40:30, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Louis @ July 02 2007,14:51)
Because humans invented beer.

Louis

And paper bags.  Mental ones anyway.

Date: 2007/07/02 17:41:35, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 02 2007,17:24)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ July 02 2007,13:41)
You should change the topic title to "Anne Coulter explained."

That's a LOT of FUGLY in one package

As noted before, I'd do her.


:)

I believe the term is "hate fuck".

Date: 2007/07/02 17:43:54, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (guthrie @ July 02 2007,16:30)
Ugly according to whom?  For example, many men prefer slim women.  But a friend of mine, although he is only around 5 feet tall, likes large women that many men would dismiss as being too fat.

I know that guy!

Date: 2007/07/02 18:16:51, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Sorry for all those deletable comments over at the evolution/ugly people thread.   Normally I try to stay strictly with the science and the sound argument stuff, but I was led astray by the uncouth comments of others.  Plus beer.

Maybe just the beer.

Date: 2007/07/03 06:08:17, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Kristine @ July 01 2007,13:24)
Unfortunately, Wikipedia is so rife with vandalism that I corroborate every fact with other sources.

No more so than other respected sources like Encyclopedia Britannica, apparently.

Wikipedia also has the advantage of not costing $1695.  Plus the errors in your $1695 version don't get corrected in three minutes, they get corrected never.

It's foolish to rely on any one source for anything (except sex), of course.  I don't watch CNN (rarely) to find out what's really going on, I watch it to see what CNN says is going on--which I take with a huge grain of salt and a chaser of "they're a massive for-profit corporation with a vested financial interest in how they frame virtually every factoid they present."  At least with Wikipedia there's the transparency of being able to see who wrote and edited the articles, and what those peoples' other edits and viewpoints are.

Of course, for the real truth we all go to conservapedia, right?



Oh, I guess not.

Date: 2007/07/03 08:56:47, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Louis @ July 03 2007,06:17)
OA,

Good point. Another one is that Wikipedia, the Britannica, CNN* etc are secondary sources of information. You treat secondary sources exactly like you said, with big pinches of salt.

Louis

Interestingly, CNN provides strong evidence against one of ID's central claims, that new information cannot be created without the intervention of an intelligent agent.  Paula Zahn is clearly not an intelligent agent, but every bit of information that passes through her is given a new, right-wing slant.  However, the mutation is always deleterious to the organism (truth), so I'm ultimately not sure how to score that one.
 
Quote
*I can see how in some circumstances the media can be primary sources of data, and indeed this has happened quite a lot. However in modern times it seems that the news outlets all repeat Reuters or some other "source" with their own spin the majority of the time.
CNN is a primary source, for instance, if you're researching what news coverage/topics Big Business finds most favorable to its own goals.

Date: 2007/07/03 10:28:23, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (jeannot @ July 03 2007,00:55)
According to JAD, it stopped once humans appeared. He's not very clear about it, but he seems to think that with humans, The Designer reach perfection so there's nothing to be front-loaded anymore.

That makes sense when you look at the sheer sublime ideals represented by our 32 teeth packed into enough jaw space for 28, and a vestigial organ (appendix) that becomes infected and kills 400 people a year in the US alone.  I really don't see how we could be any better.

Date: 2007/07/03 11:34:38, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Zachriel @ July 03 2007,11:11)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ July 03 2007,08:53)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 03 2007,06:39)
             
Quote
An eloquent but bogus non-review by Dawkins
scorned'ova

...Dawkins is a master of rhetoric. Only he could take a clear example of intelligently designed evolution (dog breeding) and offer it as a convincing “proof” of Darwinian evolution.

Holy dipshit.  If Sal had some grasp of what Behe is trying to do in TEOE, he would understand Dawkins' review generally, and this point specifically. But he doesn't, so he doesn't, and off he goes after the supposed insufficiency of natural selection.

I wonder if he thinks wild geese were designed.

Dogs are an interesting example. Relatively few mutations in developmental genes can lead to a great deal of morphological plasticity, a longer leg, a shorter snout, a longer body—unlike the common cat whose overall morphology is much less plastic.

In any case, scordova              
Quote
Dawkins is a master of rhetoric. Only he could take a clear example of intelligently designed evolution (dog breeding) and offer it as a convincing “proof” of Darwinian evolution.

And this is the premier blog of Intelligent Design?! They haven't even read Origin of Species, and they've had 148 years.      
Quote
The Origin of Species

Chapter 1: Variation Under Domestication

GilDodgen    
Quote
And don’t forget that dog breeding is the mixing, matching, and reshuffling of existing genetic information, not the creation of new information. The dog genome is unusually plastic.

Oh gee whiz, GilDodgen. There is no poodle hiding in the wolf genome. It requires novel mutations. Breeders sometimes wait a lifetime for a fortuitous mutation. Many have been specifically identified. But if you disagree, all you have to do is make a few predictions. We have the technology. Will dogs just be reshuffled wolf genomes, or will they have novel alleles?

Dog Genome Project

Doncha know, ID makes its predictions after they are confirmed.  Only materialist presuppositionalist atheists like you would have  a problem with that.

Date: 2007/07/03 14:59:04, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
We have retarded bombs

Is that anything like the Nude Bomb?



I'd love to spend two hours photoshopping that into The Tard Bomb, with Dr Dr Dr Dr Dr Dr Rev Dr Fuhrer Dr Dembski leering over a reclined morphodyke celebrated journalist Denyse O'Leary, but there's beer to be drunk, plus I have to pack for my trip to Montreal to go drink different beer.

Date: 2007/07/06 07:57:14, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 06 2007,06:40)
WAD

In my previous post, I cited a Miami Herald article that refers to “The National Center for Science Education, a pro-science watchdog group.” For the real pro-science watchdog group, check out the following links:

www.pro-science.com
www.pro-science.org
www.pro-science.net

That’s right. I own those domain names and they all refer back here. Let me encourage all contributors to this blog to use these domain names in referring to UD when they email Darwinists.

Let's take a moment to review the recent scientific output from the UD gang:

1)  URL sockpuppetry (or whatever this is called)
2)  Flatulent Flash animations
3)  Global warming denial
4)  HIV/AIDS denial
5)  Forging alliances with the Pleasurian community (William Brookfield)
6)  Forging alliances with the holocaust-denial community (Johannes Lerle)
7)  Quack medicine advocacy (DCA)
8)  Reporting someone to DHS (Eric Pianka)
9)  Bogus accusations of racism (Kevin Padian)
10) Launched overwhelmingevidence.com, antievolution site for 45-year old teenagers, recently voted the least popular URL in the history of the Internet with over one non-troll post per month.

This is pretty impressive.  I'm surprised anyone still doubts ID, with a body of work like this backing it up.

Edit: Accidentally gave UD research team credit for work done by obvious OE troll hblavatsky (orbo quack prepetual motion machine asserted as proof of god)

Date: 2007/07/10 08:58:44, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 09 2007,15:27)
it's amazing the amount of unknowing support of ID out there. Maybe one day they will also get some knowing support!

Sal:
         
Quote
Mark Pagel, an evolutionary biologist, gives an unwitting slam of Darwinism. The review was published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature.

         
Quote
Biology has unwittingly adopted the central tenets of ID.

         
Quote
it should be noted Barrow and Davies won an almost combined 3 million dollars in the form of Templeton Prizes for their (perhaps unwitting) ID-sympathetic works. Some of the best ID literature is in places you’d least expect!
Uncommon Descent will from time to time point out other books like Tipler’s Physics of Christianity and now this (unwitting) ID-sympathetic book by renowned scientist Owen Gingerich: God’s Universe

         
Quote
ironically, Daniel Dennett unwittingly gives powerful “scientific” reasons why secularism is doomed and why religion (which tends to be ID-friendly) will prevail

         
Quote
DNA researcher Andras Pellionisz has found unwitting friends in the ID community.

         
Quote
Francis Crick (a Nobel laureate) and Fred Hoyle (author of Intelligent Universe) were valuable (perhaps unwitting) pioneers of modern ID theory. Even today, SETI is used as a staple example for the ID movement.

         
Quote
Last month I pointed out the unwitting admission by some Darwinists that Darwinism is useless to modern medicine (and for that matter modern science).

       
Quote
This month I’m pleased that world’s most prestigious scientific journal, Nature, has published a letter from a biophysicist who has (perhaps unwittingly) shown that the design revolution continues, and Darwinism is slipping into total irrelevance.

       
Quote
And to finish the irony, Darwinist Ken Miller (of all people) unwittingly supports ID in his books:

       
Quote
The point was to show MacCallum is forced to admit Medical Doctors today find little use for Darwinism. Her article unwittingly demonstrates Egnor’s point.

       
Quote
The very existence of her editorial refutes the point she was arguing for. It was an unwitting admission of Darwinism’s irrelevance.

I suppose It kinda makes sense then for Dembski to say:
         
Quote
Unwitting Pro-ID Peer-Reviewed Articles on the Increase . . .

Link

It's amazing that even though every piece of research published by "Darwinists" apparently supports the contradictory conjecture of ID--by complete accident!--the stupIDs can't seem to do a single iota of original research to support their own assumed conclusion, even on purpose.

Date: 2007/07/10 09:02:30, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Is it starting to become clearer?

Clearer that crandaddy is a pedantic, pseudointellectual, pompous ass who should burn his thesaurus?  Crystal clear.

Date: 2007/07/11 18:06:53, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (stevestory @ July 11 2007,17:29)
It can be hard to not get angry at creationists working to remain ignorant. I struggle with it.

Get angry at the ones who seek to spread their ignorance to others. The world is full of people with a host of better options choosing to negate and destroy their bodies and minds anyway.  If you think you can help them, do so.  If you cannot, let it go.  If they intentionally try to drag you and the people around you down with them, get pissed.

My $.02.

Date: 2007/07/12 06:16:00, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Dawkins argues....that humans are conscious because chemicals complexly collide in the brain to proudce a phantom we ignorantly call the mind. ... Common sense finds it hard to take this argument seriously, however, because it leads to nonsense.  The brain contains an enormous amount of water and salt.  Are we to assume that water is intelligent, or salt is conscious?  If they aren't, then we must assume that throwing water and salt together - along with about six other basic building blocks of organic chemicals - suddenly makes them intelligent

The english language contains 26 letters.  Are we to assume that throwing a bunch of letters together--along with about six other basic punctuation marks--suddenly makes a coherent argument? (Sal apparently does)

This is truly a concentration of Tard so dense that it creates a black hole o' Tard, and by even quoting it you risk slipping past the event horizon and being thrown into an alTardnate universe.

Date: 2007/07/13 14:39:07, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (stevestory @ July 13 2007,14:36)
can anybody else get to UD?

 
Quote
Not Found
The requested URL / was not found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache/1.3.37 Server at www.uncommondescent.com Port 80

I can't, thank dog.

Date: 2007/07/15 05:16:28, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
There should be some sound effects or something to make the game more interesting

Fart noises?
Quote
maybe you should just press the mutation button once and it runs the whole simulation and tells you the outcome right away

Goddidit!

Date: 2007/07/15 14:34:35, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (stevestory @ July 15 2007,13:22)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ July 15 2007,12:41)
Reminds me of [URL=http://linguisticmystic.com/2007/07/13/of-official-english-sillyness-painful-grammatical-errors-and-cooked-circles-of-freedom-flo






ur/]this.[/URL]

"Speak English, Your In America Now!"

Fark introduced me to the ne plus ultra example of this.


Is this the same guy?

Date: 2007/07/20 03:53:01, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Dante @ July 19 2007,23:33)
Quote
An evolution convention would be a great place to sell lottery tickets. These people obviouslly have no concept of probability. (Link)


I think it's highly probable that this poster is a Christian, and a creationist. Anyone wanna bet?

Who buys more lottery tickets per capita, scientists or creationists?  Hmmm.

Date: 2007/07/23 15:14:35, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I talked with Discovery and a moderation-light Explore Evolution (EE) critique board there is a live possibility

Paul, nobody cares.  EE is being addressed right here, right now, with less moderation than you're proposing somewhere else.  Why don't you just tackle some of the open issues here instead of disingenuously suggesting that the real conversation hasn't started--because the DI site hasn't turned their censorship down far enough to allow it (yet)?

How about starting in on the egregious quote-mining exaples Afarensis has claimed?

Date: 2007/08/02 13:54:16, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
the official atheist organizations positively deny the existence of God. Any protestations to the contrary comes from a desire to inflate the number of “atheists” rather than from sincerely accepting agnostics into the fold.

I can see how nitpickingly excluding people from atheist organizations would really help boost the number of people those organizations can claim identify as atheists.  

What?

Date: 2007/08/03 10:52:06, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 03 2007,10:21)
He was poor. That physical analogy wasn't the same; Einstein had a new theory that was experimentally proved. Behe has "I don't know how 'Darwinism' explains this.."

He was much worse than poor.  He mainly giggled and shifted in his seat with a loony grin on his face, failing to utter a single complete sentence about anything.  He fumbled incoherently through his IC mousetrap BS, but nobody who didn't already know his spiel would have known what he was trying to say, let alone what his argument would prove if it were valid.  I think Colbert took it easy on him because he was so pathetic.  Too bad it wasn't the Daily Show, Jon Stewart would have made him look a lot more foolish.

Date: 2007/08/07 16:38:38, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
such triffles are no problem for the doctor

However, they did kick Kirk's ass:



Oh, you said triffles.  Nevermind.

Date: 2007/08/13 14:11:59, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 13 2007,12:57)
And in other dog-bites-man news, ID_FOR_THE KIDZ_BLOG Overwhelming Evidence is NOT getting overwhelmed with posts, as the "newest" post is now almost 5 days old.

Is it time to call the Guiness Book Of World Records yet?

Date: 2007/08/13 16:20:54, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I would say that all atheists have strong emotions (call it hatred) toward God

The only antipathy this atheist feels in regard to your imaginary sky buddy is directed at his arrogant and insipid self-appointed representatives, and their behavior toward those who disagree with them on the subject.

Do you hate Zeus?  "I would say" that you do.  Doesn't mean much, does it.

Date: 2007/08/13 16:49:00, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
How does this relate to the Legos theology of John's Gospel?

Date: 2007/08/13 16:58:05, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
the hatred of God by all atheists is synonymous with Original Sin

Yawn.

Date: 2007/08/14 06:53:55, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
How far can one take this before it becomes too absurd for rational people to even discuss further?

For me it takes only one step, when Heddle or anybody else starts blathering about their irrelevant religious opinions to begin with.  I understand why some of us might have initially reacted viscerally to Heddle's attribution of hatred unto us--I did--but it should only take about three seconds to realize we're just being sucked into a boring theological exposition of one person's idiosyncratic and daft superstitions.

Ultimately, is it really any more interesting than hearing an addict rationalize about why it's OK to take one more hit? (I'm not suggesting an equivalence between Heddle's beliefs and substance abuse, just the extent to which it's pointless to discuss the matter with either person.)

Date: 2007/08/14 09:08:14, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
But, how does religion do any better with answering questions about being human?

Well, it's much faster and easier.  For instance, if you asked a mathematician "what's the smallest prime number of more than a trillion digits?"  It would probably take him/her a long time and a large amount of effort and resources to figure out the answer. OTOH, you could ask me the same question and I could instantly blurt out "fifty seven point oh-six-three."  From the standpoint of response time and ease of calculation at least, my answer is superior.  Stupid, useless and wrong, but faster and easier.

And so children, that's how religion helps us understand the answers to questions about what it means to be human.

Date: 2007/08/14 09:28:56, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 14 2007,09:14)
AH But Occam's Toothbrush, the answer "I haven't a bastard clue" is equally short, rapid, useless, and easy but with the additional virtue of (in my case at least) being absolutely true.

The answer "I don't know" is always a more useful answer to any real question than "goddidit."  At least when you say "I don't know," the door is still open for someday figuring out the real answer.

Date: 2007/08/14 14:06:01, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
even the Earth was molten perhaps at one time

You mean in the last 6000 years, right Sal?

Date: 2007/08/16 09:00:07, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Something about this seems incredibly unwholsome

Oh no, it's the incontrovertible argument from misspelled unwholesomeness! We should just admit goddidit to prevent further embarassment.

Date: 2007/08/16 11:08:11, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
We can examine people who say the are in love and monitor reactions and interactions in the course of them displaying this love. We're into a subjective realm already unless you just want to rely on a consensus but we'll proceed anyway. Now we've identified various chemicals that are involved in these reactions and maybe even presumed at their optimum levels. Do this mean that everything we need to know about what we think we're studying, Love, can be determined by the levels of testosterone, phenylethylamine , dopamine, etc. Does this tell us what love feels like? Or why a mother charges into a burning building to save her child? Or why a spouse will die of a "broken heart" following the death of their beloved? Or why people will knowingly sacrifice themselves for family, friends, country and God? NO. NO. NO, and NO.

Does the current lack of a comprehensive "materialistic" explanation for each one of these phenomena provide the slightest shadow of a scintilla of a hint of a suggestion of the tiniest, most microscopic little piece of evidence that there's anything non-materialistic behind them? NO. NO. NO. NO, NO, NO, and uh-uh.

Please, let us know as soon as you find some of this non-materialistic evidence. Or when you can suggest what evidence might eventually be found. Or how we might find it. Even hypothetically. Please. Otherwise and until then, you're just talking out your ass and spouting the same arguments from ignorance/false dichotomies as the stupID IDiots. As usual.

Meanwhile science marches on, providing more and more (admittedly provisional and incomplete) explanations of those same phenomena your woo tells us utterly, absolutely NOTHING useful about. Believe whatever you want, but arguing with smarter people (I'm not including myself in this group) who know more about the subject just makes you look stupid. er.

Date: 2007/08/16 11:22:23, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 16 2007,11:16)
?
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 16 2007,17:12)
?
Quote
First of all I am not making any positive claim, I'm merely informing you about the nature of reality (i.e. that in fact reason can be used to analyse certain phenomena that you claim on no basis it cannot) such as humans have uncovered over millenia. Your repeated shrill denials do not constitute evidence. You are making the positive claim that reason cannot examine X and faith can. That is the claim (or rather one of the claims) you have to justify. You are claiming limits on rational enquiry that don't appear to be there, you are making a claim in contradiction to the evidence we have collected as a species thus far. So yes, the burden of proof falls to you. You are also supporting a dualism based on nothing more than an appeal to ignorance, a dualism long since disproven by the evidence, so yet again the burden of proof falls to you.


You have not demonstrated that this evidence exists just your continued sayso. I'll get back after I read your "book," just wanted to point that out real quick.

{Slaps forehead}

Fuck me, you're a stupid bastard Skeptic.

Louis

Professor Feynman, er, I mean Louis, can you prove that there isn't any non-materialistic evidence that Skeptic isn't a stupid bastard? NO. NO. NO, NO and NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Date: 2007/08/17 06:48:16, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
That depends entirely on what drugs you're taking and how much you're using. Just a word of caution - ID is a very potent drug that has claimed lots of victims. It feels great at first, but it soon begins to rot your brain and corrupt your morals. I recommend you at least consider getting a medical checkup and attending a few ID-anonymous meetings.

It's not ID per se that is the danger, it's the psychoactive ingredient, Tard. As anyone can see from the addled masses over at uncommondescentintotard.com, most ID users are just as happy to get their Tard from other substances like GWD (global warming denial), HIVD (HIV denial), and BBL (blind biblical literalism), and many if not most show symptoms of multiple addictions.

Date: 2007/08/31 09:52:23, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 31 2007,10:40)
?  
Quote
"Maaaaaaaate! Fancy a Coldy?" shortly followed by a bout of quite intense alcoholism.



Yer well, as long as you're not a helicopter pilot in the Balus Bar in Port Moresby which may contain my DNA, then I could consider your request.

Do tell, how did that helicopter pilot end up containing your DNA?

On second thought, please don't, Senator Craig.

Date: 2007/09/01 07:21:40, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Things are going just as well over at underwhelminginterest.com:




The up side is that they've been able to allocate more money  to ID research by downgrading their server:



While their recent purge of loki trolls has reduced their site traffic slightly, at least the quality is up.  Only serious ID supporters now comment:
   
Quote
hblavatsky | Mon, 2007-08-06 22:32

     
Quote
Just a side node, isn't there a good argument that the panda's hand is well designed?


Yes, kind of like the way a banana fits perfectly in the palm of your hand and contains all the ideal nutrients. It's almost as if it was designed right? The Banana is naturally occurring evidence of something that is so useful, but could never have evolved.

When you evaluate Michael Behe's claims vs those of Dawkins and PZ Myers, it's worth remembering a few important things. While the consensus is admitidly against Behe, you have to realize that he is not working to a materialist agenda like the other so-called scientists. Science shouldn't be materialistic, we all agree with that dont we?


Fortunately for us IDiots are both incapable of understanding sarcasm or irony, and unable to google "h p blavatsky" to find quotes from the real Blavatsky:
Quote
Man is certainly NO special creation, and he is the product of Nature's gradual perfective work, like any other living unit on this Earth. But this is only with regard to the human tabernacle. That which lives and thinks in man and survives that frame, the masterpiece of evolution -- is the "Eternal Pilgrim." -- H. P. Blavatsky

Date: 2007/09/04 06:57:47, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 04 2007,03:59)
Hey FTK, if this is true
?
Quote
Discovery Institute scholars and attorneys show how Judge Jones's Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design.


Why no appeal?

And I'll get to the rest of your "stuff" shortly missy.

And if that is true, then why isn't the DI looking for another school district to implement the same policy, so they can get the issue in front of a different judge and get the "right" outcome?

They know Dover was a disaster and don't want to go there again, and all their protests to the contrary are just for appearances.

Date: 2007/09/04 17:15:36, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Hermagoras @ Sep. 04 2007,17:05)
Evolutionary info website is back up.  But Dr. Dr. Dr. Dembski is not listed under "people."

Is there a "robots" section?

Date: 2007/09/07 05:58:16, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 07 2007,04:02)
Just to be clear, my aim in this flash animation was not to shake up the convictions of convinced Darwinists. Rather, my aim was to render Judge Jones and his decision ridiculous in the eyes of many young people, who from here on will never take Darwinian evolution or him seriously.

By this logic, all we would have to do is to make a flash animation of Dembski with a bunch of farty noises, put it on a site that gets up to several hits a month from actual young people (this is stipulated, AFAIK there is no concrete evidence that anyone under the age of 24 has ever visited OE), and "young people" would never take Dembski seriously again.

Date: 2007/09/12 11:37:13, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 12 2007,10:40)
Given how long they went Wah Wah Judge Jones, they'll be whining about Baylor for the rest of the year.

Anything to slow down the prodigious scientific output of the ID crowd.  If we don't distract them with stuff like this they'll have proved the existence of god by the end of 2007 and we'll all have to start going to church.  I'm not giving up my Sunday mornings!

Date: 2007/09/14 04:02:34, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (JMax @ Sep. 14 2007,00:59)
his lecture is entitled “Why Atheism is no Longer Intellectually Fulfilling: The Challenge of Intelligent Design to Unintelligent Evolution.”

Thanks for demonstrating once again the total lack of connection between ID and religious apologetics, Dr Dr Dr Dr Dumbass.

Date: 2007/09/14 04:05:32, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Guest @ Sep. 14 2007,00:05)
I might suggest that the specific topic at hand on this particular post, while having some relevance {to the REAL FRIGGIN QUESTIONS REGARDING "CAN NATURAL PHENOMENA AS CURRENTLY UNDERSTOOD REALLY ACCOUNT FOR THE LIVING WORLD THAT WE, AS LIVING ORGANISMS HAVE THE ABILITY TO PERCEIVE, JUDGE, DESCRIBE, AT LEAST INTUITIVELY AND MAKE SOME SORT OF COMMENT ON REGARDLESS OF OUR PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF THE UNDERLYING VAST ARRAY OF PHENOMENA THAT MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH REALITIES!!!!!!!!} may really be some sort of irrelevant SIDE SHOW TO THE REAL ISSUES AT HAND??????

It was a dark and stormy night....

Date: 2007/09/17 06:31:11, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Why do you want to discuss the most compliacted phenomenon of the evolution (the evolution of man), when you cannot address simple evolutionary problems like coloration of insects or fungi? Unbelievable.

What is your evidence that the evolution of man is "the most complicated phenomenon of the evolution"?  In what units do you measure the complicatedness of evolutionary phenomena?

And what is your theory, anyway?  Am I oversimplifying your/JAD's piddlings when I summarize them as "god made species evolve, then he/she/it died"?

Date: 2007/09/17 09:00:50, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 17 2007,09:08)
It is possible to write worse than Denyse, but you have to put some thinkin' into it.

And yet she achieves it by doing exactly the opposite.  It's a strange world, isn't it.

Date: 2007/09/17 09:42:17, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 17 2007,10:39)
Denyse's tortured English calls this to mind:

"He writes the worst English that I have ever encountered. It reminds me of a string of wet sponges; it reminds me of tattered washing on the line; it reminds me of stale bean soup, of college yells, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up to the topmost pinnacle of tosh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash."

—H. L. Mencken, American editor, satirist, and philologist, on Warren G. Harding, The Baltimore Evening Sun, 1921

It was a dark and stormy night....

Date: 2007/09/18 09:12:05, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (djmullen @ Sep. 18 2007,07:45)
I don't know if this is permanent or just more fluffing around, but UD has been up and down several times tonight and it is now up with a much simplified look.

If you click on the "about" link on the UD front page (because who would visit UD without stopping to guffaw at DaveTard's ridiculous, grainy, off-center, 100# overweight, unshaven, Flashdance sweatshirt-wearing mug), the whole page consists of "This is a placeholder. You must edit the template."  Can't DT put down the cheesy poofs long enough to apply his formidable 1337 h@xx0r skillz to, uh, editing the template?

Date: 2007/09/20 14:28:04, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 20 2007,15:16)
And despite what Supersport says, 'faith' is NOT a verb.

Oh yeah?  Faith you, pal.

Date: 2007/09/20 15:34:39, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,16:20)
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 20 2007,14:32)
er....er.............aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!

Non-physical!...Non-physical!!!....You asshole...the flea is a physical entity...process inside the flea are physical....not mystical.

1st...flea has no spine

2nd...predator introduced

3rd...flea has spine.

4th...new spine gets passed on to future generations.


from where did the spine come from?  What was the cause of the emergence of the spine?

OK, let's stipulate that current MET has no explanation whatsoever for these flea spines.  How does that support any hypothesis of yours?

Date: 2007/09/21 11:04:39, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
If ID Were Carpentry

We would use ignorant criticisms of your hammers to drive our nails, then claim it was just your materialistic presuppositions which led you to conclude our alleged dream home was really only a pile of lumber.

Date: 2007/09/21 11:44:29, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 21 2007,12:31)
This is the picture of the Issoria lathonia, where  the reverse side of the butterfly wings can be observed:



The color patterns of front wings and hind wings make perfect harmony. But only in these resting position of wings, when the front wings are behind hind wings. We see only small parts of reverse side of front wings. The hided, covered part of them have almost the same coloration as front parts of butterfly wings coloration.



Do you see the white spots on the upper margin at the front wings? There are many black spots on wings which look like copy of spots on the upper part of wings.

So the harmony arise only in special position of wings. It seems like an artist painted the pattern in this exactly position. The phenomenon - neglected nowadays - is called after entomologist Oudemanse (or die Totalzeichnung, the term coined by Suffert) .

We often see animal coloration making the whole nice picture. This picture "is painted" over many parts of animal body which developes independently during ontogenesis.

Heikertinger considered "natural selection" as totally wrong explanatin of the phenomenon conceived in heads of "Hypothetiker" as he called proponents of natural selection.

I couldn't find a picture  of Papilio dolicaon where he made his issue about the Oudemanse effect. There are semi-circles on its front and hind wings that fit into each other and create circles in the resting position of wings. It is hardly imaginable (if you are not a darwinist of course) that predators left only those individuals where circles were perfect and eliminated all those individuals, which didn't create perfect circles. It would mean that predators have also some aesthetical feeling.

VMartin can't understand how a particular butterfly evolved to look the way it does, therefore goddidit.

Date: 2007/09/21 12:20:53, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (afdave @ Sep. 21 2007,09:56)
 
Quote
and nobody noticed it.
An asteroid hitting the earth way off in the vicinity of the Yucatan (where nobody probably lived yet ... this asteroid probably hit pre-Babel) was probably not a newsworthy event to a people who had just survived a cataclysm the nature and scale of the Global Flood.  Big event, yes.  But not even close in comparison to the Flood event itself.

For more discussion of the origin of asteroids and meteors, read Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory ... http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Asteroids.html

I recently got Dr. Brown to agree to recorded phone interviews about his theory.  I'm looking for geologists and engineers to discuss his theory with him.  I've got 4 or 5 takers so far, but only one of them is an engineer or geologist.  Let me know if anyone here is interested.

With all the crazy shit going on in the world, I'm sure nobody would even really notice if this happened:  
Quote
The meteorite's estimated size was about 10 km (6 mi) in diameter, releasing an estimated 500 zettajoules (5.0×1023 joules) of energy, approximately 100 teratons of TNT (1014 tons),[1] on impact. By contrast, the most powerful man-made explosive device ever detonated, the Tsar Bomba or Emperor Bomb, had a yield of only 50 megatons, which would make this impact 2,000,000 times more powerful.

The impact would have caused some of the largest megatsunamis in Earth's history. These would have spread in all directions, hitting the Caribbean island of Cuba especially hard. A cloud of dust, ash and steam would spread itself from the crater. The pieces of the meteorite would have rained all over Earth, igniting global wildfires. The shock waves would have continued hundreds of kilometers into the planet, causing global earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The emission of dust and particles would have covered the entire surface of the earth for several years, possibly a decade, creating a harsh environment

I mean, not to the point that anyone would write it down or anything.

Date: 2007/09/26 03:55:59, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (qetzal @ Sep. 26 2007,01:58)
So if the purpose of the universe is to be consistent, and if the universe needs life to be complete, and if interconnected quantum effects allow for retrocausality, then that's consistent with a weak version of ID that boils down to "life was inevitable."

It's impressive what ID brings to the table in terms of synthesizing the imaginary evidence.  If you ever want to know what would be true if some new and completely made-up set of observations was taken, just ask an IDiot.  Assuming of course that the answer you're looking for is goddidit.

Date: 2007/10/01 04:05:33, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
No one would work so hard at supporting something that they know to be patently false
It's funny.  I've seen you comment a lot at UD, so obviously you read the posts and comments.  I've never seen you respond with this same point the hundreds of times that "Darwinists" are accused of doing just that, i.e., covering up the supposedly massive evidence for ID in order to perpetuate the lie that all the species of the world are the result of evolution. In fact you yourself make those same accusations.  How does that not make you a rank hypocrite?

Date: 2007/10/02 03:57:30, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Things that seem impossible, might just not be after all.

Is there any proposition, however illogical and supported by evidence, that this sentence couldn't be used to support?

Date: 2007/10/02 04:01:39, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 02 2007,04:09)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,02:41)
As almost everything that has ever lived is extinct what does that say about the ability of this "designer" to plan?

Why bother to front-load if the organism is going extinct anyway?

Every living thing dies.  Everything.

It would sure seem that natural selection would have overcome that little hiccup by now doesn't it?

It's amazing how convincing one's antintellectual meanderings become, once one simply applies boldfacing, italics, and underlining at the same time.  You do know you can use colored fonts, right?  There's smilies, too!  Then you'd really be proving your invisible and ineffective sky daddy.

Date: 2007/10/02 05:35:38, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 01 2007,22:03)
LOL!  Kitzmiller vs. Dover has been over for almost 2 years now, but the IDiots are still bellyaching about it.

Question:  How much ID research was done in the 22 months since the ruling came out?

Answer:  The same amount that was done in the preceding 13.7 billion years.  :D  :D  :D  :D

I edited your comment (in bold) for higher accuracy.

Date: 2007/10/02 06:50:30, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 02 2007,04:09)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 02 2007,02:41)
As almost everything that has ever lived is extinct what does that say about the ability of this "designer" to plan?

Why bother to front-load if the organism is going extinct anyway?

Every living thing dies.  Everything.

It would sure seem that natural selection would have overcome that little hiccup by now doesn't it?

It's amazing how easily MET can be disproven, simply by posing a rhetorical question.  Clearly, now that scientists are finally faced with this one killer question--one that they've never thought of before and cannot answer--they can all just throw up their hands and admit goddidit.  I'm sure they were getting tired of faking all the evidence, suppressing all the ID research, etc. anyway.  Now they can just go to church for their answers, since DanTard has slain the Darwinist beast with this historic zinger.

Date: 2007/10/02 07:58:44, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (k.e @ Oct. 01 2007,23:13)
[quote]
In a discussion with an IDer a couple days ago, the IDer went as far as saying that if we had ID around 30 years ago, we would now know what all the "junk DNA" is used for.[quote]

As soon as we had ID, we knew goddidit, it wouldn't have taken 30 years.

Date: 2007/10/02 09:14:45, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 01 2007,05:56)
   
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Oct. 01 2007,04:05)
   
Quote
No one would work so hard at supporting something that they know to be patently false
It's funny.  I've seen you comment a lot at UD, so obviously you read the posts and comments.  I've never seen you respond with this same point the hundreds of times that "Darwinists" are accused of doing just that, i.e., covering up the supposedly massive evidence for ID in order to perpetuate the lie that all the species of the world are the result of evolution. In fact you yourself make those same accusations.  How does that not make you a rank hypocrite?

Excellent point OT. FTK, any response?

I'll take FTK's lack of response as acknowledgement that she is indeed a rank hypocrite and knows this.  I assume this just gets mentally filed under some subsection of the ever-acceptable Lying For Jesus exceptions to the moral/ethical behavior theists are so well known to claim exclusive basis for.  Anything is OK if it advances the Goddidit Hypothesis.

Date: 2007/10/02 09:20:40, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Is it too late to edit the posting subheading to add the scare quotes DanTard has shown are so appropriate?
   
Quote
Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism?

For Daniel Smith to present his "argument"

Date: 2007/10/02 10:48:31, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (dochocson @ Oct. 02 2007,11:24)
Check it out, guys, Dembski posted an apology! (Unless one of you guys hacked the site)

Part of the text:

"I’ve removed all three posts and herewith extend a public apology to the Baylor administration and Board of Regents for these actions on this blog. In offering this apology, however, I mean in no way to mitigate the gravity of Baylor’s wrong in censoring the research of Robert Marks and his Evolutionary Informatics Lab."

I'm unclear on the defining elements of a notpology. Does this qualify?

(edit) On further review, I'm leaning toward notpology, since he claims that with his bad behavior, he "succumbed to the 'low polemic' " embraced by us sciency types.

How many public apologies does one person have to make before they start thinking first and acting second the next time they get the impulse to attack someone and/or make outrageous accusations about them publicly?

Date: 2007/10/06 10:08:10, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
FTK, I'm quite appalled at the time you spend here at AtBC.  Don't you have a family to spend time with?

Date: 2007/10/11 07:10:12, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 11 2007,08:06)
Over at "her" blog FTK seyz
 
Quote
My personal feeling is that both materialist and non-materialist theories should be studied in conjunction with one another as a means of checks and balances.


FTK, could you tell us all how you would study a non-materialist theory?

Or maybe just name one?

Date: 2007/10/12 04:27:33, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

I just don't get your collective fascination with this stupid, self-absorbed, dishonest woman.

FTK:  "blah blah blah....non-materialist theories should be studied....blah blah blah"

Obvious Question:  "Please name a non-materialist theory."

FTK:  "You guys are mean, blah blah blah, don't you have anything better to do than hang out on this board for hours each day (but only half as much as I do), blah blah blah, oh, I'm being bombarded with questions, blah blah blah, evolution is a religion, blah blah blah, I'm really busy right now, blah blah blah, I heart YEC I mean I don't heart YEC I mean I need to study it more (while kissing YEC ass on every other board I frequent), blah blah blah, I already answered that question, blah blah blah...."

Repeat ad nauseum.

Date: 2007/10/12 12:09:16, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
the Church Burnin’ Ebola Boy belief that ID is religion in disguise

Some disguise:          
Quote
CDesign Proponentsists

About as convincing as Superman's Clark Kent disguise.


 

Christian apologetics can put on glasses and comb its hair different, but nobody's fooled (except via willing suspension of disbelief, just like in the movie theater).

Date: 2007/10/17 07:17:13, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 16 2007,20:47)
So let me get this straight, according to the tree of life, we are all just animals.

Christopher's been talking to trees, apparently.  I can't say I'm surprised.
Quote
So if I terminate your life, it doesn't really matter, as it is no different from a spider eating the same species of spider.

In what relevant sense could it be said to not matter?  It would matter to me, obviously, as I have a natural instinct to stay alive and will (like all living things, religious or not) struggle vigorously to prevent being "terminated."  It would matter to my family, because they are emotionally attached to me and because I provide a significant proportion of their material support.  It would matter to the legal authorities, because they are vested with the responsibility to make sure people are not "terminated" by religious wackos like you or anyone else.  It would matter to the company where I work, because there are tasks that I am expected to get done and significant costs that would be incurred in replacing me.  And it would matter to my community, because they would live in increased fear of violence due to, apparently, a creationist nut who goes around "terminating" people to score irrelevant rhetorical points against a scientific theory he repeatedly demonstrates that he doesn't understand.

In short, of course it would matter.  What does this have to do with whether the available scientific evidence concerning the origins of biological diversity is best explained by MET?  Look up "argument from consequences."  It's a well-known logical fallacy.  Look that one up too, "fallacy."  If your argument is fallacious, and it is, that means that it can't be said to prove anything regardless of what premises you accept.

Date: 2007/10/17 12:23:07, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
If we are just animals, then what is the reason to not behave like animals?

Because acting "like animals" gets poor results and everyone knows it.  Whatever your moral foundation, failure to abide by the rules of civilized society quickly gets one cut off from the benefits thereof.  People like to pretend that their "moral" behavior is motivated by some lofty set of objective ideals, but the fact is that people follow moral and ethical standards first and foremost because they realize that that is the best way to achieve access to social and material resources.  If I start "terminating" other people, even assuming that there's some short-term benefit to me, it will quickly result in me being ostracized, hunted, and either eliminated or permanently deprived of access to the things I want.  So why would I?  The few people who do choose that course of action aren't lacking in supervision by a supernatural being, they're mainly just sociopaths.

And where do you get the assumption that anyone w would want to kill others, or that it might necessarily be beneficial to do so?  Sounds to me like you're the immoral pig, restrained only by fear of some omnipotent boogeyman from carrying out your savage impulses.  I would hazard a guess that most or all of the evilutionists on this board share neither your blood lust nor your assumption that there would be something to be gained by indulging in it.

I find it interesting that you not only claim to be interested in science but are a science teacher, yet every time you're asked to address substantive questions about your idiotic assertions, you decline to do so and instead start talking about praying and heaven and crap like that. Don't enter the discussion if you're not willing/able to sustain it.  Clearly you're not.  I'm sorry that you teach young people science or anything else.

Date: 2007/10/18 09:53:13, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Guest @ Oct. 17 2007,13:15)
Evolution can be replaced by new terms, including evolution, involution, descent of girasas' angels into forms once held by human angels and the effecting change in those forms.

You forgot unvolution, nonvolution, antivolution, and yousayyouwannarevolution.

Date: 2007/10/19 07:43:59, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 18 2007,17:32)
looks like the moderation policy is randomly mutating...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/comment-policy/moderation/

Funny, once I squinted through all the nonsense characters to see what was actually written, I thought for a second that someone had hacked their site and defaced their comment policy with crazy crap.  Then I looked at Google cache and sure enough, it's been crazy crap all along.

Date: 2007/10/19 07:55:09, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 19 2007,00:41)
By the way, what I do not F&$#ing understand about that photo of Davetard is that on first impression it seems to have been taken or cropped by someone who understood the rule of thirds. That's puzzling, because generally the ID people don't know anything about anything.

Perhaps it was an accident.

It looks pretty clear to me that it's a cellphone self-portrait.  I doubt that D'Tard knows anything about the Rule of Thirds, but as the UD Banning Czar he's a key part of the Rule of Tards.

Date: 2007/10/19 11:42:40, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 18 2007,22:25)
Like happened with coffee years ago, I finally got a beer palate. I can really detect and distinguish the basic flavors. Thoughts so far:

Stout: bleh
Porters: eh, they're okay. Guiness is pretty good.
Ales: Good. Sierra Nevada Pale Ale is f&%$ing fantastic.
Lagers: Tasteless but okay.

Hear hear on the SNPA.  The pile of empties in my recycling closet is so big it's #$&#%@ embarassing.

Date: 2007/10/22 11:43:39, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I can try and add Dembski's face if I get some time later today.

Just leave out the sweater please.

Date: 2007/10/23 07:52:27, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 23 2007,08:27)
****DING, DING, DING, DING****

[FtK finally understands where you're going with this.]

Okay, yes, I understand now, and you've explained it much clearer this time around.  I hadn't understood where you were going with this in our earlier conversations.  This is not new to me, and I've heard it explained with examples other than the flagellum.  

You're still not going to be happy with me because it is very difficult to give a yes or no to your question because there are many, many things going through my mind right that make it difficult to answer your question with a yes or no.

You know I'm very verbose when I start thinking these things through, so do you want the long version or do you want me to just say....I can't really give you a yes or no.  Part of me says yes, I get what you're saying and understand the reason why you feel Behe is refuted, yet I also have many reasons flying through my head which lead me to believe that no, he hasn't been refuted.

So...I can't answer the question with a yes or no!!!

Or, in 186 fewer words, "I can't answer."

Date: 2007/10/23 11:10:05, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 23 2007,11:28)
Not many bac. flag.s recently though. Ooops, they're not I.C.

Bac Flag?  I thought they broke up back in the 80's.

Date: 2007/10/23 13:39:37, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I am insulted that you treat me as some sort of an idiot

Christopher, I really don't think that this is true.

I think that as it becomes clearer and clearer exactly what sort of idiot you are, we are adjusting our treatment of you so as to treat you as just that kind of idiot.

Date: 2007/10/25 06:54:36, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 19 2007,18:09)
[runs like the wind as she feels the breath of the hounds of hell fast at her heels]

That's not the breath of the hounds of hell, it's the rest of us collectively yawning in boredom.

Date: 2007/10/29 04:00:35, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 28 2007,23:38)
Test post.

Hey!  I'm posting using voice recognition software.  Hurrah, it works!

So you actually spoke the word "hurrah"?

Date: 2007/10/30 17:16:17, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 30 2007,15:03)
There's been a lot of strange things reported today, like Larry Fafarman's Kind Confederate b.s....

Link?

Date: 2007/10/31 15:31:42, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Teleological Targeted Newtonian Vector Clusters

With or without nuts?  Oh, William Brookfield.  With nuts.

Date: 2007/11/02 16:37:16, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 02 2007,11:50)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Nov. 01 2007,18:14)
Guys, go take a look the sob stories by the cranks and crackpots (not just IDers) that Ben is publishing on his site http://www.expelledthemovie.com/shoutout_text.php?story=

There is some SERIOUS fun to be had.  .Ben is becoming a magnet for weirdos and I plan to introduce him to a few new ones :-)

From crank.net?  Timecube, perhaps?

Won't you be red-faced when David Thomson of the Quantum AetherDynamics Institute wins his Nobel.

Date: 2007/11/03 07:56:01, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (BWE @ Nov. 02 2007,23:44)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 02 2007,20:23)
I heard that he wears a cod.

he stole that from me. :)

The cod, or the joke?

Date: 2007/11/05 10:10:04, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Initially this conversation started due to the complaint that supposedly God condones incest.  

I explained why I believe that is not the case as the bible condemns this type of behavior, yet from a biblical perspective Adam and Eve's sons would have obviously married siblings, and incest between sibling may have gone on for some time in *very* early history due to the need to populate the earth

So your god created the world such that incest was A) explicitly prohibited, i.e, sin; and B) essential to the implementation of his plan.  Way to set you up to fail.

You should really seek help getting out of that abusive relationship, even if your boyfriend is imaginary.

Date: 2007/11/05 10:39:24, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (afdave @ Nov. 05 2007,11:24)
Enceladus is a small moon orbiting the planet Saturn.  Interestingly, it has a miniature "Hydroplate Theory" scenario going on right now.  Read more about it HERE. You can read about Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory of the Global Flood at http://www.creationscience.com.  I have begun to discuss the Hydroplate Theory at IIDB.  Click HERE for some interesting links in the discussion.

Note the similarities to Walt Brown's Hydroplate Model ...

* Tidal Heating
* Pressurized Liquid Water below surface
* Water and ice being ejected into the orbit of a larger neighboring body

Notice that in Walt's model, the ejecta leaves earth and ALSO enters the orbit of a larger, neighboring body -- THE SUN

Now ... of course there are many differences as well and it will be fun to examine these and other issues surrounding this fascinating little moon.

Click HERE for an ongoing discussion about this at my favorite place to get commentary from non-creationist scientists ... IIDB.

Mmmmm.  I could really go for some enceladus right now.

Date: 2007/11/05 12:04:42, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Polegreaser @ Nov. 05 2007,12:24)
show hos love

PG, I thought I was.  I loves dem hos.

Date: 2007/11/06 08:11:15, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 06 2007,08:54)
Ray Martinez? The same Ray Martinez that trolled T.O. for what seemed like several epochs?

Hmmmm if it IS him, then it's yet another datum that internet trolls are actually just a cluster of a few maladjusted losers who desperately need a shag and a beer.

I mean, who desperately need a shag and a beer more than normal people need a shag and a beer and who need them in some remedial fashion.

;-)

Louis

Of course, the therapeutic value of a shag or a beer is much diminished, when one has invested one's life in hating oneself for thinking about either.

If Polegreaser had a shag, according to his theology, this might very well cause god to create a virus or bacteria that would kill hundreds of thousands of poor people each year.  Of course, this wouldn't bother Ray, as he thinks the victims deserve it, because only he himself passes his personal explanatardy filtard for christian-ness sufficient to warrant being treated as a human being.

Date: 2007/11/08 05:54:48, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 08 2007,01:41)
Quote
Although, I've been wondering who the "16 lawyers and legal scholars" are?

Luskin, for sure.  deWolf.

BarryA at UD?

Whoever they are, I bet adding Larry Fafarman would probably raise the competence level of the group.

Date: 2007/11/08 08:15:47, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 08 2007,07:05)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 08 2007,11:54)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 08 2007,01:41)
 
Quote
Although, I've been wondering who the "16 lawyers and legal scholars" are?

Luskin, for sure.  deWolf.

BarryA at UD?

Whoever they are, I bet adding Larry Fafarman would probably raise the competence level of the group.

Impossible.

Larry Farfromsane is negatively competent in any field other than sitting on a toilet the right way round. And to be honest I don't even trust him to do that.

If you keep adding negative numbers, you just get a bigger negative number.

I despair I share a species with these loons.

Louis

Evidence please, for your assertion that Fafarman knows how to sit on the toilet properly.

Date: 2007/11/08 10:15:48, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 08 2007,10:50)
Quote
bornagain77: The SETI organization has branches in several states with radio telescopes and high-end computers in each state, vainly listening for that extra-terrestrial voice from the sky. They are indeed a well equipped and well endowed organization.

The SETI Institute is a privately supported organization and has established a goal to create a $100 million sustaining endowment.

Quote
bornagain77: They were reviewing the fact that though there have been some false alarms that has caused some major excitement, there has never actually been any received transmission from an extra-terrestrial intelligence, within the 40 years that SETI has operated. The interviewer was questioning a “scientist” at his computer bank when the “scientist” said. “We got the equipment to listen. If they ever call we will be listening. We are just waiting for them to call”. And with that being said, in the next instance the telephone rang right behind the “scientist”. Though he made a joke and said that it was probably the extra-terrestrial intelligence calling, He failed to see the humor that God poured into that situation. Whoever was actually on the Phone is besides the point. It could have been a telemarketer for that matter. The main point that he had missed is that the phone rang exactly when he had said “if an extra terrestrial intelligence ever calls we will be listening”, on national T.V. no less. I have news for that scientist, God was calling and in His sovereignty made that phone ring at that particular instance and indeed the “scientist” was not really listening for “some strange signal from the sky” though he was proclaiming that he was “listening” for some strange signal from the sky. I had to laugh at the whole situation for I have seen God speak many, many, many times using such remarkable “supernatural coincidences” to get His point across.

Apparently, God is a telemarketer.

Obviously, BA77 is an idiot.

Date: 2007/11/12 16:34:40, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
He put two and two together and got “kill everyone whom I deem to be inferior.”

Which makes exactly as much sense as "He put Darwin and Nietzsche together and got 4."

Date: 2007/11/16 07:02:18, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 16 2007,07:46)
Waaaaaaaaahterloo

"Evolution" isn't a fair comparison term because the word is used in so many non-biological contexts.

Let's see how "Intelligent Design" does against two of its intellectual equals, which can be represented by quite unambiguous search terms**:



I must admit, I didn't expect this result.  But it does make sense.

**Disclaimer:  I will not be held responsible for the psychological effects resulting from anyone searching these terms and viewing the results.

Date: 2007/11/16 09:23:41, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 16 2007,09:01)
     
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 16 2007,07:02)
       
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 16 2007,07:46)
Waaaaaaaaahterloo

"Evolution" isn't a fair comparison term because the word is used in so many non-biological contexts.

Let's see how "Intelligent Design" does against two of its intellectual equals, which can be represented by quite unambiguous search terms**:



I must admit, I didn't expect this result.  But it does make sense.

**Disclaimer:  I will not be held responsible for the psychological effects resulting from anyone searching these terms and viewing the results.


Yeah, well it's still not fair.  The flatline that is ID has not yet properly reflected the Michael Medved Bounce.  Once everybody knows Sasquatch Man Medford is "down wit da DI", that line will spike like Dembski seeing Denyse in the shower.

It's hard to tell from the graph but I'm not sure that the "Intelligent design" and "Michael Medved" results added together would even be as popular as either goatse or tubgirl.



I tried the search just for laughs, assuming that ID would of course be searched more often than the two most disgusting images on the intertubes, but no.  In terms of popularity, this is kind of like a restaurant that claims its food is delicious and extremely popular, when in fact the guy in the sidewalk vending cart out front is pulling down twice as much revenue selling feces-dipped roadkill-on-a-stick.

Date: 2007/11/16 10:26:48, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Other searches more popular than intelligent design:

Flatulence
Scabies
Ebola
Britney spears underwear
Crystal meth
Boring
Stupid
Dull

Date: 2007/12/10 15:37:13, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 10 2007,14:43)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 10 2007,09:17)
Poachy, as last man standing, should probably press the issue regarding the failure to calculate the amount of CSI in a crunchy* peanut butter sandwich.  What a shame to ban an inquisitive bright young lady over a culinary debate.

*it can be smooth.  We never got the downlow which had more CSI, smooth or crunchy.

At least we know who the Intelligent Designer is:


Booker T. Washington

You mean George Washington Carver.

Date: 2007/12/11 11:18:09, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Jake @ Dec. 11 2007,08:30)
I wonder what happened in May 2007?

A stupid professional simulated wrestling event.  It's an annual stupid event, which you can see stupidly peaking at the same stupid time annually if you expand the search result graph to show all years.

Date: 2007/12/20 15:35:11, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 20 2007,15:38)
Dembski himself developed from a few Kg to about 70-80 Kg.

When did Dembski lose 20 Kg?  Girly-man looks about 60 max to me.

Date: 2007/12/20 16:25:37, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Mister DNA @ Dec. 20 2007,16:38)
 
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Dec. 20 2007,15:35)
   
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 20 2007,15:38)
Dembski himself developed from a few Kg to about 70-80 Kg.

When did Dembski lose 20 Kg?  Girly-man looks about 60 max to me.

That sweater has gotta add 10 pounds at the very least.



The sweater wears him.

Date: 2007/12/21 10:39:42, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Davetard @ The Deepest Abyss of Tard)
The genetic code of modern whales existed in a repressed form in the cell line leading to whales. An environmental trigger in the distant past caused a chromosome reorganization to occur which in turn led to a saltation. This is in complete accord with the indisputable testimony of the fossil record which of course is a record of abrupt emergence of radically new phenotypes followed by long periods of stability...

OK, so one day the genetic code of one species reorganized itself and poof, a new species.  Hmmm.  So mom and dad were, hippos or, say, deer, but baby pops out and it's....a whale?  I hope mom was standing near the shoreline.

How is a "saltation" event different from a cat giving birth to a dog, or any of the other absurd examples IDiots like to say evolution requires?  It looks like D'Tard thinks we might still get our "dat."  Won't the UD faithful be surprised when they realize ID predicted that!  Big tent indeed.

Date: 2007/12/21 11:08:44, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 21 2007,12:06)
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 21 2007,10:35)
You don't have to worry about JAM arguments. His concept of many basic bilological words are wrong.    

Where did you get your training in 'bilology', Martin?

He's bilious, anyway.

Date: 2007/12/21 11:13:31, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Edit:remove double post

Date: 2007/12/21 11:16:33, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
But you know, Feynmann is an expert on quantum mechanics and maybe he should more discuss his opinions with evolutionary biologists (JAM etc...).

Feynman's dead.  Has been for 19 years.

Judging by the age of the biology research VM likes to cite, he's not that up to date on anything else.  So I guess it's understandable he hasn't heard about Feynman's passing.  

I wonder if he knows about Czechoslovakia breaking up yet.

Date: 2007/12/21 11:18:08, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 21 2007,12:09)
Front loading knows:

Future climates
Future environments
How all the other front loaded creatures will evolve.

It's all in there, from the start. But, mutations can only destroy information, apparently.


"Think-poof" is more convincing.

More like "think-proof."

Date: 2007/12/21 12:49:30, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 21 2007,12:35)
Occam at "Evolution of horse" thread:

     
Quote

Feynman's dead.  Has been for 19 years.

Judging by the age of the biology research VM likes to cite, he's not that up to date on anything else.  So I guess it's understandable he hasn't heard about Feynman's passing.


But Feynman's explanation of interfernce of single electron passing two slots is still valid explanation of the phenomenon as far as I know.

Moder quantum physics use very often "outdated" or "transcedent" ideas of Rennaisance scientists of "symetry" of the world. We observe "symetry" also in structure of living organisms. But biologists do not consider such "symetry" playing any role in evolution. You know darwinism is a naturalistic theory from 19 century which didn't consider such ideas as "symetry" as valid explanation of anything.

I was referring to your notion of Feynman having a discussion with someone:
 
Quote
But you know, Feynmann is an expert on quantum mechanics and maybe he should more discuss his opinions with evolutionary biologists

How's the weather in Czechoslovakia?

Date: 2008/01/08 15:15:20, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (D'OL @ Uncommonly Dense)
For more, go here

What is it about the IDiot brain that prevents linking normally, by embedding the link like this, as part of the text in the post? Instead they feel they need to provide every link like this:  
Quote
For more information, go to the end of the sentence you are currently reading, then click on the hyperlink you will find under the word "here", which is right here: here.

Dolts.

Date: 2008/01/10 16:40:39, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 10 2008,15:01)
Odd though.  I don't remember reading the part about the microwave.  The meds do weird things to my memory though, so maybe it's just me.

Lou - To refresh your memory -

The book of Matthew also contains the passage: "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it in the microwave at 50% power for 120 seconds. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."

Someone's getting hungry.....



Edit: Because I'm an effing idiot who originally quoted the wrong post.

Date: 2008/01/18 11:15:58, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 18 2008,01:12)
wonder what's going on at the thrilling website Young Cosmos. Wonder what's the top post?

 
Quote
God bless the creationist NASCAR hero and head coach of the Redksins!
Comments (0)
Posted in Uncategorized by scordova @ Jan 5, 2008

I mentioned here that the Seattle Seahawks and Washington Redskins are playing in todays wildcard playoff.


Real threat to mainstream science, these geniuses.

The Redskins lost the game (I assume because the Seahawks prayed harder), and Gibbs resigned 4 days later.

Date: 2008/01/25 11:50:08, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 25 2008,12:15)
vmartin, what if you asked a question here and no one cared?

You seem to be frustrated that no one is taking your questions seriously, no one is jumping out of their chair to provide you the answers about human testicles you so desperately want.

Have you considered the lack of an answer suggests no one gives a rats ass about your retarded understanding of biology and evolution?

Have you considered no one cares if you have a retarded understanding of "darwinism"?

I kind of enjoy your ignorance and hope no one helps you overcome it.

Obviously, if Darwinismus wasn't such an irretrievably flawed theorismus, the Evolutionist poopyheads who read this thread would be able to provide a comprehensive Darwinoidical explanismus for any biological phenomenismus VM might care to cite.  The fact that you obviously cannot do this clearly demonstrates that VM's favored explanismus, which he does not have to provide*, must be correct by default.  Don't you get it?

__

*According to his buddy JAD, the explanismus in this case would be "god made descending testicles, then he died".  I love it so!

Date: 2008/01/28 08:56:30, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush

Date: 2008/01/30 16:14:51, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
FtK

01/30/2008

2:11 pm
Here’s more crap being slung by the media.

“Hart also cited “the failure to adequately understand – and consequently convey to the public – the fact that the theory of intelligent design is consensually regarded, in the scientific community, as absolute horse**** unworthy of serious consideration … thereby propagating, again, the illusion that there is substantive scientific debate on the topic (as opposed to the matter being settled, which it is, and unfit for inclusion in our nation’s science classes).”

Wow, FtK, for once you're right; that is a load of crap.  Everyone knows there is no "ID theory", so for the scientific community to regard it as "absolute horse**** unworthy of serious consideration" is impossible. There's nothing to consider.

Stupid journalists.

Date: 2008/01/31 07:02:14, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (PTET @ Jan. 31 2008,02:14)
   
Quote
GilDodgen
01/30/2008
11.15 pm

If, through my influence and the evidence of design, even one person should be liberated from the burden and curse of the nihilism under which I labored for so many years, I will consider my life to have been well-lived.


Holy cow.

How does evidence that life on earth may have been created by, say, space aliens save Gil or anyone else from nihilism?  Since ID doesn't specify anything about the designer, whatever evidence he's talking about may just as well point to an advanced civilization that seeded Earth with frontloaded bacteria designed to evolve life here into a food source, conveniently situated here for them to dine upon at some future date when they choose to drop back in again.  It doesn't get much more nihilistic than that, does it Gil?

[Edited so I could make a self-referential note that I edited it]

Date: 2008/02/02 10:14:14, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
I think it's the diagnostic criteria for narcissism that would be relevant to the question, Thought Revoker, not the dictionary definition.  Excessive focus on dictionary definitions instead of scientific ones, of course, do seem to be quite emblematic of anti-science activists...

BTW, I'm not asserting that you are a narcissist by these criteria; I haven't paid a lot of attention to your comments here because I don't find your original post or this one very relevant to the EvC conflict which (mostly) brings me here.  I will say however, you're not as much of a narcissist as Larry Fafarman.  FWIW.

Date: 2008/02/04 06:12:29, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Feb. 04 2008,04:56)
 
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 04 2008,03:31)
More of Denyse's trenchant analysis:
   
Quote
Seven years ago, when I Googled “intelligent design”, I would get some thousands of entries, which included ergonomic desks and such. Now there are over 5.5 million entries. That is partly the growth of the Internet, but surely not all.

So, obviously, the ID guys must have something going for them.

Well, she's correct. Now ID has dozens of anti-ID blogs for each pro-ID blog.

Uncommon Descent:  We delete more comments before 9 AM than most anti-ID sites get all day.

Date: 2008/02/04 08:42:59, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 04 2008,08:34)
Looks like DS is that stupid after all
         
Quote
I’ve been informed that the peanut gallery (Panda’s Thumb) is accusing me of covering something up for deleting my very brief post about the Simmons/Myers debate. I made the posting a few hours before the debate and included a hotlink so people could listen to it live. I’d intended at the time of writing to remove it after the debate was over as the live link would no longer be working.

Sure, DS, sure. It's not the post being deleted that people are being critical about. It's the comments, moron!

That must be why on the "restored" page the comments admitting PZ had the upper hand were not "restored" along with the post itself. DS, why not also restore the comments to their original form, if being perceived as honest is a concern?
Link

There's no evidence anywhere on UD that anyone perceives them as dishonest, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.  According to all the comments I can see, every single commenter at UD is perfectly happy with UD's comment moderation practices.

[Edited for increased sarcasm]

Date: 2008/02/05 12:08:40, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Guest @ Feb. 05 2008,12:34)
I personally believe that a "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable way(s) of identifying Jews and non-Jews.

And you think there is evidence that the Nazis were scrupulously careful about making sure that they only brutalized the exact people they intended to?  They started a war of conquest that killed over 30 million people in Europe, for fuck's sake--not even counting the 6+ million Jewish people you apparently think are just a figment of history's imagination.

Larry, you're a Complete.  Fucking.  Idiot.  I'd have more respect for someone who thought it was perfectly OK that the Nazis systematically exterminated 11 million people in the camps, than you, who adopts your evil revisionist bullshit just to provoke and get attention for your worthless shell of a self; at least that person would be honest, if also irredeemably odious like you.  You should be banned not only from PT but from the human race.  Your only redeeming feature is that you might be seriously mentally ill and could some day get help and get better.  Unless and until you show some progress toward that goal, drop dead, please.

Date: 2008/02/05 13:02:47, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 05 2008,11:49)
Has you seed this:

http://www.caseyluskin.com./

?

Ha ha.  From there:
 
Quote
The official purpose of this website is NOT to create a narcissistic URL with my name. Quite frankly I could care less if there is a "caseyluskin.com" out there. The purpose is to have some measure of quality control over the first hit people see on internet search engines if they have the odd desire to search for my name.

Of course, nothing says quality control like having a superfluous dot after your URL ("caseyluskin.com."), or a top-notch graphic like this:

Ouch.

Date: 2008/02/05 16:48:23, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I am willing to consider further participation in this thread, if Mr. Munger is willing to start enforcing a moderating principle that removes any personal attacks from both past and future posts on this thread.

Don't do us any favors, Caseykins.

What are you willing to consider doing if we give you a pony?

Date: 2008/02/06 04:15:12, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote

larrynormanfan
Davison is no crank in his area of expertise. Not even close.

No, not if you recognize that his "area of expertise" is creating blogs that consist of a single post by him, followed by 800 comments.  By him.  In that area, he's outstanding in the field.

Date: 2008/02/06 10:00:03, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
I have no reason to presume there are “rules” behind using any 117 X 87 pixel graphic.

Date: 2008/02/06 11:06:02, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 06 2008,11:33)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Feb. 06 2008,04:15)
Quote

larrynormanfan
Davison is no crank in his area of expertise. Not even close.

No, not if you recognize that his "area of expertise" is creating blogs that consist of a single post by him, followed by 800 comments.  By him.  In that area, he's outstanding in the field.


NICE AVATAR!

Thank you for the compliment, but don't even think of putting it to your own use, as I will aggressively protect my copyright to it.

Date: 2008/02/06 11:14:51, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Feb. 06 2008,12:06)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 06 2008,11:33)
   
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Feb. 06 2008,04:15)
   
Quote

larrynormanfan
Davison is no crank in his area of expertise. Not even close.

No, not if you recognize that his "area of expertise" is creating blogs that consist of a single post by him, followed by 800 comments.  By him.  In that area, he's outstanding in the field.


NICE AVATAR!

Thank you for the compliment, but don't even think of putting it to your own use, as I will aggressively protect my copyright to it.

I'm sorry, scratch my last threat.  I've just been informed by my lawyer, Casey Luskin, that there is an obscure provision in copyright law specifically exempting 117 x 87 pixel graphics from protection of any kind, so steal away.

Date: 2008/02/06 15:51:27, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Feb. 06 2008,16:44)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 06 2008,14:11)
Wooo-weeeee!



THIS IS AWESUM. IT HAS EVERYTHING YOU WANT IN A SCIENCE TYPE DRAWING SKEMATIC.

IT HAS ACHRONIMS, MULYDIMENSIONALITIES AND ETCH-A-SKETCH, ALL HAPPENING AT ONCE. TAKE THAT, DARWIMPS!

from here:

http://icon-rids.blogspot.com/2007....am.html

You have to see the description next to that diagram to get the full tard. These guys have got to be cargo cultists.

 
Quote
In this schematic diagram "structure" and the "information" that codes for it, are represented as vertical (Z-axis) amplitude. Positive Z-axis motion (upward) requires intelligent design. Both "natural selection and "random mutation" being context insensitive are subsequently incapable of producing new structure/information.


This sounds like crap that I'd invent, except I actually attempt some logic at least. I mean, if you translate it to English it says:

'Only intelligent design can increase information, therefore natural selection and random mutation cannot increase information.'

Seriously, I want ID to spread this research as far and wide as possible. It has rather a spreadable texture.

Kind of like the way a rich creamy dog turd tends to spread once you get it stuck to your shoe.

Date: 2008/02/07 07:57:08, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Annyday @ Feb. 07 2008,08:35)
     
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 07 2008,07:21)
DaveT on how science ought to work:        
Quote
A scientist who discredits the work of another is not winning friends in the process. Ruining the work of another takes away jobs while not creating any new ones. I was recently involved in a discussion of this in another forum with hundreds of scientists. Nearly all agreed that science needs what I termed “official falsifiers” whose sole task is finding flaws in the work of others. Jokes ensued that the holders of that job would need tenure, an armored Humvee, bodyguards, a windowless office, martial arts training, a hotline to the FBI witness protection program, no family, and not be concerned about being hated and scorned by everyone like he was the grim reaper. Jokes aside, it’s a real problem.

Welcome to the real world, Dave.  There already is such a process.  It's called anonymous peer review.

... how does he NOT KNOW THIS? How?!

He does know it, he just doesn't like the way things currently work and is dreaming of a day when the shock troops of science-discrediting are controlled by him and people like him, who get to force science to return the preordained results they want.  And when he says...
     
Quote
holders of that job would need tenure, an armored Humvee, bodyguards, a windowless office, martial arts training, a hotline to the FBI witness protection program, no family, and not be concerned about being hated and scorned by everyone like he was the grim reaper

...he's not joking, he's fantasizing.  It's the one time he takes his right hand out of the cheesy poofs bag and puts it to another use.

Date: 2008/02/07 17:38:58, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 07 2008,18:19)
The DI headline:
   
Quote
STELLAR ASTRONOMER GUILLERMO GONZALEZ DENIED FAIR HEARING BY IOWA STATE BOARD OF REGENTS
By: Discovery Staff
Discovery Institute
February 7, 2008...

Is "stellar" really the superlative you want to couple with "astronomer?"

"fair hearing" = "got what he wanted"

"unfair hearing" = "didn't get what he wanted"

Date: 2008/02/08 18:32:15, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 08 2008,19:18)
It's not a notpology. I apologize, I retract, whatever it takes.

I haven't even read the thread and it's obvious this is an utterly bogus apology.  A real apology acknowledges the wrong done, it doesn't just say "sorry for whatever, can we forget about it".

Not that anything FtK says ever means anything even slightly substantial anyway.

Date: 2008/08/01 12:40:11, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Vox Day = (Heddle x GoP) - Brain

Date: 2008/08/19 18:13:40, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 19 2008,09:34)
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]<br/><br/>how can waterboarding be torture when we use it as training for our own troops?

I remember being tear-gassed in the Navy in the name of "training" and it was "optional."  Was I tortured by my own government?

How can having some crazy fanatic who hates you and everyone like you burn your face with acid be torture, when your family doctor might use the same type of acid to burn a wart off your face?

Are you really as stupid as you appear or is this some type of performance art project?

Date: 2008/08/22 17:24:47, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
What is the difference between 'religious creationism' and 'magic man done it creationism'?

Nothing; they both unfairly dismiss 'space aliens done did it creationism.'

Date: 2008/09/19 11:51:36, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 19 2008,10:26)
During her short time in junior college, I'm starting to suspect FTK would have been one of those students who raises her hand with a look of total boredom and asks "Will this be on the test???"

She would probably also have been one of the twits who, when the professor assigned a three-page essay, would ask, "both sides?"

Date: 2009/03/23 09:06:57, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 23 2009,07:29)
Where does this old boy live?

I'd be happy to take it to the papers there or better yet if he lived around Raleigh.

IIRC Joe lives in or around Manchester, NH.

Date: 2009/03/28 12:25:28, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 28 2009,10:00)
   
Quote
For life it involved just the right combination of molecules and conditions coming together, (washing up on hot isolated rocks or whatever), and building the very first self-replicators, which in turn became isolated from contaminants so that just the right combination of new molecules washed in to replenish them while just the right combination of "bad" molecules washed out so that eventually proto-membranes were formed, which in turn...  Well you get the idea.

My universe is bigger then yours Daniel.

EDIT: Can you supply a paragraph of similar length describing your version of how life came to be?

I can take that one for you Denial:
 
Quote
Goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit!
And since that has exactly the same number of characters, it would also have the exact same information content (according to Joe G over at unintelligentreasoning).  If you squint real hard, it's also a cake recipe.

Date: 2009/03/29 12:55:39, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 29 2009,02:30)
 
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 24 2009,12:49)
[URL=http://www.examiner.com/x-2398-Boston-Top-News-Examiner~y2009m3d24-Alaskas-Mt-Redoubt-erupts-fourt-times-Bobby-Jin






dal-said-volcano-monitoring-is-wasteful#comments]Ha ha ha, I crack myself up sometimes[/URL].
     
Quote
Well, I'm sure that Jindal is convinced now that volcano "watching" is "wasteful." The volcano still erupted, didn't it? Scientists didn't stop the eruption, did they? Because scientists don't know anything, and we should funnel more funds toward faith-based initiatives that can actually do something, like exorcisms. ;)

But do you want to be that it's true? :)


Sacrificing virgins used to work.

I find sacrificing virginity is a little less messy, a lot more fun, and equally effective, when it comes to preventing volcanic eruptions.

Date: 2009/03/30 18:16:30, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 30 2009,18:44)
Sig worthy?:      
Quote
bfast (#48):

Thank you for mentioning those interesting news. Obviously, I have never believed in all those goofy attempts of the official academy to cover the embarassing truth of the Ediacara and Cambrian explosions with all kinds of unlikely theories. That is only evidence of how uncomfortable they are with those realities.

And if, in the opinion of JayM, I am “misrepresenting the mainstream view”, I am very happy and proud of that.

And yes, this (like many other things) is MAJOR evidenciary support for ID!

-from gpuccio

New UD strategy:  Treat logic and reason so rudely that they get insulted and leave--ID wins!

Date: 2009/04/09 04:36:14, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I'm learning that God has invested a lot of thought and energy into life on this planet (relatively speaking of course), which makes me think that he was (and probably is) incredibly invested and involved in this thing we call "life" and that he takes all of this very seriously

If your creator god had "infinite intelligence" as you put it, then how can the creation of the universe have been so damn strenuous for her?  Why would an infinitely powerful and eternal being be so deeply invested in one part of her creation, one which is such an infinitesimally small fraction of her overall work?  If a being has an infinite quantity of something (in this case intelligence), how can there be a "relative" aspect to how much of that something the being invests in any given project?  If I have infinite X, and I expend a trillion units of X doing a task, I still have infinite X.  What's "relatively" large about that trillion-unit project, when I can still do an infinite number of additional projects if I want?  Even if you think you know we're the only life in the universe, what evidence do you have that making us is one of the harder things she ever did?  

It's fascinating how you godbots always want to tell us how unknowable the mind of god is at one moment of convenience, then the next thing we know you're telling us all kinds of things you do know about her.  You tell us you're not here to make a scientific argument, but all you do is make sciencey arguments to scientists about science, telling them their science is wrong because of what you "know" about your unknowable god.  

You're incredibly tedious and I have no idea why so many here are willing to engage you at length when you're clearly acting in bad faith and have no intention of learning anything that would cause the slightest irritation to your delicate and worthless presuppositions.

Date: 2009/04/09 15:01:41, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 09 2009,12:07)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ April 09 2009,02:36)
Quote
I'm learning that God has invested a lot of thought and energy into life on this planet (relatively speaking of course), which makes me think that he was (and probably is) incredibly invested and involved in this thing we call "life" and that he takes all of this very seriously

If your creator god had "infinite intelligence" as you put it, then how can the creation of the universe have been so damn strenuous for her?  Why would an infinitely powerful and eternal being be so deeply invested in one part of her creation, one which is such an infinitesimally small fraction of her overall work?  If a being has an infinite quantity of something (in this case intelligence), how can there be a "relative" aspect to how much of that something the being invests in any given project?  If I have infinite X, and I expend a trillion units of X doing a task, I still have infinite X.  What's "relatively" large about that trillion-unit project, when I can still do an infinite number of additional projects if I want?  Even if you think you know we're the only life in the universe, what evidence do you have that making us is one of the harder things she ever did?  

It's fascinating how you godbots always want to tell us how unknowable the mind of god is at one moment of convenience, then the next thing we know you're telling us all kinds of things you do know about her.  You tell us you're not here to make a scientific argument, but all you do is make sciencey arguments to scientists about science, telling them their science is wrong because of what you "know" about your unknowable god.  

You're incredibly tedious and I have no idea why so many here are willing to engage you at length when you're clearly acting in bad faith and have no intention of learning anything that would cause the slightest irritation to your delicate and worthless presuppositions.

So why engage me then?

Because your snappy rhetorical retorts are so devastating.

Date: 2009/04/22 14:46:05, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
God, who cares.  It's all word games to Denial.  He doesn't give a flying fuck about science, and nobody here thinks he does.  Like all such dishonest stealth religious apologetics (and that's all he offers, 100%), the actual useful content of his epistemology is zero--by design.  He's just trying to distract himself and others from reality and prop up his doomed superstitions for one more day, week, or year.

He's like AFDave lite, just not as smart and less energetic.  At least AFD showed us a depth and breadth of applied intentional ignorance that you just don't see every day.  Denial's just another regular guy, with nothing much to say, who can't shut up because he's AFUOJ.*

*All fucked up on Jesus

Edited because they put an edit button up there

Date: 2009/05/20 17:18:48, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (blipey @ May 20 2009,16:49)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 19 2009,22:36)
blipey Joe wants to mate with you and test your offspring

   
Quote
As for clownie I am finished trying to have a discussion with it.

So if it has something to say to me it can do so face to face.

We can then run a simple test of natural selection.

7:39 AM


by the way joe has started a new blog that contains all his best ideas

That's certainly not ALL of them?

Of course not.  Just the good ones.

Date: 2009/06/17 16:24:02, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (blipey @ June 17 2009,12:19)
Joe's now gone back to not publishing my comments because they upset him (or at least his ability to answer questions).  If he can't deal with people on a blog where he can pretend to be a bigshot, how the hell is he going to react when actually confronted with people reality?

Why worry about something so unlikely?

Date: 2009/06/17 16:25:23, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 15 2009,09:58)
He's still going. He sure can calculate CSI, he just wont do it.

But since you can't prove he can't do it, ID wins by default.

Date: 2009/08/07 13:59:51, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Zachriel @ Aug. 07 2009,08:19)
For whatever reason, ID Advocates always stop reading when they find a quote they can mine.

 
Quote
GilDodgen:      
Quote
³The verdict of paleontologists is practically unanimous: almost all agree in opposing [Alfred Wegener's hypothesis that the continents used to be one land mass and have since drifted apart]… The fact that almost all paleontologists say that the paleontological data oppose the various theories of continental drift should, perhaps, obviate further discussion of this point … It must be almost unique in scientific history for a group of students admittedly without special competence in a given field thus to reject the all but unanimous verdict of those who do have such competence.²

George Gaylord Simpson [of Neo-Darwinist fame], ³Mammals and the Nature of Continents, ²American Journal of Science 241 (1943): 1-31, p. 2.

I wonder if GilDodgen considers why the geologists bother with the opinions of paleontologists.

By the way, Simpson was adamantly opposed to Wegener's continental drift theory, proposing filtered land bridges to explain the data.



Here's the paper GilDodgen cited,  Mammals and the Nature of Continents. Reading a bit further.

 
Quote
Simpson: Unlike geological paleogeographers, the students of land faunas are not directly or greatly concerned with the details of coastlines. Their conceptions of continental individuality and stability are broad and relative. For instance an extension of a land area even for several hundred miles beyond a present coast is not likely to be detectable in their materials or to concern them unless this extension was a separate center of evolution or was a path of migration between lands separate at other times. Their continents are diagrammatic, not pictorial, and the paleozoölogist's use of such a term as "stable continent" may lead to misunderstanding unless this distinction of viewpoint is recognized.

So, paleontologists wouldn't care if continents drifted or were connected by land bridges. It's the same to them. So the informal survey of paleontological opinion doesn't reflect a geological claim.



 
Quote
Simpson: It is universally admitted that the distribution of land mammals and of other forms of terrestrial life is only explicable if some continents now separate, e.g. North America and Asia, have formerly been united and if some now united, e.g. North and South America, have formerly been separate. Much of the discussion of paleontological evidence for and against particular sorts of connections have been devoted to the proposition that stated connections did or did not exist. In so simple a form, this discussion is not always pertinent to the problem, because all paleogeographic systems admit and demand that connections did exist.

Wegener originally proposed his continental drift to explain the paleontological data that seemingly required unlikely land bridges, e.g. from Africa to Brazil. Simpson concludes.

 
Quote
Simpson: The known past and present distribution of land mammals cannot be explained by the hypothesis of drifting continents.

Nothing like citing the argument of someone who was wrong.

To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, once you have eliminated all the explanations you refuse to accept, the one that remains, however retarded, is the one which must be taught in public school science class.

Date: 2009/08/30 06:25:49, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 29 2009,23:10)
BUT WHERE IS THE HARD DRIVE FROM HIS APPLE 2E?????//???

The Darwinistas will never be able to prove it's not in Kenya.

Date: 2009/08/30 06:45:23, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 29 2009,21:56)
     
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 29 2009,19:46)
it is amazing that they fail to get this part.

he filed this under "intelligent design".  he thinks it is relevant.  amazing

It's amazing that Barry would either
a) believe this story
b) re-tell the story as it it were true
c) think the story has meaning, other than showing what tards believe.

So if I learn a few Russian profanities, and go around swearing in Russian, the first Russian-speaking person who happens to understand what I'm saying is doing design detection? Really Barry? Really? This is the major new branch of science you claim to be founding?

It's amazing these tards can remember to breathe in again after breathing out, let alone make a cogent scientific argument.

Date: 2009/09/02 16:38:12, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (khan @ Sep. 02 2009,17:20)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 02 2009,17:11)
lololol that is sigworthy

cornytard's most recent episode of getting-some-on-your-leg is pretty funny

   
Quote
3
camanintx
09/02/2009
3:39 pm
An internal combustion engine is irreducibly complexity, for instance. Take away the valve, or the piston, or the spark plug, or the wire, and it does not function.

You do realize that early internal combustion engines didn’t use compression or sparks to function. So much for irreducibly complex.

Besides, the double-acting reciprocating piston pump with a crank-connecting rod mechanism was invented in 1206 for moving water and spark gap generators were invented in 1887 to generate radio signals. Thus the modern internal combustion engine is a perfect example of how existing features can be co-opted to produce new functions.


Very nice.  

swine pearls, etc.

Are the tards incapable of doing research? Or merely philosophically opposed?

A lot of them don't even seem to have any google.

Date: 2009/09/10 07:51:52, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (fusilier @ Sep. 10 2009,07:55)
 
Quote (Dan @ Sep. 10 2009,07:19)
FL claims, on another thread, that he wants to use this forum to address the topic of whether

Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity

Since FL is posting claims not arguments, let me help him out with a very simple argument:

1. The Pope is a Christian.

2. The Pope holds that evolution happens.

{snip}

Over on CARM, FL posts as "mellotron,"  where his most recent tactic has been to imply* he is black, and assert he knows "Darwinism => racism" when he sniffs it.

Most often, he says that the Pope really isn't a Christian - although some Catholics he knows might be.

While the Pope is clearly Christian, I would argue that he's no true Scotsman.

Date: 2009/09/10 07:53:10, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Dan @ Sep. 10 2009,07:19)
FL claims, on another thread, that he wants to use this forum to address the topic of whether

Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity

Since FL is posting claims not arguments, let me help him out with a very simple argument:

1. The Pope is a Christian.

2. The Pope holds that evolution happens.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_fa....en.html

3. Therefore, Evolution is compatible with Christianity.

A simple three-line proof.

FL now has only five options:

A. Contend that statement 1 is false.

B. Contend that statement 2 is false.

C. Contend that the reasoning deriving statement 3 from statements 1 and 2 is wrong.

D. Accept that statement 3 is true.

OR

E. Change the subject by saying something irrelevant like "Some of you boys have already experienced either the LOSS of your Christian faith, or at least a SERIOUS EROSION of your Christian faith. And your slide (your back-slide, that is) is partly or indirectly due to the impact of evolution-claims on your own beliefs."

Which will it be, FL?

Obviously you do not realize that FL, and only FL, shall determine who is a Christian and who is not.  What were you thinking?

Date: 2009/09/10 15:41:11, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
It's going to be AFDave Lite.  At best.

Date: 2009/09/11 07:32:55, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (fusilier @ Sep. 11 2009,07:49)
 
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Sep. 10 2009,08:51)
{snip}
While the Pope is clearly Christian, I would argue that he's no true Scotsman.

<churchlady voice>
Of course not, the current one is German, the previous one was Polish, and before that they were pretty much all Italian.
</voice>
Dunno whether any of 'em liked oatmeal for breakfast, though.

And does the Pope wear underwear under his kilt dress?

Date: 2009/09/14 07:02:18, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Believe as I do or die

That's getting off easy.  Everyone dies; FL's loving god would have you tortured infinitely, forever, for your crime of coming to your own conclusions about how the universe works.

Don't blame FL though, he's been held captive by Jebus for so long that he's suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

Date: 2009/09/16 10:42:42, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 16 2009,10:48)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 16 2009,06:31)
None of the links in Behe's post work.

LOL @ Behe.
   
Quote
http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2009/09/reducible-complexity-in-pnas/%28http:/tinyurl.com/ln7a6k

He should get Granny Spice to help.

Does she know how to post a link that doesn't direct to one of her many blags?

Date: 2009/09/17 03:54:55, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 16 2009,22:20)
   
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 16 2009,15:23)
I know you consider it optional to be minimally informed before holding forth on a subject, but really Heddle, this is bad even for you.

Oh, lighten up. Heddle's contrived machismo and posturing is all just compensation for his diminutive.........automobile*.

* Not that there is anything wrong with a Honda Element.  Out here in Real America, there are any number of soccer mom's that drive them.

Apparently they are well received by trendy gay men as well.*

____


*Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Date: 2009/09/17 07:44:49, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 17 2009,07:58)
This thread has got bloody funny. It is "all over the place" and so much better than any fundy site I have seen.

It's occurred to me to start a thread about fundy humor, UD in particular, but I would have to find at least a few examples to start with.  I find it's almost impossible to find any instances of IDCers even trying to be funny; they are virtually all humorless, self-important blowhards who can't generate or appreciate any humor more subtle or complex than a digitally recorded fart.  The only humor they're capable of seems to be the unintentional kind, which ultimately manifests itself here, not on UD.

Date: 2009/09/17 09:06:08, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 17 2009,09:34)
Look, we set up the colonies for a reason. Criminals to Oz, religious whack-a-loons to Yankieland Adventure Park.*

Please have the decency to stay there.

Louis

*This system may or may not have been successful. We seem to have kept too many criminals and religious whack-a-loons. And we have laws against shooting them, which I suppose is a good thing. I like some criminals.

Plus there seems to have been some hiccups in the implementation, as the US is rife with criminals and Australia seems to be getting highly competitive in the religious wackaloonery department.

Date: 2009/09/17 11:27:23, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
You won't see public claims of:

"Meteorology does not admit conscious anticipation of the future (ie consious forethought)..."

"Physics is a completely mindless process..."

"(Chemistry and the Brain) -- With all deference to religious people, the notion that humans were created in the image of God can be set aside."

"Astronomy rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations."

No.  No sir.   These kinds of public pronouncements are found only within--and are inherently part of-- EVOLUTION.  Evolution is incompatible with Christianity

Non-involvement of supernatural causation isn't an entailment of evolutionary theory any more than it is an entailment of theories of meterology or chemistry.  None of these theories include supernatural causation, because no evidence for such has been found, and because each discipline continues to advance and expand without it (and in the case of biology, repeatedly explaining many that-which-science-cannot-explain questions your intellectual predecessors used in their anti-evolution arguments).  

What you're arguing against is statements by individuals about what they think or believe--statements which I doubt you could find many examples of, had religious activists not spent the last 150 years insisting there must be supernatural involvement in biology (as they generally do not with the other disciplines), and accusing biologists of culpability for everything from bad breath to Hitler for their crime of following wherever the evidence leads.  

You may wish to believe evolution is wrong, or that it is partially correct but your god was involved at some point--go ahead; just admit you're doing so without the kind of evidence you require of any other branch of science.  But either way there's nothing about the science of evolution that says a god couldn't have been involved, so you're really just arguing with the opinions of individuals, not the scientific framework of evolution.  Once you come up with real, verifiable evidence of supernatural involvement, I promise you'll win a Nobel prize and your evidence will be integrated into the theory.  Deal?

Date: 2009/09/17 14:03:22, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,13:47)
     
Quote
What you're arguing against is statements by individuals about what they think or believe...

Actually, Futuyma's statement of NT-NCF in his evolutionary biology textbook was directly ascribed to "evolutionary theory" itself, NOT to Futuyma's individual or personal opinion:
         
Quote
"Evolutionary theory does not admit...."

Furthermore, there are so many evolutionists saying and teaching "Evolution has no goal"  (for example, Futuyma, Mayr, Coyne's Why Evolution is True, and Biology 391 Online at Univ. of Tenn. at Martin),
that at this point you'd need to show that such a statement was merely a matter of individual opinion instead of the clear solid no-waffling position of evolutionary theory itself.

None of this refutes what I said.  "Evolutionary theory does NOT admit conscious anticipation of the future, i.e. conscious forethought" because there is no evidence that it does, just as meterological theories don't admit conscious forethought due to the absence of evidence of that.  Evolutionary theory doesn't deny the possibility that evidence of teleology could be presented, but you certainly haven't presented any.

Like I said, present that evidence and it will be integrated into the theory.  They'll have to change the name of the theory, and maybe it will be named after you, but it will be included. The fact that you can't supply any, and that you and your ilk spend all your time complaining about imaginary shortcomings of evolution and zero actually looking for evidence, speaks volumes.  You would have your superstitions included in what we describe as "science" by fiat, but the fact is you have no real interest in science and would rather destroy knowledge than create it.

Date: 2009/09/17 14:56:29, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
at this point you'd need to show that such a statement was merely a matter of individual opinion instead of the clear solid no-waffling position of evolutionary theory itself
Evolutionary theory doesn't entail the conclusions you claim those scientists ascribe to it, and I don't need to explain why individual people said specific things in order to state that there's nothing about the theory that precludes teleology.  The fact that the theory does not currently contain teleology is a different issue.  

There are an endless number of things one could complain are not included in a given theory, but every single one of those is excluded not by dogma and orthodoxy but because of the lack of evidence for them.  Provide the evidence for teleology, for ID, for whatever you can support with evidence and a falsifiable hyopthesis that withstands vigorous testing, and it will have to be included.  You aren't even trying, and neither are any of your IDC betters.  What's the hypothesis?  You don't have one and I predict you never will.  

I think you can't accept this because you can only think in terms of dogma and orthodoxy (your obsession here with defining who is and is not a True Christian is exhibit #1), and so can only conceive of evolution in those terms.  Your sad Jebus-vs-whatever culture war is the only thing you know, and the only thing you care about, when it comes to your thinking about science and evolution.

Date: 2009/09/18 15:20:46, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Dan @ Sep. 18 2009,13:03)
FL claims that evolution is unteleological and Christianity is teleological, hence evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

If this argument were correct, then Newtonian mechanics would also be incompatible with Christianity.

If this argument were correct, reality would be incompatible with Christianity. But FL's basic issue is that he thinks reality is wrong, and is annoyed that anyone is allowed to disagree with him.

Date: 2009/09/18 16:46:14, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Sealawr @ Sep. 18 2009,17:33)
Floyd Lee equivocates as prophesied:

"...biblical Christianity..."

As opposed to other kinds of Christianity?  [See e.g., Catholic position above]

Can we just define "Biblical Christianity" as "Floyd's personal beliefs?"  and "Non- biblical christianity" as Catholic, Methodist, Episcopalian, Lutheran and Orthodox?"

Unless you restrict yourself to "typical" "orthodox" Christianity as distinguished from yoru uh-"unique" beliefs, you have simply invoked the "No True Scotsman" fallacy and meaningful conversation must end.

Can you point me to where it started?  I'm lost.

Date: 2009/09/18 16:51:27, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,16:46)
Quote
....some people formulate their personal theology in such a way that no discernible dissonance exists.


Who are these people, specifically?  Are there any in this forum that would be willing to offer such a theology?  (And does the non-discernable dissonance suddenly show up when a Bible is brought to the table?)

Floyd's throwing down the gauntlet.  He's 100% sure that you can't give an example of a Christian who accepts evolution, whom he cannot dismiss as being not-a-True FL-Approved Christian™*

---

*All rights reserved, the Floyd Lee Boring Fundy Apologetics Co. Inc.

Date: 2009/09/18 18:06:16, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,18:56)
Quote
(prior statement)
"....some people formulate their personal theology in such a way that no discernible dissonance exists."

(my response)
"Who are these people, specifically?  Are there any in this forum that would be willing to offer such a theology?"

I'm repeating this snippet for you, Occam.  Notice:  a specific claim was made by a poster.  Very clear.

I'm just asking who are those "some people" the poster had in mind, that happens to fit that very specific wording.  

I'm ALSO asking if there are any Christians in THIS forum who fit that specific wording and would like to demonstrate it by sharing their own personal theology.  

How about you, Nmgirl?  I think you said that you were a Christian.   Would you be willing to share your personal theology so we can examine and see if there's "no discernable dissonance" between evolution and Christianity within your chosen theology?  

(Btw, any other Christians in this forum want to join her in that effort?)

FloydLee

Once again, Floyd is confident that there's no Christian he cannot dismiss from that faith if it suits him, since in his mind Christianity consists of exactly what he says it consists of, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. He's challenging people to claim they're Christians, but he'll be the judge of that.

Date: 2009/09/19 15:13:45, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (socle @ Sep. 19 2009,12:40)
Here we go again:  The Original Weasel(s)

   
Quote
Unless Richard Dawkins and his associates can show conclusively that these are not the originals (either by providing originals in their possession that differ, or by demonstrating that these programs in some way fail to perform as required), we shall regard the contest as closed, offer Oxfordensis his/her prize, and henceforward treat the programs below as the originals.


It's fascinating to me how these people simply cannot accept the fact that the original program no longer exists, and that there will always be some uncertainty about its features.  They would actually rather declare programs they received from some random anonymous person on the internet to be the "originals".  LOL.

They're looking at WEASEL in the only terms they know; to them it's our scripture and if it's lost, so are whatever fundamental truths it may have contained.  Since they stake their entire worldview on an assumption of scriptural infallibility, they can only apprehend that establishing fallibility of WEASEL negates our god.  They can't grok the fact that only the principle behind WEASEL matters, and that any of a million possible implementations of the concept would demonstrate the same thing about selection.  

To them everything either proves or disproves Jebus, and if it disproves Jebus it must be attacked and destroyed, facts and reason be damned.  They don't understand why WEASEL is important, they don't understand that it's really not very important at all (it's really just a thought problem to help people understand one facet of evolution and you don't need to run or even write the program to understand what the algorithm does or does not do), and they don't understand that the idea either works or it doesn't, regardless of what idiot writes the code.  They think that if we can't produce the sacred scrolls, they win, because blind faith to a book is the only thing they understand and the only thing they care about.

Date: 2009/09/24 04:02:27, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 24 2009,01:12)
The Constitutional Scholar explains herself:      
Quote
I had almost forgotten. I helped draft our Constitution in 1981. But no one minds that kind of thing any more. Unless … could there now be hope?

Later, in the same thread:      
Quote
1

IRQ Conflict

09/22/2009

5:29 am
“I helped draft our Constitution in 1981.”

Really? Wow! That’s something to brag to the grand kids about eh?
   
Quote
11

feebish

09/23/2009

12:40 am
I’m with IRQ Conflict on this one. I think I mentioned in one of my first comments here that I got to live in Toronto for a year and enjoyed it very much. Please tell us what part you played in the drafting of the Constitution! Even if it was small, I’d like to hear it.
     
Quote
14

O'Leary

09/23/2009

11:54 am
Feebish at 11, I was summoned to Ottawa (our seat of government) in 1981, to testify about our new Constitution.

The government paid my plane fare.

I do not know what use they made of my information.

Well, a free plane ride!  That makes her a regular Tardus Jefferson.  I wonder if she testified for the constitution or against it?

She probably recommended 999999% more Jebus, then filled the rest of her testimony with links to her blogs.

Date: 2009/10/01 11:12:08, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 01 2009,11:46)
     
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 01 2009,10:32)
     
Quote
I think every and all sanctimonious ignoramus fanatics such as FL should take a look at Augustin's work, just for the sake of it...

I have, actually.   Augustine wrote that the earth was less than 6000 years old, he believed that God created everything instantly, (yes, literally), and he believed that the global Noahic Flood was literally true.

A very good YEC, to be sure!

FloydLee

It was Bishop James Ussher who, in 1650, came up with the idea that the world was 6000 years old.

Can you provide a source of St Augustine saying that the world was 6000 years old?

Here.

Unfortunately for FL, by FL's stated standards Augustine was not a "good YEC" at all.  Since Augustine didn't believe exactly the same thing FL does (because Augustine said the world was created instantly, not in 6 days like the Bible says), Augustine wasn't a Christian at all.

Date: 2009/10/01 18:04:37, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
OK, Christianity is incompatible with evolution because Floyd is the Only True Christian and evolution is a theory scientists made up when they got together and voted to fabricate 150 years of scientific work that falsely showed God doesn't exist.  Am I missing anything?

Date: 2009/10/02 09:15:07, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,23:16)
JonF,
Don't forget to read the previous post I wrote to you.  I won't fail to mention that you are rather arrogant.  Why don't you shut down the rhetoric and just stick to the facts.  Read this:

"Relative dating only

The 40Ar/39Ar method only measures relative dates. In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must determined by irradiating the unknown sample along with a sample of known age for a standard. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another isotopic dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique.[1]"  Wikipedia

Do you see what this is saying?  They have to have a another sample of "known age"--and they are going to use a traditional K-Ar as the standard.  Well how do they know the age?  They know there can be argon in the rocks when they form--but they don't know how much.  But they use it as a standard for something that is supposed to remove assumption!!

"There's a problem with argon being in the lava guys--we aren't sure of the K-Ar.  Lets use Ar-Ar--it's more accurate and removes assumption--but we have to use a K-Ar sample as a standard because we know the age."

Is anyone getting dizzy?

Why is it that the sum total of IDCers' interest in science manifests itself in strenuous attempts to throw doubt on the research and conclusions of science, and absolutely no interest is ever shown in performing any of their own research to support their own hypotheses (which as far as I've seen do not exist)?  Rhetorical question.

Date: 2009/10/06 10:34:31, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Dan @ Oct. 06 2009,07:16)
   
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 05 2009,16:19)
(6)  And of course I gotta go back to Deadman's "simple three-line proof" which Deadman claimed had gone unanswered from page one (but thanks for Dan --Oct 5 post, 15:26 -- for at least agreeing that I did answer Deadman once, even though Dan didn't agree with my answer either.)

It is false to say that I "did not agree with [FL's] argument".  What I (and others) said is that FL's purported claim is not an argument at all, because it has no basis in any sort of logic.

Many have noted this.  FL is not debating, he's not engaging the arguments presented to him.  He's just saying "I win, I win!"

It's pretty easy to "win" (in your own mind) the argument "evolution is incompatible with christianity" when you believe you are the only legitimate arbiter of what christianity is, and you're fully willing to lie about evolution consists of.

Date: 2009/10/06 15:59:57, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 06 2009,13:09)
     
Quote
Since the invention of the atomic clock in the middle of the last century, the addition of a leap second, about every two years, has been necessitated, because (embarassingly to those who say the earth and universe are billions of years old) the rate of the earth’s spin is slowing down, half a second per year, which implies that 30 million years ago, a day would have been 12 hours long, and 30 million years in the future, a day would be 48 hours, which is all very inconvenient to the timeline of the darwinists, who don’t like to talk about this one of many strong indicators that the earth and universe are really quite young, as believed by half of Americans, and 30% of Britions, what the darwinists also don’t like to talk about, but which should be pointed out, after all, were you aware of those numbers?


yeah, that's all one sentence.


tard

Wow.  These are the great minds who mean to overthrow science.  The 'big tent' of IDC is so large that any argument that can be taken to somehow discredit evolution, however idiotic, irrelevant, or misinformed, is taken to be absolutely, utterly true.

If a six-foot pile of elephant shit mixed with razor blades and rat poison was being attacked by all the armies of the world, some of these IDiots would defend it to the death, if only you scrawled "Darwin Sucks" on it.

Date: 2009/10/07 08:46:26, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 07 2009,08:43)
     
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,13:54)
     
Quote
Even more amusingly, when you are saying " maybe the pope isn't aware of my made-up list of incompatibilities" you are merely saying "the Pope isn't really a Christian until he agrees with me" in a slightly different way.

Now THAT's a pretty good stretch, Deadman. Please go ahead and provide supporting reason(s) for that one.  And be sure they're rational reasons too!

If I may:

From the moment you assume the pope MUST have the same faith as yours, in every possible way, to be a christian, you basicaly shut down the debate.

That happens as soon as Floyd subjects the beliefs of anyone who honestly believes themself to be Christian, to his narrow fundie interpretations.  Floyd has only two tactics in the "Christianity is incompatible with evolution" debate, both fundamentally dishonest: 1)  He reserves the exclusive right to define one of the two relevant terms, Christianity.  2)  He reserves the right to lie unashamedly about the definition of the other term, Evolution.  There is no real debate here, Floyd's just wallowing in being a mental masterdebater.

Date: 2009/10/09 18:10:17, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Day 27, FL's No-True-Scotsman definition of Christianity continues to be incompatible with his Strawman definition of Evolution.  All fallacy, all the time, folks, step right up!

Yawn.

Date: 2009/10/10 16:30:56, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 10 2009,13:53)
There isn't a Grand Canyon in Rhode Island because it's too small.

You can't prove Narragansett Bay wasn't created by a global flood.  Therefore Jebus.

Date: 2009/10/12 07:01:18, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 11 2009,23:23)
Hey, check it:  DaveTard is over at the Thumb....Making grandiose allusions to his tenure at Dell

But did he go to high school with John Kwok?  No.  Pffft.

Date: 2009/10/16 08:47:49, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 16 2009,04:00)
Dembski is such a whiny child
   
Quote
It’s one reason that, last I checked, survivalist James Wesley Rawles’ HOW TO SURVIVE THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT: TACTICS, TECHNIQUES AND TECHNOLOGIES FOR UNCERTAIN TIMES was doing better on Amazon.com than Richard Dawkins’ THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH: THE EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION (other reasons no doubt include that Dawkins’ book is sheer dreck from the standpoint of current evolutionary theory — see here).

Wah Wah Wah - a book that's "sheer dreck" is outselling every single book I ever wrong 1000:1. Wah wah wah. At least this other book is selling better....
 

And unfortunately for Dumbski, actually checking his irrelevant assertion (something highly unlikely for the inhabitants of UD's Carnival of Creo Credulity to bother to do) reveals that Dawkins' book is at #19 and the survivalist whatever is at #60.

Date: 2009/10/21 16:32:18, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 21 2009,14:47)
 
Quote
"we chatted in both French and English. (As bizarre as it might seem, although I earn my living as a software engineer in aerospace R&D, my three college degrees are in French language and literature, and classical piano.) I was wearing my Harley Davidson windbreaker, and David asked if I was a Harley rider, to which I replied yes."


Shorter Gil:
"Being cautious of seeming effeminate to my UD reading audience, I will now douse myself in man-musk -- preferably *sigh* Daaavidd's. "

Unfortunately after a night of heavy drinking and antievolutionary man-love, Gil wasn't looking quite as dapper as he had in his Harley windbreaker:

Date: 2009/11/03 04:13:22, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 02 2009,07:24)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 01 2009,16:52)
Those people at TT (fifth monarchy man, Mung, ID guy) on that particular thread anyway strike me as moronic children asking "but why" long after they've stopped understanding the answer, but it's all they've got so they repeat it anyway.

ID Guy (Joe):
           
Quote
ID has real evidence- it is based on real observations and real experiences.

Its premises can be tested.

So what else does it need?


So go fucking test it moron-boy. Jeez, what a bunch of losers. Did somebody say one time that if they repeat their empty claims often enough somebody would believe it? Whoever you are, put them out of their misery.

Fifth Monarchy Man:
         
Quote
You discounted the validity of the axiom for science while relying on it in order to do the very science you say called it into question.

trying to untangle these kinds of mental knots would cause anyone to misspeak

sigh

That's very deep man. Get out from under that pyramid much FMM?

Mung brings the deep philosophy
         
Quote
If I see a creature, and I say, that looks like a duck, are you telling me that claim (Or is that not a claim? In your world I just don't know.) is completely different from the claim that I infer that what I am looking at is, in fact, a duck?

Therefore ID! What a total bunch of losers with no real answers to anything Zachriel has to say.

ID has been tested asshole.

You pukes just refuse to accept the results.

And that is not my problem.

Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

However you cannot even provide a testable hypothesis for your position.

<Cue Joe G flounce-out, just like PT on Saturday morning>

Makes bold claims, acts the tough guy, then slithers back to boards where he and his buddies get to delete comments they don't like.

Total.  Fucking.  Coward.

I predict one of two things:

1)  We don't hear from Joe again for at least month, at which point he returns to make the same unsubstantiated claims

2)  He comes back sooner and threatens some kind of physical violence, real or metaphorical, then #1

Date: 2009/11/03 13:50:52, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 03 2009,10:58)
Reading niwrad's latest, I noticed this among the Google ads:
   
Quote
Geometric Anthropometry

Something is going on inside your head, the world should know about!

Following the link, I found some prime tard which was surely written by niwrad's New Age twin brother:
 
Quote
Intelligent Design Verses Evolution


"If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it [your theory] but to collapse in the deepest humiliation."—*Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1930), p. 74.

Intelligent design verses evolution

Have I accidently stepped into a contentious issue, quiet by accident rather than clever design. (excuse the pun)

This is normally the area reserved for people well qualified academically to comment, publically that is. I enter this debate well experienced at least by being prone to periodic moments of ‘extreme cerebral stimuli’ and therefore I submit what I believe to be an alternative perspective, nonetheless relevant.

For those of you who have studied the arguments in relation to evolution verses intelligent design, you may be forgiven for finding the subject matter confusing, and more than likely, opinionated. The debate is undeniably polarised.

On one hand, God has nothing much to do at all and on the other, there is simply too much to get done in a day. Everything in the world has been created by an intelligent agent or it has come by way of a random chance.

If you are not a molecular biologist or a genetic scientist then you have to believe what you read or, rely on your own belief system. You should however be willing in your analysis, to accept the grey areas transparent to both sides of the debate or, you can dismiss the entire conversation by settling for, ‘everything just is’.

There is one word however that seems to be absent from the modern discussion. There is a topic that some would say is a bit outdated, very 14th century and not relevant to this particular discussion. But I say forget about the amino acids, proteins and survival of the fittest. Disregard genetic structure, DNA and the Bible for just a moment.

Enter the word, ‘geometry’, plain and simple, accessible to anyone. Uncomplicated, uncontrived and embarrassing basic; That is the basis of geometry.

I am suggesting geometry should form the foundation of all theories and opinions, for and against this discussion.

As it was with many ancient belief systems, geometry is the starting point, the alpha and the omega. Geometry is the foundation of evolution, the mechanism for predestined evolution and the matrix for all things. Geometry has a built-in mathematical intelligence. As it is with amino acids metabolising into proteins, so it is with geometry, able to evolve from single one dimensional images into incredibly complex designs. Geometry is a scientific instrument capable of measuring astronomical time and exploring the design structure of human anatomy.

Now that we have the word, ‘geometry’ in the debate, we can go further by putting it into a contextual phase, i.e., The Geometric Origin of the Species.

Put simply, my view point is that a philosophical or scientific opinion on this entire topic is like fumbling around in the dark, chasing shadows and illusions until such a time as the metaphysical, non-biological, permanent state of a geometric mechanism to which physiology is attached is the starting point for observation. The debate will just keep going round and round in ever decreasing circles until there is sound investigation from this perspective.

I am certainly not trying to persuade you one way or the other in terms of your belief system, just your approach.

It is hoped the film, Geometric Anthropometry, viewable on this website, may act as a catalyst to encourage you to look in the mirror and study both the complexity and simplicity of your own design.

There, you may see yourself transparent and revealed for the very first time.

To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, that's not even tard.  Add a few croutons and it might qualify as a word salad.

Date: 2009/11/06 11:49:32, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 06 2009,10:58)
   
Quote
By her logic, why should anyone care to discuss ancient myths that have no observable effect on the real world, just what the crazy adherents actually physically do in the name of these superstitions?


Easy: Supposedly we need the myths to base our morals on. This argument crops up approximately twice a week over there.

Since ID is, as we know, all about science, and they make this assertion (I think) much much more than twice a week, I'm waiting with bated breath for the day when someone, anyone (Bueller?) over there actually provides some data about the moral behavior of the religious vs. the non-religious.  If it's so freaking obvious that belief in goofy superstition is the basis of morality, you'd think it would be pretty easy to back up with evidence.

Of course, like my dad says all the time, "you'd think a lot of things, wouldn't you."

Date: 2009/11/07 04:10:02, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 06 2009,17:36)
 
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 06 2009,11:55)

In a survey, most Catholic Priests prefer 13 year-old boys.


Well at least Polanski passed the heterosexual test

More power to him, that sucker is hard.  I had to take it like six times before I finally passed.  Fortunately I had a patient instructor.

Date: 2009/11/07 07:45:17, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
America is a free nation and so the people have the right to have their kids taught what they believe is the truth
In your mind, how many deluded bible-bangers would have to "believe" that pi = 3 before schools should be required to teach that as "truth"?  Are you willing to fly in an airplane designed by engineers who "believe" that pi = 3 is "truth"?  Would you take antibiotics manufactured by chemists who "believe" that "truth?"

Date: 2009/11/07 08:43:48, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 07 2009,09:31)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 07 2009,09:25)
according to Bubba, either he is going to be educated or he is going to defeat evolution here and in the world in his lifetime.

I've got ten bucks on "Neither".

Maybe as a consolation prize someone could fill him in on the basics of how to form proper paragraphs.

Date: 2009/11/11 06:07:53, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Either neither side can teach the kids about origins or both must have equal access
What, exactly, are those two sides?  Let me guess, science, and your specific religious beliefs.  It's obvious from this choice of words is that your goal is not scientific balance, but state promotion of your religious dogma.  You're not interested in science, you're a theocrat.

Date: 2009/11/12 03:56:35, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Your side dreams up this slow and very segregated episodes. My side sees simple flows within the same episode

Science observes the evidence, generates hypotheses to explain it, then rigorously tests those hypotheses over and over again, discovering new data and generating new hypotheses to better conform the theory to reality.  Your side "sees simple flows within the same episode", whatever that means, then demands special creation and a 6000-year old earth be taught as fact in public schools without ever showing the slightest interest in doing any research, and with an utter refusal and inability to ever change the underlying conclusions in any way--because the conclusions came first.

Date: 2009/11/12 16:25:30, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 12 2009,11:00)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 05 2009,02:23)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2009,10:41)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2009,04:10)
Joe G.:

       
Quote

Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.


Article in Synthese

Unabridged web version of above

Article in Biology and Philosophy

Chapter in Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism

Chapter in Why Intelligent Design Fails

Been there, done that.

Let me know when you publish something to respond to. In the words of somebody else,

       
Quote

As a rule I don’t respond to them over the Internet since it seems to me that the Internet is an unreliable forum for settling technical issues in statistics and the philosophy of science.

[1] Wes not one of those links demonstrates that blind,undirected processes, such as random mutations and natural selection, can account for living organisms nor their diversity.

[2] The book "Why Intelligent Design Fails" is full of strawman arguments.

[3] In order to refute ID you actually have to demonstrate an understanding of it.

[4] You also have to be able to show an understanding of the debate.

One freebie for "JoeG"...

1. "refuting the design inference" was the topic. Pathetic detail in support of evolutionary science is given by others elsewhere. However, showing that the claims made concerning "design detection" are ill-founded does not require the establishment of other concepts. The claims I'm making -- and supporting -- concern the logical and empirical faults in Dembskian "design inference" arguments. Nice attempt at digression, though. How often does that work for you?

2. I haven't seen anybody publish anything in the technical literature that would substantiate that claim. Nor am I responsible, in particular, for the other contributions in the anthology. An actual contribution to the discussion would have attempted to advance an argument of use of strawman on my part. For any substantiation of your claim, let's see the complete bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed literature, please.

3. Been there, done that. While dismissal may seem an effective tactic to you, I'll trust that the readers will take my points. Given the absence of published responses in the technical literature and the existence of citations, it seems that they have done so.

4. Been there, done that. Given that I have been a participant in the "debate" (NTSE 1997, "Interpreting Evolution" 2001, 4th World Skeptics Conference 2002, Greer-Heard Forum 2006, SMU 2006, etc.), it would seem distinctly odd to hold that I somehow am not competent to enter into the discussion. Even Dembski hasn't gone that far. See above about "dismissal" as a tactic.

One begins to see Dembski's point about discussion on the Internet, though it is far more appropriately aimed at advocates of his ideas than the original targets.

I note that you did not provide any publications that address the arguments I've made. It is interesting that when it comes to technical articles on the topic of "design inference", I have two, and Dembski has zero.

Wes,

You don't have any evidence that undirected/ non-target oriented processes can account for living organisms nor their diversity.

You cannot even provide a testable hypothesis based on those types of mechanisms.

That is why the vast majority of people do not buy into your nonsense.

Hey look, it's Joe G the coward, who throws around a bunch of insults and makes a lot of unsupported assertions, then bravely runs away!

Date: 2009/11/15 05:18:48, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life

Sig-worthy!

Date: 2009/11/15 10:51:24, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 15 2009,09:38)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 15 2009,06:18)
Quote
Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life

Sig-worthy!

DAMMIT!

that is choice

It makes my brain hurt every time I read it

Date: 2009/11/18 03:32:58, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 18 2009,02:11)
Comments on the Neuroscience: “The Young and the Bureau” post have gone beyond bizarre. Frostyboy has outed himself as having an IQ of 138. He's a jenius! Since his admission he has been quite happy to pontificate to his mental underlings on the pros and cons of being a brainiac. Sample slice:    
Quote
But I should add that having a high IQ is not necessarily beneficial in all ways as Scott correctly noted. For example you are generally less social because you tend lack interest in common simple things. You are also more troubled with the big questions and just questions in general.

Deep questions like, "how can a person have an IQ of 138 and still be so fucking stupid"?

Date: 2009/11/18 03:42:36, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 17 2009,21:29)
   
Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 17 2009,17:22)
There's something distinctly unnerving about a discussion going on about IQ when the main participants are O'Leary and Frosty. However, I spotted this by Denyse:          
Quote
A woman I know had one of her kids diagnosed as low IQ when the kid was three months old – and simply walked out of the office, carrying the kid, and never bothered with those people again. A similar thing happened when that kid was about eleven. The same kid went on to have a great career. Go figure.

What's the bet the woman is Denyse's mother? [/cheap shot]

That's what's sad about this entire affair.  I can only imagine the feeling of horror and hopelessness that people like Dembski and O'Leary feel at home in their bed, all by themselves, when they reflect on the fact that their greatest accomplishment in life is getting publicly made into fools on an obscure internet blog by a bunch of anonymous hooligans.

You forget that they are in the vanguard of a vibrant movement which, five short years from now*, will:

 
Quote
See intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.

See the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.

See major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.


-----

*Disclaimer:  By "now" I mean 1998.

Date: 2009/11/18 03:57:20, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 17 2009,00:02)
Further musings: if we could get Kwok, Marks and Dembski together, it'd be a Ménage à Tard

What is this, an elementary school cafeteria gross-out contest?  I'm glad I already finished my breakfast.  Oh, never mind, there's some of it now.

Date: 2009/11/18 06:50:28, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
When I click "add reply" or "quote" but am not logged in, the board sends me to a "you are not logged in" page.  Wouldn't it make more sense to just send me to the login page?

Date: 2009/11/19 07:31:43, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,05:15)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 19 2009,03:49)
I say anatomy is a better trail and so dna ideas are wrong.

When can we expect to see your ideas submitted to a journal and peer reviewed?

It's the only way to overturn evolution! Get your ideas in front of the people who matter, via peer reviewed channels.

Otherwise it's just talk. And you are not just all talk are you?

Of course not!  Bob also serves a tasty word salad for every meal.  No croutons, but what can you do.

Date: 2009/11/19 08:36:52, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I say anatomy is a better trail and so dna ideas are wrong.

Anatomical and DNA evidence correlate very, very well and paint the same picture as many other lines of independently collected and verified, converging evidence:  Life, from spirochetes to rattlesnakes to human beings, evolved from a common ancestor over billions of years.  The details are still being worked out and probably always will be, but the big picture is quite clear.  We're quite sorry this doesn't confirm to your fairy tales, but tough shit.  If you choose to believe that some supernatural boogeyman planted all the evidence that tells us this, that is your right, but even if this were true, it does not affect the utility of science and its findings.  

You could come up with a testable scientific hypothesis of Goddidit, then test it, but we all notice that you aren't doing that and nobody else is either (because attempts to do so in the past resulted in those hypotheses failing).  As long as you're not doing this, you and your creotard buddies have no right to complain about the results of the scientific process.  You don't have the "right" to have the facts suppressed just because they are inconvenient to the propagation of your inane superstitions.  You're here with the stated goal of slaying evolutionary theory, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about and you're just making yourself look stupid.

Date: 2009/11/19 15:48:34, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,16:47)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 12 2009,16:25)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 12 2009,11:00)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 05 2009,02:23)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2009,10:41)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2009,04:10)
Joe G.:

         
Quote

Now if you want to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.


Article in Synthese

Unabridged web version of above

Article in Biology and Philosophy

Chapter in Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism

Chapter in Why Intelligent Design Fails

Been there, done that.

Let me know when you publish something to respond to. In the words of somebody else,

         
Quote

As a rule I don’t respond to them over the Internet since it seems to me that the Internet is an unreliable forum for settling technical issues in statistics and the philosophy of science.

[1] Wes not one of those links demonstrates that blind,undirected processes, such as random mutations and natural selection, can account for living organisms nor their diversity.

[2] The book "Why Intelligent Design Fails" is full of strawman arguments.

[3] In order to refute ID you actually have to demonstrate an understanding of it.

[4] You also have to be able to show an understanding of the debate.

One freebie for "JoeG"...

1. "refuting the design inference" was the topic. Pathetic detail in support of evolutionary science is given by others elsewhere. However, showing that the claims made concerning "design detection" are ill-founded does not require the establishment of other concepts. The claims I'm making -- and supporting -- concern the logical and empirical faults in Dembskian "design inference" arguments. Nice attempt at digression, though. How often does that work for you?

2. I haven't seen anybody publish anything in the technical literature that would substantiate that claim. Nor am I responsible, in particular, for the other contributions in the anthology. An actual contribution to the discussion would have attempted to advance an argument of use of strawman on my part. For any substantiation of your claim, let's see the complete bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed literature, please.

3. Been there, done that. While dismissal may seem an effective tactic to you, I'll trust that the readers will take my points. Given the absence of published responses in the technical literature and the existence of citations, it seems that they have done so.

4. Been there, done that. Given that I have been a participant in the "debate" (NTSE 1997, "Interpreting Evolution" 2001, 4th World Skeptics Conference 2002, Greer-Heard Forum 2006, SMU 2006, etc.), it would seem distinctly odd to hold that I somehow am not competent to enter into the discussion. Even Dembski hasn't gone that far. See above about "dismissal" as a tactic.

One begins to see Dembski's point about discussion on the Internet, though it is far more appropriately aimed at advocates of his ideas than the original targets.

I note that you did not provide any publications that address the arguments I've made. It is interesting that when it comes to technical articles on the topic of "design inference", I have two, and Dembski has zero.

Wes,

You don't have any evidence that undirected/ non-target oriented processes can account for living organisms nor their diversity.

You cannot even provide a testable hypothesis based on those types of mechanisms.

That is why the vast majority of people do not buy into your nonsense.

Hey look, it's Joe G the coward, who throws around a bunch of insults and makes a lot of unsupported assertions, then bravely runs away!

Hey look it's occam's afterbirth the douche-drip.

You still don't have anything that would support your position, do you?

You don't have any idea if mutations can accumulate such that new, useful protein machinery is constructed. And still nothing for changing body plans.

And you still blame me for your short-comings and ignorance.

Go fogure...

I don't blame you for anything but being a cowardly hit-and-run prick, Joe.

Date: 2009/11/19 15:52:48, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (nmgirl @ Nov. 19 2009,16:19)
The latest from my favorite local IDiota:

"I think it can be both 7 days 6000 years ago and billions of years without no contradiction. My theory, and I don't know if anyone has ever seriously studied it is that time...the passage of time...was different than it is now and we looking back would see 6000 years as billions of years. Think of the doppler effect through time. "

"Theory", meaning, "some crap that popped into my head after a particularly thunderous bong hit".

Date: 2009/11/20 04:17:06, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 19 2009,23:20)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 19 2009,22:03)
I see instant triggers in physical bodies is demanded by the evidence. no evolution.
Apes/men is a special case where we had to be put into the order of things and simply God picked the best body fpr our use in this order or equation of the blueprint. What else would he pick? Otherwise we would have to have bodies totally out of order to the rest of creation.


It was a dark and stormy night.....

Date: 2009/11/20 04:22:16, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,17:03)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,15:59)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,15:57)
If you don't have anything then just say so.

I will meet you in a public debate- we both put up $10,000- then we will see who runs...

A debate about what Joe?

Your position against ID.

IOW you would have to provide a testable hypothesis pertaining to genetic accidents.

You would also have to support the claims of your position.

Or are you a coward?

Some of the greatest scientific advances have been made by atheist muslim refrigerator repairmen, debating incomprehensible propositions via insult and threats of violence on internet discussion boards.  Joe is destined to be remembered forever.

They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Jeffrey Dahmer.  Uh, wait....

Date: 2009/11/21 04:31:17, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
A debate about what Joe?

   
Quote
Your position against ID.

Ha ha, good one.  You had us going for a second there.  Not.

Since ID proponents assiduously avoid formulating their ideas in anything approaching a testable scientific hypothesis, there is nothing to debate from a scientific perspective.  ID does not attempt to be science, it only claims to be science, then consistently fails to support that claim.

ID is a PR campaign based on thinly veiled fundamentalist religious apologetics, an semi-intelligently designed creationist tactic intended to address the utter failure of "creation science" to be accepted as science, since all of its testable hypotheses were falsified.
 
For $10,000 I'll be happy to debate the proposition, "Joe Gallien is an arrogant fool who has been duped by the ID hucksters".

Date: 2009/11/21 10:32:34, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 20 2009,15:56)
I think that creationists look at life through blurry glasses. With these glasses on the thialacine and the wolf are almost alike. Take the glasses off (compare bone structures internal organs) and you can see that the thialicine and the kangaroo look more alike.

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

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

I don't think they look at all.  They have their eyes glued shut with super jesus glue, as they argue endlessly about what you are seeing with your own eyes wide open.

Date: 2009/11/24 08:16:22, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
It's exactly as sound and well-supported as any other god proof I've seen.

I like the way it always ends up dumping you to the Disney site.  I bet Disney will end up making them stop that somehow.

Date: 2009/11/28 10:38:20, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 28 2009,10:39)
 
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 28 2009,09:30)
Not gone yet.

Anybody else find this claim by O'Leary hard to believe?
       
Quote
Laughable at 1, as a woman who has faced sexual assailants myself on several occasions

To be fair, she didn't claim the assailants were human.

Don't mean to sound like the Thought Police, but that reflects some outdated and distasteful myths about sexual assault that attackers only go after attractive women or that sexual assault isn't a worry for "ugly chicks".

I don't think D'ohLeary is exempt from sexual assaults based on how attractive she is or isn't, I just doubt her claim that she faced them  
Quote
as a woman

Date: 2010/02/03 06:30:07, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
accept real biological principals
Until somone can build a robot that perform the duties of the head of a school, we all must accept real biological principals.  Oh, you must have meant principles, I get it.  Is there a language you do write coherently?

Date: 2010/02/12 15:19:12, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
How long before Joe makes a digital threat of some kind, then bravely runs away without providing us with anything that looks remotely like a testable hypothesis of ID?

Date: 2010/02/23 10:17:10, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 23 2010,10:11)
 
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 23 2010,09:07)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 23 2010,09:02)
Watch out guys, he'll threaten you with a "meeting".

Don't do it Joe, you'll throw your hip out again!

Joe has already promised to visit me.  Tickets will go on sale as soon as he confirms the date.  :D

Wow - Joe G internet bully is a one-trick phony.

Fixed.

Date: 2010/03/07 17:54:23, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 06 2010,17:12)
Hey Joe,

Say it with me: Even if evolution is 100%, that does not mean that ID (or your religion) is in any way correct.

Man, this guy's a wimp.

I don't know, not just anyone has the balls to sit in his mom's basement and type "I'll kick your ass, you assfaced asshole" into the comment box on a blog, like Joe does almost every day.  That takes some serious guts, you have to admit.

Date: 2010/03/29 13:39:01, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 11 2010,23:51)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 11 2010,15:58)
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 11 2010,15:16)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,08:15)
I think the EF is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

I must dispute this claim.

A chocolate teapot is WAY more useful than the Explanatory Filter. I can eat the chocolate teapot.

Exaptation?

I had a similar thought. Or better yet, I could give the chocolate tea pot to my wife, and she would finally forgive me that one time many years ago I forgot to giver her an anniversary card.

(ONE FRICKIN' TIME IN 20 YEARS)! (WE WENT OUT TO FREAKIN' DINNER. I WORE A FRICKIN' SHIRT- TUCKED IN, I MIGHT ADD)!

With sleeves?

Anyway, pulling teeth on a horse would be easier than getting GI Joe to actually pony up any real answers to your questions. He's got nothin', he knows he's got nothin', so he just does the "I know you are but what am I" schtick ad infinitum.

This is grossly unfair to Joe.  He also has the "I know you are but what am I, assface" schtick.

Date: 2010/11/05 09:07:06, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
If Elizabeth Pennisi was quoted out of context then why hasn't she spoke out?

Maybe Elizabeth Pennisi, like virtually everyone else on the planet, cares not one whit what the Dishonesty Institute is lying about at any given moment?

Date: 2010/12/07 16:33:51, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Dec. 07 2010,14:31)
Could it be possible JoeG is a covert operative employed by DI?

I think it's way more likely he's a covert FCD trying to make ID look bad.

Date: 2010/12/09 16:17:00, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 09 2010,13:55)
As for how long this will last- (answering the question that is the title of this thread)- well until one evo steps up and actually starts producing positive evidence for your claims.

IOW it will last a long, long time...

Which we can take as acknowledgement that your entire shtik is, to quote the title of this thread, a "tardgasm".

Well played, Mr Gallien.  Again.

As my dad says, "you ain't too bright, is you?"

Date: 2010/12/24 11:05:39, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Over at PT "Kris" was asked:          
Quote
The Atlantic Ocean is ~150,000,000 inches wide. The spreading rate has been measured by GPS (like a car navigator) at ~1 inch per year. There are multiple other lines of evidence that confirm this spreading rate. How old is the Atlantic ocean?  

and "Kris" replied:          
Quote

It’s as old as when the name “Atlantic” was first applied.

The water in the Atlantic Ocean is of variable age, depending on how it is measured.

The area or volume of the water in the Atlantic Ocean is also of variable size and age. Plate tectonics, tidal fluctuations, river runoff, weather, and all that jazz ya know.

Did I miss anything? It’s late and I’m sleepy. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Sound like anyone we know?

Date: 2010/12/24 11:15:12, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
A page earlier ""Kris" had the following exchange exchange with Dale Husband:        
Quote
Kris:  How about this question: Could a designer have created the ability (or mechanism if you prefer) for organisms to evolve immune systems, and/or anything else?

And if not “poofery” by a designer, then please precisely explain and prove the evolutionary process that shows how life came to be, and precisely how and why allegedly spontaneous mutations (no outside or designer influence) occur and have occurred throughout time.
   
Quote
Dale: I have already taken note of your earlier trick questions. We know what the limitations of science are. Making up dogmas to compensate for science’s limitations is itself unscientific, obviously.
   
Quote
Kris: You’re too stupid to even bother responding to except for a FUCK YOU Mr. agnostic unitarian universalist hypocritical impotent chicken-shit douchebag

Sound like anyone we know?

Date: 2011/01/04 12:38:04, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
God wants a relationship with us, He doesn't want to just be an idol to be worshipped, but a Heavenly Father to be loved.

Awww, isn't that just so warm and fuzzy.

Of course, what kind of father wants to be not "just" worshipped, but also loved--then tells his child that if he/she does not love and worship him, the child will be subject to INFINITE TORTURE?

You're a sick bastard, f off and die slow.  Nobody gives a crap about your inane superstitions.

Date: 2011/01/20 03:30:01, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 19 2011,20:44)
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 19 2011,18:45)
 
Quote (khan @ Jan. 19 2011,14:57)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 19 2011,17:34)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick

   
Quote
Tick is the common name for the small arachnids in superfamily Ixodoidea that, along with other mites, constitute the Acarina. Ticks are ectoparasites (external parasites), living by hematophagy on the blood of mammals, birds, and occasionally reptiles and amphibians. ...


   
Quote
...Ticks are blood-feeding parasites that are often found in tall grass where they will wait to attach to a passing host

I have removed ticks from myself and from cats.
The buggers have no preference for watermelon.

Maybe they just like the colour red.

Could be many factors that might draw them to it - even the texture of the watermelon rind might do it, for all I know.  Or maybe Joe misidentified the insects as ticks.

Given Joe's towering intellect, I wouldn't be surprised if he misidentified watermelon seeds as ticks.

Date: 2011/01/21 03:45:00, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 20 2011,22:39)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 20 2011,10:49)
uncivil = questions

ad hominim = asking for evidence of assertions

foul language = saying something is illogical or a strawman

threats = posting as anything but a crebot

Look who's talking. Hypocrite.

uncivil =  
Quote (Kris @ December 28, 2010 11:31 AM)
You are one seriously stupid, chickenshit, big mouthed dunce.

ad hominem=  
Quote (Kris @ December 28, 2010 6:56 AM)
You are a psycho chickenshit punk with a big mouth.

foul language =  
Quote (Kris @ December 28, 2010 12:56 PM)
you’re a chickenshit punk to boot.

threats =  
Quote (Kris @ December 28, 2010 6:56 AM)
You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?

What a mess you are Kris.  I hope you don't end up hurting anyone, but it looks inevitable.  Get help.

Date: 2011/01/21 04:31:29, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,05:10)
 
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Jan. 21 2011,01:45)
   
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 20 2011,22:39)
       
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 20 2011,10:49)
uncivil = questions

ad hominim = asking for evidence of assertions

foul language = saying something is illogical or a strawman

threats = posting as anything but a crebot

Look who's talking. Hypocrite.

uncivil =        
Quote (Kris @ December 28, 2010 11:31 AM)
You are one seriously stupid, chickenshit, big mouthed dunce.

ad hominem=        
Quote (Kris @ December 28, 2010 6:56 AM)
You are a psycho chickenshit punk with a big mouth.

foul language =        
Quote (Kris @ December 28, 2010 12:56 PM)
you’re a chickenshit punk to boot.

threats =        
Quote (Kris @ December 28, 2010 6:56 AM)
You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?

What a mess you are Kris.  I hope you don't end up hurting anyone, but it looks inevitable.  Get help.

Whatever you do, don't consider what was said to me or about me before I said those things.

I have limits and will not just take a lot of shit for nothing.

Funny, I don't ever threaten anonymous people I argue with on websites with physical violence, no matter what they say to me.  I don't post their personal information online either, or make childish threats to call their spouses and tell them intimate details I think would damage their relationships.  I guess you have different standards.  That's why I suggest finding help before you hurt yourself or someone else.  

I also suggest finding a thesaurus, and looking up some synonyms for "chickenshit"; I think you've hit a vocabulary roadblock there.

Date: 2011/01/24 04:35:44, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 24 2011,03:59)
FTK,
Should abortion be make illegal, what punishment would you deem appropriate for those who have illegal abortions?

Based on the "abortion is murder" reasoning, it should be a capital crime in death penalty states (like Kansas), right?  Premeditated murder of the tiny human being in her womb, right?  Ftk, should it be electric chair, lethal injection, hanging, or the firing squad?

Date: 2011/01/26 04:20:32, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Basically Ftk's position on abortion boils down to "abortion is murder, but I wouldn't vote to ban it."  Scary.  Better keep her away from sharp objects, and voting booths.  

But also typical of the average anti-choicer; they want to wave the "abortion is murder" flag to whip up emotional opposition to allowing women control of their own bodies, but know it's politically a non-starter to truly discuss this murder as such--since they would then have to advocate punishing the co-conspirators for it as other people who conspire to murder are punished.  I believe in Kansas a woman who pays a professional killer to murder a family member would expect to be put to death.  So they default to a position which further diminishes women, which is that somehow the woman is less accountable for the murder of the fetus--a murder which she concieved, planned, and fully conspired in--than the doctor, who somehow is to be seen as (far) more fully responsible for the murder, despite the fact that no abortion "murders" could ever occur without the woman's intent and action.

What a hypocritical, inconsistent (and woman-hating) mess, but it doesn't seem to bother them at all.  No wonder most of them are also creationists.

eta-more crap

Date: 2011/02/02 18:29:12, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 02 2011,11:16)
I'm a "pack animal".

I've overly moody today, so I should probably not take another glance at VD's posts about women.  Sometimes, though, I take great joy in knowing that if we were ever to meet, I would physically tower over him.

You don't have a flaming sword so, like, QED or something.

Date: 2011/02/07 08:09:21, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 07 2011,06:44)
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/science/careers-in-science-desk-from-successful-scientist-all-the-way-up-to-freelance-science-writ


er/#comment-372003]Robert Byers:[/URL]
 
Quote
Iknow young women who excel in science and math.
Indeed creationism, YEC, needs heaps of women to bring the victory.
The bible, unlike Darwin, teaches all human beings are born equal and simply need to be motivated to advance.
thats the problem.
Women are not motivated like men and never will be.
I believe because they are made for their husbands mission as the bible says.
So they innately don’t have ambition in the same measure.
In ten thousand activities i see women far behind men in ability. Especially non paid stuff.
In short women are less intelligent then men today as in the past.
More involved now but still way behind.
yet its because of motivation and not anything innate.
Same as with everyone.
The thing to do is tell girls to strive to do well but to accept its unlikely ever stats will demonstrate like ability.
There is a innate motivation to not live for themselves but for their husband.
Then they can do their own ambition.
I do not believe ever women will keep up, or close, to men intellectually.
in science and math this is just very obvious.
Poker and dirtbiking too.
And so on.

As long as women don’t see a innate intellectual difference then second place will not bother them.
They really do know they have very different motives for happiness.
A woman easily can be a great scientist.
Yet very unlikely few ever will.
Time will not change things.
Its about identity and profound motivation.

Awesome!  A man who can't spell, uses poor grammar, and is demonstrably clueless about biology, geology, theology, and american constitutional law, pontificating about how men are smarter than women.  

Byers, I've known precious few women who are as stupid as you.  Please add that data point to your graph.

Date: 2011/02/17 11:07:35, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 16 2011,23:57)
So every item in the list is a screed against evolution or atheism. Wasn't there one ID breakthrough to write about?

Silly, didn't you get the memo?  Science would be nothing but wall-to-wall ID breakthroughs, if only the International Darwinist Conspiracy (which is failing and losing power daily) had not been so successful and powerful at stifling dissent that it not only prevents the publication of ID-supporting research, it not only prevents the funding and execution of said research, it not only prevents people from proposing said research be done--it even manages to prevent anyone anywhere from describing, even in the most vague and conceptual terms, even on their own moderation-heavy blogs, what such research might look like if it wasn't so thoroughly quashed by teh Darwinist.  The IDC (hey, what a coincidence...) has effectively insured that nobody, anywhere, has ever even uttered one coherent sentence describing a potential or actual ID research program in any way.

Good job guys.





Date: 2011/02/18 13:04:01, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2011,15:35)
....you ignorant ball of puss.

Awesome, a mere two words separate Joe calling someone else ignorant, from his demonstration of being unable to spell "pus".

I love it so!

Date: 2011/02/27 06:05:42, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (how2debateevolution @ Feb. 27 2011,04:07)
I just registered with the forum and no matter where i try to post i am told that i am not allowed to post there.

is this forum a read-only forum?
i am surprised i can post here.

anyway, i think i'll be moving on elsewhere.



mike
----------------------------
http://howtodebateevolution.com/

Do we get to keep the link to your word salad website?

Date: 2011/03/16 19:00:07, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (dmjustice66 @ Mar. 16 2011,19:51)
BLASPHEMING BITCHES

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRyEsAiNtEc

I think she sums up the INSANITY of the atheist position quite well...


_

@rumsfeldoffice

SH*THEADS!


LOOK at the CORNFIELD


converted *MILLIONS*

http://www.randi.org/site....am.html


*****
WRONG
*****

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world....raq-war


CURVEBALL!

KABOOM...


http://costofwar.com/en/


but the REAL COST is not to be measured in dollars and cents but in HUMAN LIVES & FREEDOM...

http://www.unknownnews.org/casualties.html

http://antiwar.com/casualties/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQxmUp9QsNQ


___



Subject: Judgment Day









exposing quacks and war criminals who ordered the slaughter of innocent people...





say hello to my little friend...




http://electionink.com/threads/3579-Judgment-Day?p=36826

Borrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring.

Date: 2011/05/13 09:40:53, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 13 2011,00:44)
Thanks guys.  She did good work.  (www.alexismccarthyart.com)

Anyway, in other news... a challenge for you (no fair for Wes to play)

There are two telephone poles. Each one is 100-feet tall. They are parallel and some distance apart.

Attach a 150-foot rope to the top of each of the poles. This rope will droop down somewhat. That drooping rope is called a catenary, from the Latin word for chain.

What is the distance between the two poles, so that the lowest point of the catenary is 25-feet above the ground?

first correct answer gets a cookie...

If the rope is 150' long and each end is attached to points 100' off the ground, the only way for the middle of the rope to hang to a point 25' feet of the ground is if both ends are hanging from the same point.

So the answer is zero.

Date: 2011/05/13 09:50:40, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (k.e.. @ May 13 2011,10:44)
 
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ May 13 2011,17:40)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 13 2011,00:44)
Thanks guys.  She did good work.  (www.alexismccarthyart.com)

Anyway, in other news... a challenge for you (no fair for Wes to play)

There are two telephone poles. Each one is 100-feet tall. They are parallel and some distance apart.

Attach a 150-foot rope to the top of each of the poles. This rope will droop down somewhat. That drooping rope is called a catenary, from the Latin word for chain.

What is the distance between the two poles, so that the lowest point of the catenary is 25-feet above the ground?

first correct answer gets a cookie...

If the rope is 150' long and each end is attached at both ends to points 100' off the ground, the only way for the middle of the rope to hang to a point 25' feet of the ground is if both ends are hanging from the same point.

So the answer is zero.

Allowing for teh radius of the rope at the lowest point when hung from 2  x 100 ft poles it will never approach 25ft but zero is close enough

Since the radius of the rope was not given I assumed it was zero.  

I also assumed a spherical cow, but ended up not needing it.

Date: 2011/05/13 11:56:32, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 13 2011,12:41)
OT wins an internet cookie... just go to www.IDpr0n.com and you'll get it.

:)

UMass liberal arts degree in tha muthafunkin hizzy!

Date: 2011/05/18 10:00:47, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 18 2011,09:14)
OK, which one of you guys is johnnyb?

   
Quote
johnnyb

05/18/2011

6:26 am

I have a friend who was a professor, who started a successful undergraduate research program, who had a pretty decently-sized funding, and whose work the BBC did a documentary about. When they found out he wasn’t a Darwinist, he was fired, and the problem of being non-Darwinist prevented him from getting any meaningful academic work, so he had to go into truck driving for the rest of his career.

It's a good thing johnnyb didn't waste any of his valuable time providing the guy's name, or a link to the BBC documentary about him, or this anecdote could have been the evidence that sunk teh evilution.

Close one, eh?

Date: 2011/05/26 10:31:19, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 26 2011,04:45)
niwrad is at it again:      
Quote
In a previous post I provided a statistical test to compare chimpanzee and human genomes. As you can read there, the post generated a very interesting discussion among the readers, and it seemed to me that the general feeling at the end was that my statistical method for performing genome-wide comparisons might have some merit, after all.

That's because you only read the heavily censored responses that were allowed on UD.  In Real Life™, you got clobbered for one of the most clueless methods of comparing two genomes ever thought up.

ETA: I've had a chance to read the original post and it's worse than I remembered.  niwrad's "method" was to chop two strings of DNA into 30 base pair pieces and compare the pieces.  He measures about a 2/3 similarity instead of the expected 99%.  Clearly (and I am using the word in the ID sense of "stupidly"), the evilutionist scientists are wrong, wrong, wrong.  

In the third reply in that thread, AMW asks him if two strings that match in 29 places and differ in one place counts as a match.  niwrad answers that it doesn't.

In the rest of the thread, niwrad never quite figures out that if two strings of DNA are 99% identical, then they have, on the average, one mismatch per every 100 base pairs or, in other words, approximately one of each three 30 bp segments will have one mismatched pair of bases in it, thus giving you approximately a 2/3rds match.

And now he's back to do a victory lap.  I love UD!


ETAM (Edited to add more)  In the original post, read replies 19 from charlesj and niwrad's response at 24, then charlesj at 26 & 27 and niwrad's response at 29.  This is better than "Who's on first!"  I particularily like:    
Quote
Since 1.63 is lesser than 2.3 I wouldn’t say that the 30BMP test agrees well with a 1% difference, rather with a larger difference.

You can't write stuff that good!  I will give a bright shiny nickle to anybody who can come up with anything better (using "better" in the ID sense of "mentally thicker").

It's also great fun to watch AMW going around and around with batsass77.

Why chop them into pieces?  Why not compare a whole strand of chimp DNA with a whole strand of human DNA and decide that if they differ in any way, you have a 0% match.  Therefore jesus.

Date: 2011/06/20 20:25:35, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Kristine]

Quote (xliberationzz @ June 20 2011,20:19)
THE END OF AMERICA - THE END OF WAR

youtube.com/watch?v=EccZRiEUGlQ


http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?control=msg&t=15568

Your worst crime is being boring, Mabus.  Very, very boring.  A link to a X-Men movie trailer?  Really.

Date: 2011/06/27 16:45:17, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Kristine]

Quote (divinejustice333 @ June 27 2011,17:34)
see, you little shitheads think you are safe LYING behind your computers - YOU ARE DEADLY WRONG

You're incredibly boring.  I hope you don't think your puerile antics impress or scare anyone.

Date: 2011/08/08 03:57:13, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
makes you look dumber than usual

Is there a larger-than-usual value for infinity?

Date: 2011/10/25 07:35:38, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,07:07)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 25 2011,05:44)
Forastero,
Please tell me 1 single thing that ID explains that is currently not explained.

If not, then 1 single thing that ID explains more plausibly then is current accepted.

Again, as soon as one of ya explain to me whats currently accepted

What's with creationists' inordinate fondness for using "ya" instead of "you" (FL, JoeG, etc.)?  It's almost like it's meant to emphasize the slack-jawed stupidity of the ideas being advanced--as if the standard incompetence in spelling and grammar isn't enough of a clue.

Date: 2011/11/06 05:56:14, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,03:57)
 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 05 2011,23:25)
As for the flood, evaporite deposits could hardly result from a flood, nor is the enormous amount of bioturbation, including huge numbers of worm burrows, consistent with any flood.  Not that creationists care about actual evidence.

Glen Davidson

It wasnt just rain. The volcanic mid Atlantic ridge opened as did the fountains of the deep. Giant ice meteors  also hit the earth

Translation:  The fact that I know I am right (becuz i redd it in the bibble) means that my arguments get to assume evidence which does not exist, like "giant ice meteors" and "fountains of the deep" (whatever the fuck that means).

Date: 2011/11/08 08:18:13, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Obvious troll is obvious, why waste your time?  I've seen this act a hundred times on this board alone.

Date: 2011/11/08 11:57:21, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
every ancient culture recorded the event

You heard it here folks, the bibblicul grait flud is confirmed--by the eyewitness testimony of the people who were killed by it!

After a global flood that left 8 survivors, there would be no cultures to record anything, idiot.

You don't really bother to think these things through, do you?

Date: 2011/12/07 09:05:22, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 07 2011,09:34)
 
Quote (BillB @ Dec. 07 2011,05:46)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 07 2011,11:13)
A new metaphor from kairosflatus:

"I can understand your sense of urgency to respond to specific tangential challenges. However, I must note that the point of these is inherently to distract and to pull us into a poisonous crocodile death roll fight."

Now I'd pay good money to see that!

tard

Today I learned that one anagram of Gordon Mullings is 'Mud sling or long'

How very appropriate!

Dull moron gings

Don't forget the E: ID moron's null egg

Kairos Focus = A sicko for us

Date: 2011/12/07 09:58:01, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 07 2011,06:13)
A new metaphor from kairosflatus:

"I can understand your sense of urgency to respond to specific tangential challenges. However, I must note that the point of these is inherently to distract and to pull us into a poisonous crocodile death roll fight."

Now I'd pay good money to see that!

tard

Waiter, bring me a poisonous crocodile death roll, medium rare please.  Can I have that soaked in oil of ad hominem?

Date: 2011/12/08 12:58:27, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 08 2011,13:48)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 08 2011,09:57)
Dipshit Joe Gallien comes out in favor of ET

   
Quote
IMHO in a design scenario we should expect to find living organisms on other planets, especially organisms capable of technology and scientific endeavors

linky


This is the same guy who has spent the last few years arguing that Privileged Planet shows Earth was specially designed for humans and is the only place in the universe that can sustain life.

Huh, as far as I know the earth is the only place in the earth that can sustain life.  You know sumthin' I don't know?

Well, if he knows how to read for comprehension, that's at least one thing he knows that you don't.

For the kids anagram:

Hi! Dorkfest.

Date: 2012/01/21 03:12:40, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 20 2012,16:16)
Another sig worthy quote:

 
Quote
I have no interest in math. This is biology.


From our very own guest star, Robert Byers.

I've run out of sig room or I'd grab it.

Byers is too inane to be sigworthy.

Date: 2012/03/09 09:49:39, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 09 2012,08:44)
   
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 09 2012,07:33)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 09 2012,07:23)
     
Quote
Now, since these have exactly the same length.  AND since they both meet the minimum functionality (i.e. all humans with these genes, all other things being equal, survive), then everything is equivalent and the two sequences have exactly the same functional information.


And they both have the same variational tolerance?

Or did you not read about that?

Yes, Joe, they have the same "variational tolerance." (For God's sake, they differ by just one letter.)

Variational tolerance has nothing to do with it Joe.

I TOLD YOU THIS WAS THE WRONG TOOL

Now you want to complain about me using the ONLY tool you even offered to explain something it wasn't meant to explain.

The sheer mind boggling inanity of your 'work' on this forum is astounding.

Joe, I told YOU to offer up a definition of information.  I will let you choose the definition.  Then apply that definition to the two sequences and see which has more or if they have the same.

That is ALL that we are doing here.  The simple fact that you cannot accept, even by the measure YOU provided, that they have the same amount of information is utterly ridiculous.

If you don't like the way I used YOUR reference material... then YOU DO IT.  But you won't, because we both know you can't.  And you're too much of an intellectual coward to even try to support your own work.

In additional, I told you that a human can have two of the sequences and live, one of each and live, or two of the other and live.  Therefore, in terms of survival, which is just as valid a function as any other, they are the same.

Perhaps, if you knew what you were talking about, then you could come with a definition of function and a functional metric that shows that the two sequences are different.

Of course that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL QUESTION I ASKED does it?

Wow, 5-6 pages into this and we still can't get Joe to actually do anything.

Don't worry, I'm sure he's just about to do something.  Something like call you an assface, or accuse you of eating poopy diapers, or threaten to come to your house and physically attack you.  Just like any insecure, unimaginative 11-year old bully might do.  Joe always does, sooner or later.

Or maybe that wasn't the something you were hoping for.

Date: 2012/03/13 12:35:02, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Kristine @ Mar. 13 2012,11:52)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 13 2012,01:22)
I've been keeping up with the case on other sites but when I saw that Yahoo News article and wanted to bring it to the attention of people here I realized that there isn't a thread devoted to the case. I wasn't sure where to post about it and didn't want to clutter up the wrong thread. I just thought it might be a good idea to have a thread where posts about that case could be placed. I'll leave it up to the powers that be here. :)

I'm just being grouchy - of course a thread can be devoted to it. This is the place for it! But these &$%#@ lawsuits are just becoming just like the moment in your childhood that you realized that both "The Road Runner" and "Scooby Doo" always had the same ending. :p

Did you ever see the episode of Gilligan's Island where the castaways almost got off the island, but Gilligan did something idiotic and screwed it up?

Date: 2012/03/15 10:28:58, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 15 2012,09:29)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 11 2012,17:58)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2012,10:57)
Dude, buy a fucking vowel- archaeologists cannot say one fucking thing about the designers until they determine they even existed. And they do that by finding evidence of their existence via the determination of artifacts

And the only way they make any scientific determination about the designer(s) is by studying the design and the relevant evidence. That is what Intellignet Design is all about. And all the other questions prove that ID is not a dead-end as there are obviously unanswered questions that we will attempt to answer.

Stonehenge, made up of stones, stones mother nature can produce yet for some reason no one thinks mother nature produced Stonehenge. And after centuries of study we still don't know exactly who nor how...

I come back from a nice vacation to even more epic fail.

So, provide us the evidence that your 'designer' has existed.

Unfortunately for you, to eliminate circular reasoning, you can't use the things you claim are the designs as evidence of the designer.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Another dimbass response from the KevTARD-

How do we know there were designers of Stonehenge? Stonehenge is evidence there were designers of Stonehenge.

And again, dumbass, if you don't like the design inference just step up and demonstrate matter, energy, necessity and chance are all that is required.

Your position has all the power but unfortunately your position is full of cowards.

has joe ever posted anything, anywhere, which did not contain at least one spelling or grammar error/mistype?  is joe incapable of proofreading his own screeds? is perhaps his monitor too spittle-flecked from his angry screaming at interweb evotards to even make out the words he types?  is joe typing with his off hand because he's not just wanking all over the blogs he visits, but actually wanking?

inquiring minds couldn't possibly give half a stale cold shit.  ya know, iow, assface, blah blah blah.

Date: 2012/03/16 20:01:01, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 16 2012,20:52)
he's a poster child for something but i can't figure out exactly what...

Poster children?

Date: 2012/03/24 05:11:41, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Ftk is Louis' sock.

Date: 2012/03/27 03:59:32, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 26 2012,15:12)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 26 2012,11:59)
Where would he go? He is banned at PT, Pharyngula, and rationalskepticism; at TalkRat members don't discuss with him, they just laugh. And if he uses a sock his insolence will give him away rather sooner than later.


Looks like he's already resurfaced back at UD where he (posting as Atheistoclast) was banned earlier this year.  In a nod to his previous identity at "Ghostofpaley", he's posting as "Paleysghost".

linky

He's starting off by sucking up to Slimy Sal, setting him up nicely for a future big troll.

How was it established that GoP = Athiestoclast?  It sure feels right but I didn't see where anyone made a solid connection.

Date: 2012/04/01 05:58:55, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 31 2012,15:32)
joe gallien, creationist

home page

also see this

Proof that Joe is the creationist he told us he wasn't.  About as shocking as gambling at Rick's.  I predict Joe will be along to correct this misunderstanding shortly, using such typical arguments as "you eat shitty diapers" and "let's get together and have a fist fight."  Ya know, IOW, assface.

Date: 2012/04/01 05:59:55, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 01 2012,06:47)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 01 2012,11:55)


http://www.quickmeme.com/meme.......me....4

So, is that really Joe? He kinda looks...like a nice guy...

Yr doon it rong.

Look on the inside.

Date: 2012/04/01 16:07:16, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Joe isn't a creationist.  That was posted by his father, with whom he shares an email address.  And profile pic.  And special snuggletime partner (Joe calls her "mom").

Date: 2012/05/04 15:52:13, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (The whole truth @ May 04 2012,12:13)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 04 2012,08:05)
Joe's war on materialism continues, largely in moderation. This nugget still needs to be released :

       
Quote
Submitted on 2012/05/04 at 1:27 pm
Evidence- evidence is what materialism doesn’t have


Especially PHYSICAL evidence, Joe.

joe likes to believe in 'immaterial' things, like ghosts.

Awhile back he said that he would bet money that no one would spend a night in a haunted place of his choosing. I asked him to reveal the places and said that I would spend a night in any of them if he would actually pay up. Guess what? No response from him.

There is one haunted place where I wouldn't spend a night or a day or any other amount of time, for any amount of money: joe's delusional mind.

Dollars to donuts says that, had you actually followed through on your side of the bet, Dishonest Joe would have stiffed you on the grounds that you couldn't prove that the place that he had chosen was actually haunted.

Date: 2012/05/05 09:39:13, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Cy Mondolences.

Date: 2012/05/11 14:03:42, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Joe G @ May 11 2012,09:24)
Thanks for the bunnies- now time for your tunie:


(Porn image removed by a mod because JoeG is a child who can't act like a grown up.)

WTF is a tunie?  Does Joe have access to a special dictionary the rest of the world doesn't know about?  Because that word doesn't exist.

Neither does "galour", Joe.  But at least in that case you picked the least stupid misspelling of what you were trying to say, instead of a word that isn't a word at all.



What an offensive, brainless waste of space you are, Joe.  If you weren't so entertaining in your blustering, vacuous stupidity, you'd be of no use at all.

Date: 2012/05/12 08:02:05, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Febble @ May 12 2012,07:23)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ May 12 2012,02:05)
I found the meaning of "tunie".
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.....m=tunie

I've bookmarked an array of slang dictionaries and need them daily; in grammar school, we didn't get beyond Macbeth.

Yeah, the link was to a female crotch shot.

I have suspended him and announced a rule against porn links, which he needs to undertake not to violate as condition of reinstatement.

Thanks for the heads-up - I guess I should have checked the link earlier.

Not that anyone had any doubts, but here are Joe's true colors, and his level of intellectual maturity, for all the world to see.  I would suggest forwarding copies of his original posts to all of the ID-friendly sites that permit joe to participate, and post their responses (or predictable lack thereof), so more people can see just how icky things are inside that "big tent" of theirs.

Date: 2012/05/13 05:45:43, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 12 2012,17:30)
He may be the sadest guy on the internet. He may even believe his own fantasies are true. Daft old bugger.

I think you meant sadist.

Date: 2012/06/13 13:24:22, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Amadan @ June 13 2012,13:09)

POTCentury

Date: 2012/06/21 06:06:44, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Glen Davidson @ June 20 2012,16:04)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 20 2012,11:10)
Nothing in Biology Geology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution Geosynclinal Theory - Evolution News & Views

Absolutely brilliant.  :D

This whole series on the controversy of continental drift, and how eerily it mirrors today's Darwin vs. design dispute, has been absolutely scintillating.

Yes, brilliant, just like the Galileo gambit that they and every other pseudoscientist has brought up.

What have they ever done but produce very inexact analogies that fail at the facts every time?

Let's see, Wegener's idea explained the fit of continents and fossil distributions (related to the fact that evolutionary theory tells us that exact duplicates can't be replicated after extinction, not the case for design--gee, how does that turn out, in fact?), while IDiocy explains, uh, what the IDiots want it to explain--while every inconvenient fact that evolution predicts and is found is ignored by these dishonest cretins.

Did plate tectonics win by whining that it doesn't stoop to geologists' pathetic level of detail?

Glen Davidson

I think it was ultimately a farting flash animation that put tectonics over the top, wasn't it?

Date: 2012/07/01 07:46:54, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (keiths @ June 30 2012,17:26)
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 29 2012,17:50)
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 29 2012,19:11)
And another ID award recipient from an undisclosed secret location:

   
Quote
an award honoring college graduates for excellence in student advocacy of intelligent design (ID) the "Casey Luskin Graduate Award."


The first recipient of said award was ... Casey Luskin!

So, not only do the Discoveryoids publish their own journals and books but they invent awards that they give to themselves.  Cool.

I can see the list now:

The Dembski Award for Job Acquisition
The O'leary Writing Words Award for Understanding
The Byers Award for Cryptozoology
The Cordova Award for Ethical Interpersonal Conduct
The Mullings Award for Constitutional Crisis Resolution

The Berlinski Award for Humility and Concision

Gallien Award for IOW, Ya Know, Assface, "Tunie" Pic, Therefore ID

Date: 2012/07/02 02:16:08, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (The whole truth @ July 01 2012,23:13)
Quote (Woodbine @ July 01 2012,18:30)
 
Quote
Am wiping a tear from the corner of my eye just now. Of course he believes in UFOs visiting earth, of course he does.


Oh, he's been quite open about it.

TARD


When joey first posted that I asked him to name "these places" and I told him that I would glady go into any of those places if he'd like to place a bet on it. He never responded. What a surprise, not.

"scraped off for a landing area"

An alien race traveled at least 4 light years to reach earth, but couldn't land until a "landing area" was created?  What were they flying, a Cessna?

Date: 2012/07/03 07:25:09, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
We all believe in UFOs.  Are there objects?  Yes.  Do some of them fly?  Yes.  Are some people unable to identify some of the objects which fly?  Yes.  Those are Unidentified Flying Objects, eh?

The mental defect is in thinking that being unable to identify a given flying object means one is justified in inventing explanations based on imagination, bad movies and stuff said by other idiots who "believe" things instead of applying useful means of verifying hypotheses.  This is where conspiracy theorists fail.  I don't think the JFK assassination is adequately explained by LHO acting completely alone.  But even if I were 100% sure of this, it wouldn't justify me inventing ridiculous scenarios which do explain the assassination but aren't supported by actual evidence.  It's the same fallacy as ~Evolution, therefore Jesus.

Of course, Joe has a plethora of mental defects--the foremost being that he believes that he has none.

Date: 2012/07/06 12:03:18, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
You know how to drive a car Joe
Objection!  Assumes facts not in evidence, your honor.

I'm not sure we have evidence that Joe actually knows how to do anything, except blogwhore, insult, and make embarrassing errors he is congenitally incapable of recognizing, let alone admitting.

Date: 2012/07/19 03:19:03, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (The whole truth @ July 18 2012,23:14)
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 18 2012,18:05)
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 18 2012,19:42)
 
Quote (Ptaylor @ July 18 2012,15:33)
(Thinking) Hmm, I've had my sig line (welcoming arrogant idiots to UD) for over a year now; maybe time for a new one. What's on offer over at UD? Oh here's one.

Ah yes, the famous argument that prevents juries from functioning.

Let's give ID proponents credit. They are lawyers, and they do know the law. They know that it is impossible for mere physical or material evidence to support a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.

They would never ask a jury to convict a person or deprive a person of liberty, life or money based on materialistic, forensic reasoning.

Edited for syntax.

Excellent points, and to expand on them a bit, I offer this:

Let's say that an IDiot or any other science denying/bashing religious zealot has a young daughter, and one day she tells her parent (the IDiot) that she was raped by someone. She's crying and freaking out as most rape victims would justifiably do and the IDiot, like most parents, runs to the phone and frantically calls the cops. The cops show up, and so does an ambulance which takes the girl to a hospital. The hospital does a rape kit to collect evidence and the cops question the girl for more information but she cannot identify the rapist.

In this situation there's no video, no photos, no witnesses,  no fingerprints, and the girl does not know who the alleged rapist is, but there is medical/biological/scientific evidence of a rape. There is some vaginal bruising/abrasions and a single pubic hair but no semen because the rapist used a condom. The cops eventually match a guy to the DNA of the hair and charge him with rape and the case goes to court. The DNA of the hair matches the DNA of the suspect with an accuracy of 98% and the suspect has no alibi or any other evidence to show that he didn't do it.  

Now, would the IDiot parent argue that the suspect cannot be guilty because the DNA doesn't match 100%? Would the IDiot argue that there are 'gaps' in the case because there is no video, no photos, no description of the rapist, no fingerprints, and no eye witnesses? Would the IDiot argue that since the cops and prosecutor and science can't account for every single nanosecond of the suspect's actions and whereabouts that day and for the history of his entire life that there are 'gaps' and therefor no case against him? Would the IDiot argue that biological/forensic/medical/DNA science can't be trusted and is nothing but a corrupt, materialistic, atheistic, amoral, evil, "Darwinian" agenda?

Would the IDiot devote his/her life, recruit others, publish books, create websites, bash material evidence, bash science, join or create organizations that spend millions, and do all the other things that IDiots do in their 'war' against materialism, in order to vehemently campaign for the release and freedom of the suspected rapist, or would the IDiot want to see the rapist swiftly convicted on the material evidence, imprisoned for a very lengthy time (or worse) and burn in hell for all eternity for raping the IDiot's daughter?  

And what if the suspected rapist used a defense based on supernatural, immaterial woo? Would the IDiot parent of the raped girl be swayed by that?

I think that the answers to the questions are obvious. The IDiot, like most parents, would want to see the rapist hung by his balls in the town square and would be totally convinced by the 98% match (and likely a much less convincing match) of the DNA from a single hair. No other evidence would be necessary and no 'gaps' would even be considered. If something like the rape described above were to happen to an IDiot or someone they care about they would suddenly be totally concerned with only the material evidence and would expect and demand that the cops, prosecutor, jury, and judge take only the material evidence into consideration and convict the suspect. Suddenly science would be completely trustworthy. The SAME science the IDiots fight against every day.

And who do you think the IDiot would want to see testifying about the DNA evidence that would convict his/her daughter's rapist? behe, wells, dembski, luskin, klinghoffer, joe g, gordo 'liar' mullings, arrington, o'leary, ba77, corny hunter, axe, wl 'genocide' craig, uptightbiped, torley, freshwater, or any of the other IDiots? Would an IDiot trust one of their ilk in such a case or would they want a real scientist who's an expert on DNA to testify for the prosecution?

ID logic requires that if the materialist prosecutor cannot prove that god didn't rape the woman, the accused must go free.

Date: 2012/07/24 15:38:33, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 24 2012,16:24)
Kwok claims that JoeG is atheistoclast and IBIG.

Is there any evidence that this is so?

I think the separate real-world existence of Joseph Gallien and Joseph Bozorgmehr is pretty clear.  They are similarly pathetically grandiose and are both given to making impotent physical threats over petty slights, but I don't see more than that.

IBIG isn't notable or interesting enough to care who he actually is; I don't know that I've ever seen him give any details that suggest he has a life outside of writing PT comments. I've seen suggestions that he might be a group effort, which feels kind of right; there's no there there.

Kwok's wrong about most stuff, I find.

Date: 2012/08/17 08:17:31, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Hey Joe what is melted chocolate made of?  I know it's not made of chocolate, of course, but what is it made of?

Date: 2012/08/17 08:21:24, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 17 2012,09:01)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 17 2012,15:59)
I had to twist the knife a little and remind Joe that he's not allowed on my blog because he's a jerk, not because I'm scared of his 'arguments'.

I wonder if he'll promote it.  He'll probably hold on to it until he has the perfect comeback.

dickface?

I think it will be "Ya know, IOW, blind watchmaker, your side has no evidence, {insert porn here}, assface."

Date: 2012/09/06 04:04:55, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (warmonkey @ Sep. 05 2012,16:24)
we use an ancient word - CHERTE (the only french word we use).





see if you can find out what it means

Well Dennis, a lot of people posting here do have internet access, and unlike YOU, all of them are legally entitled to use that access to look up stuff.  I think we'd all be better off if you stopped violating your probation by posting your impenetrable nonsense here and instead go seek the mental health treatment you so obviously need.  Despite what you might think, and despite your many years of obviously mentally-ill abuse posted across every corner of the skeptical, scientific and athiest internet, virtually everyone you've attacked and insulted would graciously forgive and accept you if you would just stop this crap and seek help for your problems.  As it is, nobody sees or cares about the apocalyptic conflict you imagine yourself engaged in, except you.

Date: 2012/09/10 11:31:16, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 09 2012,22:50)
       
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 09 2012,13:09)
I   bet you evotards think solar energy can make water flow uphill without the aid of a designer.

No. See, what the solar energy does is evaporate the water, after which it isn't liquid so it isn't water any more until it rains somewhere. So it doesn't have to flow!

So there!!111!!!one!!!

Did you know you can calculate the CSI of water by counting the number of letters in the recipe?  
 
Quote
Water

Ingredients:

1 cup water

Directions:  

Add water.

Serves: 1 (serving size 1 cup)

It also works for ice:
   
Quote
Ice

Ingredients:

1 cup water


Oh wait, that can't be right.  Ice isn't made of water.  Nevermind.

Date: 2013/01/11 10:03:32, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Which of GG's statements is stoopider?      
Quote
(Paraphrased) "Science, which is obviously wrong, supports my ideas."

or  
Quote
(Implied) "I have a groundbreaking scientific theory, and the best way to promote it is to obsessively troll an obscure bulletin board frequented by science-minded people who unanimously perceive me as a fraud and a crank."

Date: 2013/01/12 02:57:03, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I am obliged to those who take this theory seriously
Well, are we not all obliged to ourselves?

Give me a break, tedious crank.  Your so-called theory is "taken seriously" (in any relevant scientific sense) by the exact same number of people that fear Stephen Hawking's mixed martial arts skills, plus one (you).

Date: 2013/01/22 14:38:26, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
What I am saying is I already have more projects going on than I can finish, and must focus on developing the theory

Ha ha, good one.  Too busy to finish all your projects, too busy to do any real science--but not too busy to post here 637 times with no hope of convincing anyone of anything.

Am I the only one who notices that IDiots feel the need to constantly tell us about all the other important things they have going on?  I plan to give examples of this later, after I do some laundry and write a book.

Date: 2013/01/22 16:07:12, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 22 2013,16:40)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 22 2013,14:12)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 22 2013,14:07)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 22 2013,14:04)
     
Quote
What is the cause of intelligence in humans?

Neural networks?

A "brain" connected to a body.

Cats have brains connected to bodies.  Are they intelligent?

Rats have brains connected to bodies.  Are they intelligent?

Flounder have brains connected to bodies.  Are they intelligent?

I think we have established that brains connected to bodies are a requirement, but not sufficient to be a cause of intelligence.

See how science works?  You make a claim.  That claim is tested.  In this case, it was found to be insufficiently discriminatory.  

What else do you have?

I am honestly in agony right now, maybe in the hospital soon, because of how science works when there is a political need to trivialize an important scientific matter. I'm an example of what happens when the system is broken, resources must go to help starve them out then they get to drop dead, while a personality parade of the usual opinion goes back and forth. Actual science work, already on the internet with plenty more to work on has to be ignored, by ones claiming to represent the best interest of science? Year after year of this is literally killing me, and I have to get serious about that, before it soon does me in for real.

I am honestly in agony over the violence you do to the English language every time your fingers touch a keyboard.

Date: 2013/01/24 17:10:14, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 24 2013,18:00)
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 24 2013,13:18)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 24 2013,09:44)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 24 2013,06:29)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 23 2013,23:30)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 23 2013,23:22)
Nobody has asked Gary to defend Dembski and his conjectures,.....

Fine, don't bring them up again...

I brought up the distinction between "ordinary design" and "rarefied design". That shows quite clearly that Gary's assertion that scientists have difficulty with acknowledging "intelligent cause" is bollocks.

Gary brought up Dembski.

Draw a conclusion.

Your obscure philosophy journal article does not once mention the phrase "intelligent cause". Even where it did, you're still just talking philosophy, not science. Scientists don't need your religious opinions.

Gary, I hate to say this but you should stop talking.  I mean, I want you to continue; you're stupid funny. But, for your own good you should never speak again.

Seriously, you can't even go one word--ONE STINKING WORD--without contradicting yourself.  You can't write, you can't form coherent thoughts, and you have to ability to communicate them to anyone.

editz for the formatz

Then I'll try this:

Is the Theory of Intelligent Design that I have online for download a scientific theory or is it religion?

no

Date: 2013/01/25 02:19:40, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 24 2013,18:15)
 
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Jan. 24 2013,17:10)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 24 2013,18:00)
Then I'll try this:

Is the Theory of Intelligent Design that I have online for download a scientific theory or is it religion?

no

That was a totally ambiguous answer. It's like asking:

Is it green or red?

Then you say "no"

Talk about my communication skills? Wow!

GG: "Is it green or red?"

OT: "No." (because it's yellow)

GG: "That was a totally ambiguous answer."

OT: "You, sir, are a moron."

Date: 2013/01/25 02:31:27, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 24 2013,19:20)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 24 2013,18:08)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 24 2013,18:02)
     
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 24 2013,17:48)
When one person says "A or B" and the second person says "no", that means neither of those options.

It looks more to me like someone else being silly (a troll).

Have you stopped beating your wife or do you still do it?

That's a bizarre new tactic. How do I prove I don't beat my wife. Do you need to talk to her? Oh wait a minute, you will then say it's me not her. I guess whatever you want to believe, is what you are going to believe, so screw you, nutcase.

An interesting window into Gary's lack of grasp of the English language.  We are all aware of the implications of the stock question "have you stopped beating your wife" and the conundrum in which it places the person who is asked it.  Yet GG has been living in his mom's basement (doing "science") so long that he has apparently never encountered the trick, and not only has to walk himself (and us) through his discovery of its meaning, but then proceeds to behave as though Ogre has really asked him about his proclivities for domestic violence.

Yeah, I "talk about your communication skills," Gary.  Because they're lacking.

Date: 2013/01/25 09:17:43, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I even think I'm ready to graduate to what had PZ Meyers getting record hits on his science blog

You mean you're planning on writing clearly and concisely on a wide variety of topics that interest different types of people, and backing up your assertions with well-organized, valid arguments supported by actual evidence?  

The only part of PZ's gig you are currently capable of, as far as I see, is that you are able to figure out how to post stuff on the Internet.

Date: 2013/01/26 14:25:35, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
The theory that is supposed to be under discussion is ignored.

It's not a theory, and it's not being ignored.  It's being mocked and ridiculed--not least because of the fact that you keep insisting it is a theory.  I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Date: 2013/01/29 14:39:01, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 29 2013,13:46)
There are no scientific questions to answer here. Just the usual nutcase arguments.

And yet you come back, day after day, comment after comment, as if you don't have anything better to do (even though you're always telling us you do).  You're so pressed for time, you have the most important "theory" in the history of biology, and everyone here is a nutcase--yet here you are, again and again, 718 posts and counting.  

And as far as questions, we've all noted that you basically refuse to answer any whatsoever, except in the form of C&P dumps of crap we've already seen before and which don't answer anything.

You're the nutcase.  People here are just yanking your chain.  If you just admitted you like it, would it break the spell for you?

Date: 2013/01/31 22:17:11, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2013,20:09)
   
Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 31 2013,18:15)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2013,18:07)
       
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 31 2013,17:11)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2013,17:08)
         
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 31 2013,16:29)
           
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2013,17:20)
Organized suppression of a scientific theory on religious grounds (I am now experiencing)

By whom, exactly?

Look in a mirror.

How exactly has Steve "Organized suppression of a scientific theory on religious grounds " be specific. He can't sue you for defimation if it's not true.

Like me calling you a liar. I'm perfectly safe.

Helping US taxpayer funded academia suppress religiously inconvenient scientific theory (that is easily evidenced by how cells self-organize to produce a human or other multicellular intelligence) is direct participation in a First Amendment violation.

You are already guilty. Only question is, how much longer your religious group can get away with it.

Just to be clear, which religious group is that?

You do not have to be of any certain religion to impose your religious views upon others.

Would the Dover school board members have been found innocent where instead of using arguments found in Creationism to suppress scientific theory they used arguments from the other religious side of the issue that are found in Atheism to suppress scientific theory?

The defendant in Dover was the Dover Area School District, not "school board members."  Judge Jones found for the plaintiffs.   

Dover was a civil lawsuit.  In a civil suit, there is a finding for the plaintiff or for the defendant.  In a criminal trial, the accused is found guilty, or not guilty.  

In neither is anyone judged "innocent."  

Is there anything you don't suck at, besides programming little cartoon bugs?

Date: 2013/02/01 14:40:56, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 01 2013,11:19)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2013,22:33)
all people have a religion


It's like staring at the sun, except the sun is made of stupid.

Just another IDiot who declares victory in every argument, by the very simple expedient of defining words however he wishes.  Other than hoping to wind Gary up into a Joseph Bozorgmehr-like meltdown, sputtering and raving and threatening to blow up scientists who offend him by daring to reject his retarded little idea, I'm not sure what more there is to be accomplished here.

Not that that wouldn't be cool.

Date: 2013/02/01 18:02:31, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 01 2013,18:23)
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 01 2013,17:00)
I'm still waiting to find out how I'm a part of Organized suppression of Gary's scientific theory on religious grounds.

I mean, I've never even kicked one of Gary's posts to the Bathroom Wall. I must be the laziest Organized Suppressor in history.

The constant dwelling on religion and personal attacks that you find amusing speaks for itself, even though you find no problem with that and pride yourself for encouraging it.

And yet you continue to participate, day after day, as though you have nothing better to do.  Why?

Date: 2013/02/01 18:08:14, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 01 2013,19:04)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Feb. 01 2013,18:02)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 01 2013,18:23)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 01 2013,17:00)
I'm still waiting to find out how I'm a part of Organized suppression of Gary's scientific theory on religious grounds.

I mean, I've never even kicked one of Gary's posts to the Bathroom Wall. I must be the laziest Organized Suppressor in history.

The constant dwelling on religion and personal attacks that you find amusing speaks for itself, even though you find no problem with that and pride yourself for encouraging it.

And yet you continue to participate, day after day, as though you have nothing better to do.  Why?

Please stop posting to this thread.
Thank you...

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Edited to add: Go fuck yourself.

Date: 2013/02/05 03:30:04, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 04 2013,23:22)
2009/2010 Programme for International Student Assessment results (from Wikipedia)

Sciences (Top 20)
1 Shanghai, China
2 Finland
3 Hong Kong, China
4 Singapore
5 Japan
6 South Korea
7 New Zealand
8 Canada
9 Estonia
10 Australia
11 Netherlands
12 Liechtenstein
13 Germany
14 Taiwan
15 Switzerland
16 United Kingdom
17 Slovenia
18 Macau, China
19 Poland
20 Ireland

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

I don't get it.  Are you telling us your understanding of science is so shitty because you were educated in the US?

Well, the first step to getting help is admitting you have a problem.

Date: 2013/02/05 03:33:30, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
That was posted for more than just you.

Who, then?  Name, or even just describe, someone* who actually gives a shit about your "theory" and waits for your latest update.

---

*Voices in your head do not count.

Date: 2013/02/05 14:05:48, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 05 2013,05:24)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Feb. 05 2013,03:33)
 
Quote
That was posted for more than just you.

Who, then?  Name, or even just describe, someone* who actually gives a shit about your "theory" and waits for your latest update.

---

*Voices in your head do not count.

See my great big signature line, and earlier posts.

So, basically, nobody.  PSC doesn't care about your "theory", and certainly does not care a whit whether you modify it in the future.  

So.....nobody.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Date: 2013/02/07 11:12:34, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Feb. 07 2013,09:38)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 07 2013,07:44)
       
Quote (oparchangel2013 @ Feb. 06 2013,20:08)
Spread the WORD


http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseCh....Ch....1

they did not survive Armageddon...

2 Kings 19

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage....ion=NIV


"That night the angel of the Lord went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning—there were all the dead bodies!"




http://www.youtube.com/v....zX....zXLin7o

i want to go HOME...

i don't want to deal with all these little atheist f*ckers anymore....


Atheism will NO LONGER EXIST after we finish...


Welcome oparchangel2013. You’re just in time. It seems like all of the science theory work going on in the thread with my name on it I was sent to to be grilled was boring half the forum, and they needed something this religiously puzzling to work on. And the full screen Depeche Mode mode was impressive.

From what I now know, Atheism is said to not be a religion yet they too are in the collective of human minds containing many religions searching for our Creator in many different ways, where in their case it is to try to prove that the process of creation is nothing more than “dumb chemicals” which slowly change over time, that's it. But since their working hard to find new scientific evidence to prove the other side wrong only explains more about how our Creator works, they can only help the search along. Normally do not realize that. Where their hypothesis is tested we find forces as in physics inside each molecule where under the right conditions combine to “Poof!” and it’s there self-assemble into an entire phospholipid membrane vesicle enclosure for a cell. Along with Chromosomal Adam and Eve existing in science there goes the “slow change” argument. Next comes the argument that a phospholipid is not intelligent, but we here have to give them a point for that being true. In regards to even bigger questions though, our intelligence has a part that has been learning through estimated to be billions of years of time, still loving life we can consciously feel inside us but not directly experience with billions of years of hindsight of our development. Throughout all time and space maybe we are forever with whatever is our Creator, in a cyclic universe that has cycles bring all that back again so none get bored on our trip through eternity.

What is new in science progress already has the Atheist camp busy reworking their retina biology and related philosophy (of science) while a part of a growing ID camp has been developing scientific theory that is way more fun than that.

Here's an excellent way of summing up the combined religious thoughts of this electronic computer forum human collective intelligence, where one way or another all are part of the congregation in the Kid Rock - Amen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....GI2o_VQ

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....GI2o_VQ

You should stay in your own thread.  The post you're responding to is from a psychopath named David Mabus who's gotten into trouble with the law in Canada for making crazy death threats.
I think David Mabus is a pseudonym, the nut's real name appears to be Dennis Markuze. Gary, Mr Markuze has actually been legally banned from posting on the Internet, had recently been re-arrested for violating that ban, and is back to doing it again.  You've picked quite the distunguished interlocutor...

I would say Dennis/David's and Gary's posts are about even on the level of scientific content and quality of Youtube links.

Tiebreaker - Can Mabus/Markuze program a cartoon bug?  Let's get ready to rumble!

Date: 2013/02/07 15:39:57, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 07 2013,13:06)
Please ignore Markuze/Mabus.


Just reported him to Montreal police.

Date: 2013/02/13 12:11:15, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 13 2013,05:40)
After starting the program to leave it on for some time I started thinking how long the Cambrian Explosion curve is, relative to that of molecular intelligence. To start off right it seemed like the number of generations needs to roughly equal number of memory/thought cycles, which seems to be one or more per years where we consider snowball Earth models that suggest periods of long time between cell replication of even single cells, and slower replication rate upon reaching the multicellular level. It seems like the line chart should look right to fit the data at ten years per generation equaling 400,000,000 cycles which is 7 hours running time (in Turbo mode) to be the blue band at the bottom for primitive algae with no cellular intelligence to speak of that just replicates in place, has remained the same since, along with the other designs that were long ago found to work for molecular intelligence, still here, and the most developed level of them all. That can be used as a reference to fit the curve in between that starts a third or more to the center of the chart, here at 2 billion years ago after cellular was already here but not yet that well exploited yet:  



It is maybe best to fit the front end of the Cambrian curve to fossil data, stating a little in the PreCambrian to account for evidence that was the most earliest beginning that was brought up in this forum and can be assumed to be where the 0,0 point is to be placed. Wiki has it that the Ediacaran period with age range of 635 to 542 million years shows biota including the oldest definite multicellular organisms with tissues, and the most common types resemble segmented worms, fronds, disks, or immobile bags.

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

To be on the safe-side with dates it here seems good to go with 600 million years as where the curve starts, a little before what is given for the “Ediacaran biota” fossils:

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

Since the theory uses trilobite eye design as a milestone in development of biological diversity its relative place in the curve is at 520 million, where the curve should then go up the amount representative of how much more there has been since. Correct me where you disagree, but my best guess from a design type perspective is that this has less than doubled since the first trilobites. Where we can agree on that type of criterion for how to fit the Cambrian related curve then the data should fit it, which can be added in later from what appeared when.  After looking at the timeline Wiki has it would work there, provided we are discussing biodiversification as it relates to design types that have been founded, not total number of species that later exploited it.

It seems that another illustration would be an easy way to add another page of useful information to the section. Can use some of what I just said above to explain it to you. You then get to see how the first curve is used with others to show a 4 billion year timeline (in theory where first intelligence is predicted to predate cells that could fossilize). In this theory it is possible to draw smooth lines showing an underlying curve drawn from an actual run of the multicellular level intelligence type critter of the Intelligence Design Lab being applied to the fractal like self-similar systematics at the other levels.

Now that it’s easy to add up the data and show what it all looks like, that is a good thing to add right now. Coding a small routine to sum down the raw data from the program may also make the line chart easier to convert to eps or other file format, by having it reduced to billion years ago “tick marks” instead of data that may already be overwhelming the chart drawing software with numbers. It will be more like the LaTex example I started with, that I had to zap out a couple of lines from to get it to draw right, which might help solve the conversion problem to have back in.   And the program already made it to 222 million cycles so it’s more than halfway to being aligned to Billion Years Ago geological dating with a time scale calibrated to 100,000,000 cycles per unit time. Might as well see what I can do with all the data I’m expecting.

Thoughts?

Yes, they are.  Just not good ones.

Date: 2013/02/13 14:31:52, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 13 2013,14:53)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 12 2013,21:09)
Steve and Blipey are starting to frighten me.

Well it's not totally enigmatic. If you study Gary's writing a bit you can see the things he does which makes his sentences super shitty and indecipherable.

I disagree, I find I can understand everything he writes if I just work on it long enough.

It's never worth it.

Date: 2013/02/13 15:22:09, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 13 2013,16:08)
Is there a word for 'not indecipherable, but not worth deciphering'?

Shite?

Date: 2013/02/19 02:38:44, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
From what I learned from science history indicates that something making this much sense, causing this much ruckus, is an extremely good sign that the theory is scientifically important, historic

Having a bunch of people on a bulletin board say "Your 'theory' isn't a theory and your writing style sucks" is neither "making sense" nor "causing ruckus", and it certainly doesn't indicate scientific importance, historic or otherwise.  I think it might more properly be taken as a sign that your 'theory' isn't a theory and your writing style sucks.

Date: 2013/02/19 15:09:32, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
What a bunch of crybabies, in this forum

Yet for some reason you think this is the best place to flog your stupid little program.  Every day, 900+ posts over almost five months, posting your brilliant ideas here only to be mocked by such "crybabies".  Poor you.

Why do you do it?

Date: 2013/02/25 15:30:15, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
If none here want to help further test the theory then that’s their choice

I think it's pretty much unanimous that nobody here think it's anything like a theory and as such, no, nobody's going to help you test it.

Will you be fucking off now, or would you like to pretend to stroke your flaccid ego for another 100 pages?

Date: 2013/02/27 14:54:19, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 27 2013,14:05)
 
Quote
From that though we get an illustration where the image in a famous painting makes a pointer that shows intelligent cause galore emerging up to us, and due to reciprocal case has a pathway in the other direction to where our consciousness comes from. You only have to lighten up a little while I explain how the theory connects to the everything is energy realm in a religiously meaningful way, to help better answer some of our biggest of questions.



Gary, pro tip: If it here takes longer to here understand here a sentence you here wrote here than it does to here read it, your writing here sucks.

Date: 2013/02/27 15:16:10, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 27 2013,13:23)
     
Quote
We can each compliment one other, just need to get used to the theory in question and I only looking forward in a way that makes your realm on the other side of a 47 second origin point moving through time along its timeline, you already well enough preserve.


That's epically shitty writing. We should get Gary a job as a Technical Writer, just to see the laughably horrible instructions he produces on how to change a tire, or operate a mig welder.

Step Six: Proceeding here to the rear portion of the automobile the user will now here proceed in a way compatible with aftward movement of the feet to the back of the car now remaining ever here mindful of the need to eventually reach the trunk even despite the harassment and insults I have here endured while here writing this manual which has received favorable reviews in secret venues throughout the world and in emails I cannot share or even quote here anonymously because they do not here exist.  Step A3:  Using here the key which the user had already obtained in the step I should have written before this one instead of waiting until now to mention it but I have a great many other projects to work on and cannot be arsed to explain anything or ever answer a direct question about anything here the user will if he here so chooses now here endeavor to place said key into the slot marked "Intelligent Cause" on the diagram I previously linked to (and which the dishonest maintenance-stoppers on this board must all here unanimously agree that Wesley here lied about when he said he had clicked on) and turn here the key non-anticounterclockwiselike to the opposite of left to here unlock the trunk.  Step Negative Nine: Figure here the rest out yourself I have already here provided more than enough information about my theory of Intelligent Tire Changing for legitimate mechanics to test whether and how the tire can be changed and I have a great many other projects to here work on and cannot here be expected to here change your tire for you waaa waaa waaa cry cry cry my theory will one day revolutionize tire changing but other mechanics refuse to do my work for me.

Edit: Accidentally used a comma.





Date: 2013/02/28 03:38:14, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Feb. 27 2013,16:16)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 27 2013,13:23)
         
Quote
We can each compliment one other, just need to get used to the theory in question and I only looking forward in a way that makes your realm on the other side of a 47 second origin point moving through time along its timeline, you already well enough preserve.


That's epically shitty writing. We should get Gary a job as a Technical Writer, just to see the laughably horrible instructions he produces on how to change a tire, or operate a mig welder.

Step Six: Proceeding here to the rear portion of the automobile the user will now here proceed in a way compatible with aftward movement of the feet to the back of the car now remaining ever here mindful of the need to eventually reach the trunk even despite the harassment and insults I have here endured while here writing this manual which has received favorable reviews in secret venues throughout the world and in emails I cannot share or even quote here anonymously because they do not here exist.  Step A3:  Using here the key which the user had already obtained in the step I should have written before this one instead of waiting until now to mention it but I have a great many other projects to work on and cannot be arsed to explain anything or ever answer a direct question about anything here the user will if he here so chooses now here endeavor to place said key into the slot marked "Intelligent Cause" on the diagram I previously linked to (and which the dishonest maintenance-stoppers on this board must all here unanimously agree that Wesley here lied about when he said he had clicked on) and turn here the key non-anticounterclockwiselike to the opposite of left to here unlock the trunk.  Step Negative Nine: Figure here the rest out yourself I have already here provided more than enough information about my theory of Intelligent Tire Changing for legitimate mechanics to test whether and how the tire can be changed and I have a great many other projects to here work on and cannot here be expected to here change your tire for you waaa waaa waaa cry cry cry my theory will one day revolutionize tire changing but other mechanics refuse to do my work for me.

Edit: Accidentally used a comma.


Date: 2013/02/28 22:46:13, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 28 2013,19:47)
I gave the long reply to Wesley a good editing for grammar and understanding. It’s the same information, but this better finishes the thoughts. The reply became more complicated as I went and needed work for another day, but I didn’t have enough time so had to go with what I had. Since it is good for explaining how science and religion are kept properly separated, it was worth considering the last a work in progress that is now this revision:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is no doubt that ID had its beginning in 1999 era creationism. In fact, I got into the debate for the same reasons you did. The Discovery Institute did not have a coherent scientific theory.

Where you and I differ, is that you focus on what ID was in the past, while I focus on what ID in the future becomes. It’s now to some just a common ordinary unusual but interesting computer challenge you can find online these days at Planet Source Code. What was once a major issue is already becoming no big deal anymore, especially to the growing number now in schools who do not know there was a controversy. They would probably find it silly that there even was so much fuss over it. From the theory we also get an illustration where the image in a famous painting makes a pointer that shows intelligent cause galore emerging up to us, where due to reciprocal case there is a pathway in the other direction to where our consciousness comes from. You only have to lighten up a little while I (outside of its classroom style text) explain how the theory connects to the <a href="[URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9qHS5IrO0I" target="_blank">everything]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....rything</a> is energy[/url] realm in a religiously meaningful way, to help better answer some of our biggest of questions. Going further, to answer more, now requires in-silico experimenting using pdb files like here at this excellent website which has many of the primary molecules to mix into experiments:


http://chemistry.gsu.edu/Glacton....db.html
http://chemistry.gsu.edu/Glacton....aa.html

My goal was to by writing an earlier Planet Source Code computer model and some kitchen chemistry, further develop what I had to explain the theory to others, which I hoped Kathy Martin and others would like and be empowered by too. Creationists only got into unexpected trouble with what the Discovery Institute had/has, and it does not really help answer the big-questions which is way by the time of Ben Stein’s movie they were becoming too bored by it to show up in droves, therefore the movie was a box-office disaster. At least what I explained was scientifically tangible. A spinoff like this in time coming from the noisy hearing all thought was a bad thing for Kansas (that was mostly Kathy’s fault) and its later arguments over it in the regularly noisy but happy family at Kansas Citizens For Science forum is something all can be proud for sowing the seeds of……

Although I would love to figure out how to make a winning paper/article out of it this is not something I can publish in a science journal, then that’s that. I have to experiment a little with NAMD and other things the theory needs for the future, while showing what ID culture looks like and is in the future is going, which for right now only requires I be here with you right now linking to YouTube and educational sites in this forum that exists to discuss the Theory of Intelligent Design of the past, that you and others already well enough documented by blogging about, without needing my help to write it [humor intended]. We are both focused in opposite directions of the theory’s timeline, which makes whatever you blogged all fine by me.

The video from Casey Luskin has long been the official word on what qualifies as Theory of Intelligent Design, where its goalposts are. What Casey said in the video, keeps things fair. And in a quick 47 seconds of video the next step is to explain the scientific details of what is described for a theory. All get right into the real-science, real fast.

What has been speculated by thousands who formed their own IDeas is something else entirely. Outside of the video is a mix of everything, including all the religious and scientific explanations there ever were. To keep things scientifically fair, all must begin with the video intended to be where all must start, then go from there, to wherever that leads them. And for the sake of real-science, all that Casey speculated outside of that 47 second video is likewise in the mix of many who had tentative IDeas, which don’t all have to work for the theory to have been a success, in the end. In limiting things to that video, Casey gains the freedom to have his religious opinions not held against them. Keeping it simple like this helps make his life easier, but he does though have to accept that all else he said which was well blogged against him (to keep such concepts as far away from “science” as possible) are not included in the video, therefore are made gone (for you) from qualification of future Theory of Intelligent Design. Casey still has all starting from where he intended, and can be happy for that being possible, in such an overall complementary way.

The theory really does only need the short video, for it to stay going on into the future, without its past being in the way. It’s not easy to explain how all that works, but you linked to something you wrote that helped me explain that better. It’s not simplifying things to be incomplete, it’s seriously all the theory needs for it to work in science and elsewhere. You do not have to stop blogging, on its account, the theory just a little bit changes what there is in the future you might blog about. The direction you like to focus towards is just right for you, while the one I focus on in the opposite direction is just right for me. We can each compliment one other, you just need to get used to the theory in question and I only looking forward in a way that makes your realm on the other side of a (47 second video) origin point that moves along the theory’s timeline, you already well enough record/preserve for future generations to read. That has cultural value. Your place in the way the culture collective works through generations of time, is as a scribe, making sure your most cherished knowledge is not forgotten. You now have an internet connection to these days scribe electronically, but otherwise it’s the same thing as in earlier history. So it’s not that your work in your direction of the theory’s timeline has no purpose. It’s just that in the forward direction I have to direct towards, all things in time end up in your domain in the other direction behind, that’s never in front (in the way) of where the theory can in the future go. There is then no real conflict between us, our scientific interests.

If that garbled shite is the result of you giving your writing "a good editing for grammar and understanding," you should quit English before you get fired.

Date: 2013/03/01 03:54:41, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 01 2013,00:35)
 
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Feb. 28 2013,22:46)
If that garbled shite is the result of you giving your writing "a good editing for grammar and understanding," you should quit English before you get fired.

The "everything is energy" hyperlink sprouting html tags was not my fault! Revision three fixes that one, I hope:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~etc.

Nothing can be considered "fixed" when it still contains sentences like  
Quote
My goal was to by writing an earlier Planet Source Code computer model and some kitchen chemistry, further develop what I had to explain the theory to others, which I hoped Kathy Martin and others would like and be empowered by too.

Seriously, can you not see how contorted and awkward that "sentence" is? Do you really not get why everyone is telling you that reading your writing is like trying to swallow a Saltine cracker without chewing it?  It can be done, eventually, but it's not worth the effort.

Like I said earlier, if it takes longer to understand a sentence than it does to read it, the writing sucks.

Date: 2013/03/01 14:52:11, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 01 2013,10:03)
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 01 2013,08:58)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 01 2013,08:53)
I never said anything against Shannon. Never.

I know what Shannon did. I worked in IT for decades.

You have no clue about Shannon information, Joe. All those decades down the drain.

He was an IT bomb disposal refridgeratorist, 3rd class.

Impossible; he has no class.

Date: 2013/03/02 04:42:17, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
It's just a one extreme to the other that ultimately balances out to being not all that bad, you can't complain

No, it's shit.  Each one of the sentences in that post is shit.

Not complaining, describing.

Date: 2013/03/02 05:12:42, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I can tell you worked hard achieving such new heights in sentence construction!

This is still though was not an easy audience, believe me. So be thankful I have my (none the less educational) rants but I'm not disabling bitter. I have no plan to make my adventures around the internet a book or an issue, just like to mention things that relate to what I found useful to have read while growing up worth mentioning because of at least my liking that non-science book. We're then (as you saw) from there sowing the seeds of love, while explaining why blogging that Wesley and others have been carrying on with is a part of "preserving" history (from their perspective) is culturally important, not something this theory in question is at conflict with.

Gary, if you submitted writing of this quality in a freshman college writing class, you would likely either receive a D or worse, or be told to revise your work and resubmit.  If, after receiving repeated and detailed feedback on the quality of your writing like you have received here, you continued not only submitting work of this quality but responded to the feedback by insisting "it's good enough" and "you can't complain", you would fail the class and likely be advised that college is  not the place for you.  I don't think this is controversial; you would absolutely fail freshman college writing.

What makes you think you can revolutionize science if you cannot demonstrate the ability to write at an undergraduate level, even when provided with detailed feedback?

The real crux of the matter is, your science is even worse than your writing, and suffers from the same fatal defects--and from your same utter inability to countenance the idea that anyone might legitimately find fault with it.

Date: 2013/03/03 06:29:26, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 03 2013,07:08)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 27 2013,23:55)
Sorry, I'm still not convinced that giving a pass to long-discredited conjectures is anything but evil.  "Intelligent design" creationism is defined by its content, not its labeling, and definitely not the propaganda slant the DI puts on it. Redefining science is not just anti-evolution, it is anti-science.

In a way, you just have to have faith that the power of science is greater than Discovery Institute evil. If you don’t show what is within limits of science possible then you have a much greater problem from folks being fair wondering why you can’t, and instead as they say “run away” from it.  It's vital to explain what the DI theory was missing which caused things to go so badly in Dover and elsewhere, so all know what Judge Jones needed to see. This theory accomplishes the education mission by showing a text which has illustrations showing the mechanism of “intelligent cause” with picture of it at Planet Source Code to show the concept already well grounded in a normal everyday how-to science.

Acceptance in the form of award has established “intelligent cause” related terminology according to what PSC programming community can approve of, who must get credit for helping to fairly establish. In Kansas there was Kathy and others who had the DI come to explain, who were left in a big mess as a result of only having hunches not novel theory worth getting excited about that must credit them for incubating, not the DI up in Seattle. In the Dover area forum are more who can approve of what was presented there, who do not want the DI to take credit for making happen or to speak for them in regards to something else. The DI is so surrounded by folks not wanting undue credit going to them it changes the whole balance of power.

Although it sounds like dancing with the devil, to defeat the as you see it “propaganda slant the DI puts on it” you must show what you see that you call evil. Only way to show that is with what isn’t evil, that instead empowers others in a way they then have something they don’t want the DI to take credit for. You only have to give credit for what did not come from the DI, to make everyone (who matters) happy.

Even with “evolutionary theory” there are those who go into religious territory with the concept. You have to not worry about that happening, it’s normal. What matters is that scientific theory to explain in scientific context, such that what is in the realm of religion stays properly separated out, but not left out by saying to stop that.

What is on the DI website these days is easy to live with. Just the same basic Q&A material that for the most part argues such a theory is possible, which is no longer an issue now that such a nice one exists. The only thing you have to admit is that it’s not that all that bad amateurs. What PSC was able to provide made it possible to show what it looks like as a no big deal public challenge for programmers, which is something only possible there. You only have to agree that where kept to that exactly that, they were right by being approving of that theory of ID terminology. At no time do you have to credit the DI, just all else outside of there, that you can say the DI is powerless against (but can adapt to).

Date: 2013/03/05 03:26:17, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (nmanning @ Mar. 03 2013,20:42)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 01 2013,16:18)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 01 2013,16:00)
 
LoL! Typical faggot blames me for its FAILure.

Nice job dickhead

So, did you ever run for school board?  I remember reading that you were considering this a while ago.

Awww, I sure wish he would.  A few internet links to some of his more idiotic comments here, at UD and on his own negligible blog would torpedo that good.  Voters aren't too keen on morons who start yelling "faggot" and "assface" every time they disagree with someone, and who would want an argumentative prick like Joe on the same decision-making panel with them?

He'd be laughed out of town, just he gets laughed out of here every few days.  He'd probably end up challenging the whole town to a fight.

So Joe, please run.

Date: 2013/03/05 16:28:33, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
The system actually is unfairly rigged, to make sure I get no help at all

Yes, the way many such funding systems are "rigged." that is to say, those systems are set up to ensure that people whose work has no merit do not get money that would be better committed to people whose work does have merit.  

For instance, the National Football League player evaluation systems are set up to ensure that people like me (that is to say, 45 years old, skinny and only mildly athletic) do not get awarded multi-million dollar contracts to play professional football.  I think you can agree that this makes sense, as the Patriots would be wasting their money if they funded my football career, and I would likely be seriously injured or killed in the first few minutes of my playing debut.  My "work" in football has no merit, so it does not get funded.  

Your work in science is similar to my effort to play football; it has no merit.  The difference between us is that I am doing no work that can be legitimately described as playing football, and I recognize and accept that--as would Bill Belichick if the subject ever came up. You, however, suffer under the persistent delusion that whatever it is you are doing when you work on your little bug program is science.  The Bill Belichicks of science would disagree--as the players and fans here do--and your opinion in this matter is irrelevant.  If you were 6'3" 245 lb of solid science muscle who could run 40 scientific yards in 4.3 scientific seconds and throw a tight science spiral 60 yards to hit a running scientific receiver, your reception would be different here, and you'd have a legitimate gripe if the Patriots of science didn't at least give you a workout.  But the fact is, you're an overweight, flaccid, paralyzed blob of ascientific jelly, you've never gained a yard at any level of the scientific game, and the coaches, players and fans here are just laughing at your fucking whiny complaints at not getting to be the starting QB on the science team.

Stop fucking embarrassing yourself and go do something real, instead of bitching that your neurotic bullshit little project isn't real football, science, or anything else worthwhile.

Date: 2013/03/05 16:32:56, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
you've never gained a yard at any level of the scientific game

And before you even go there, the Gaulin Tracksite thing makes you a scientific groundskeeper at Gillette stadium, not a player, so don't even try it.  Thanks for cutting the grass and marking the field, now step aside so the real scientists can play the game.

Date: 2013/03/05 18:55:24, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 05 2013,19:19)

potw?

Date: 2013/03/07 03:21:02, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (REC @ Mar. 06 2013,17:22)
   
Quote
LoL! Alan, yes the word “design” can be a noun. I never said otherwise. However the word “design” can also be a verb, as in “Joe built his house’s addition by design, as opposed to willy-nilly.” Or “Joe assembled the furniture by design, ie via the plan and procedure provided by the manufacturer.”

So my original point stands. What was your point, Alan?

Eric’s use of the word “design” was as a verb.


Should we give him partial credit for getting to adverbs in his example?

Later he links to the dictionary, and by the end of the thread, Alan Fox is giving remedial grammar lessons.

Joe's too stupid to recognize that this own example implies that "willy-nilly" is also a verb.

Is it, Joe?

"Joe assembled the house by willy-nilly".  Hm.

"Joe assembled the house by hand."  Is "hand" a verb in that sentence, or are you just an idiot?

Date: 2013/03/08 13:39:51, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 08 2013,12:30)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 08 2013,11:24)
So he thinks the word "water" is specific to lots of molecules in the liquid state? That's about word usage (although his does seem to differ from what I'm used to), rather than the underlying subject matter.

Almost everything Joe argues about is word usage rather than the underlying concepts.

And almost every creIDiot ends up trying to support their arguments through redefinition of words, sooner rather than later.  This inevitably fails anyway, because even if you grant them their idiosyncratic definitions, they use them in fallacious arguments that can't support a hypothesis no matter what premises are given.

Date: 2013/03/13 03:47:08, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 12 2013,23:12)
 
Quote
Anyone, please help - does Joe have a complete lack of self awareness, or is he simply speaking from experience?

I'm not aware of the answer to that question!

Of all the hyperenergetic IDC trolls on the inTardnets, I find Joe the least interesting to try to understand.

He's just an asshole.

Date: 2013/03/15 03:27:33, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 15 2013,04:13)
Thought maybe you'd want to know.

Quote
UC Berkeley researchers found that 20 percent of a nationally representative group reported no religious preference

These numbers always make me wonder, how many people have no actual religious beliefs but say they do on these surveys, simply because they're self-conscious about identifying as an atheist, or just not ready/willing  to admit it to themselves?

OTOH I doubt very many people at all do hold religious beliefs, but tell the researchers they do not....

Date: 2013/03/18 09:42:28, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 18 2013,08:04)
Quote (Driver @ Mar. 16 2013,13:57)
I only managed a few pages. Gary fails the Turing test. There is something wonderfully zen about the prose though. You read it and.... nothing. Truly empty.

Three whole pages before giving your obligatory kick in the face.  Nice shot, creep....

How many pages of Timecube does anyone need to read before deciding it's bunk?

Date: 2013/03/18 10:54:28, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 18 2013,10:51)
 
Quote
Physics professor Philipp von Jolly advised a young Max Planck not to go into physics, because “in this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes.”

...
I predict that as the twentieth century was to physics, so the twenty-first century will be to biology.


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

And as we all know, twentieth century physics was marked by the discovery that every particle has an angel assigned to push it around and that physicists gave up trying to find regular phenomena.

This is fun, I'll play!  
Quote
IBM Chairman Thomas Watson said in 1943, "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."*

...
I predict that as the second half of the twentieth century was to computer sales growth, so the twenty-first century will be to biology.

Take that, biology!

--

*Acknowledging, Watson likely didn't actually say this....

Date: 2013/03/19 10:04:53, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 19 2013,09:27)
You might link to those forums where you receive favorable attention. That would seem like an obvious tjing to do.

But....but....but....someone, somewhere once said something kind of nice about one aspect of Gary's trivial little toy, therefore SCIENCE!  Therefore you're all hidebound materialist anti-scientific non-nice people ignoring the bestest theeeeery EVAR!  Quod erat demonfuckingstrandum.

It's like Gary gave us a copy of a muffin cookbook he wrote (poorly), and is now telling us that it's not only a service manual which tells us how to fix our 1999 Saab 9-3 SE, but contains information which will allow us to easily modify it so it can fly at supersonic speeds.  When we express that it clearly is NOT a Saab service manual, that this fact is obvious to anyone (not just trained Saab mechanics), and that his idea that we can use it to make our car fly is stupid and useless, he points to a small handful of reviews of his cookbook--the most positive of which just says "nice muffins".  Then he gets all butthurt about it.

What a kook.

Date: 2013/03/20 12:31:02, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I would rather side with an old enemy, than remain sided with hypocrisy...

Wake up, nobody gives a shit whose side you are on, and the idea that anyone is on yours is just your own delusion--three tepid comments by anonymous code monkeys notwithstanding.  You imagine yourselves standing on the shoulders of giants and pissing on the hidebound materialists whose religious commitments cause them to scheme against you and stop your awesome science, when in fact the only altitude you will ever achieve is by climbing the enormous mountain of soiled kleenex left over from your endless mental masturbation.

Crackpot, begone!

Date: 2013/03/21 14:03:23, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 21 2013,14:42)
The link to the first image doesn't work for me.

first one works for me, second one doesn't.

not that i need further evidence that joe's a belligerent dishonest blowTard

Date: 2013/03/22 14:35:48, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
if ID wants to be thought of as a science instead of a particularly poorly thought out branch of apologetics

Objection, your honor!  They've thought out their branch of religious apologetics very, very well.  The fatal flaw, as with all other religious apologetics, is that the result is still pure unalloyed stupid. There is no other possible result.

The problem is, the entire bulk of theological thought and all the vast mountains of apologetics throughout history can be destroyed with a single, simple phrase:  
Quote
I disagree

None of the rhetorical tools of religion can do a single thing to counteract that phrase, and never will.

Date: 2013/03/22 15:37:45, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 22 2013,16:16)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 21 2013,20:09)
Theory of Intelligent Design download page

mirror site

I knew what that link was before I even moused over it.

But seriously, did you read the whole site before deciding to criticize it?

SCIENCE STOPPER!!!!

Date: 2013/03/23 11:26:36, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
See Gary, your primary problem is communication.  Whether or not your program is correct, or useful, or a theory, or science, or anything else, that is secondary so long as nobody is capable of understanding you.  

Whatever your content is, unless you think everyone here is colluding to pretend that your lucid expositions are actually incomprehensible, that content is irrelevant because nobody can understand what the hell you're trying to say at a given time.  It's impossible to understand the exact nature of your "theory" by reading it.  You seem incapable of understanding the questions you are asked about it, then we in turn are unable to parse your tortured answers to the questions you've failed to get.

Seriously, most of the shit you say doesn't make any fucking sense.  It might be obvious to you, but you're the only one who thinks so.  You might take a lot of abuse here for whatever reasons, but nobody invented a fiction that what you write impenetrably just to wind you up about that; it's a fact that we all point out because it's obvious.  

See, this   
Quote
2 + 2 = 5

Is much, much better than      
Quote
There will be more later with line charts showing emergence dates, where cellular intelligence of different kinds appear relatively suddenly somewhere between 4 billion and the Cambrian Explosion, and could have been more than one event depending on how many lineages achieved next level cellular intelligence, that is in addition to its molecular intelligence, which is then expected to rapidly proliferate into possible designs from that miracle happening to those who made the grade and graduated to becoming next to control a vast planetary niche, where the rest who end up flunking that intelligence related problem became their food.
If you say 2 + 2 = 5, I understand what you mean, and I can respond by telling you what I think the flaws are in your reasoning, and how you might go about correcting your idea.  But when you say shit like      
Quote
There will be more later with line charts showing emergence dates, where cellular intelligence of different kinds appear relatively suddenly somewhere between 4 billion and the Cambrian Explosion, and could have been more than one event depending on how many lineages achieved next level cellular intelligence, that is in addition to its molecular intelligence, which is then expected to rapidly proliferate into possible designs from that miracle happening to those who made the grade and graduated to becoming next to control a vast planetary niche, where the rest who end up flunking that intelligence related problem became their food.

nobody knows what the hell you're trying to say.  Even if anyone decided to spend time trying decipher it, we already know that any questions you are asked about it will be misunderstood and then, if you choose to answer, your answer will be just as fucked up as what you said to begin with.

I think your work is crap and you should just stop, but that's not my point.  Unless and until you can correct your glaring communication issues, your work will suffer severely, whatever you decide to do.

Date: 2013/03/23 16:23:01, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
the theory looks like this......."different path through science"

A theory is the standard "path through science".  

If your crap is a "different path through science", then it's not a theory, is it, because then it would be.....a standard path through science.

Get your shit straight.  Since it's obviously not a theory, what is it?  We'll stipulate for the moment that it even is about science (which is anything but clear to anyone you've cited, except you and possibly your wife).  What is this different path?  

What is thing thing you're obsessed with, really, since you refuse to stick to a standard format pretty much every actual scientist understands and respects?  Why do you think it's necessary or desirable to reinvent science in the process of promoting your idea?  Don't you think that makes you look like enough of a crackpot, that fact all by itself, that you should consider putting whatever you have in a standard format if you want to be taken seriously?  

You know, it's like a resume--if you're applying for a job and instead of a resume you submit a video titles "resume" showing you talking passionately about your qualifications for the job, it won't make any difference what your qualifications are--they'll put you in the reject pile and probably think you're a bit of a crackpot.  It's supposed to be a resume, so that's what we do to get a job.  In science, the standard format is a theory, or at least a testable hypothesis.  Where is it?

Where's the fucking resume, Gary?  Stick to the format, or you don't get the job.  Why is that so hard for you?

Date: 2013/03/23 18:02:57, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 23 2013,17:05)
Here is the link to TSZ

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....c....cpage=2

and here is the picture:


For Joe to claim that this photo is equivalently pornographic to the pic he posted would be enough for a solid majority of otherwise disinterested people to declare him a irredeemable asshole, all by itself.

Not that he doesn't give the world a dozen other reasons every day.

Joe, do you act like this IRL?  I'd be surprised if you had any teeth left.

Date: 2013/03/23 19:04:40, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 23 2013,19:39)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 23 2013,14:57)
No Gary, the THEORY does not look like that.

That's what you wish your notions that may, someday, turn into a theory would look like, if you had a clue about anything.

You don't have a theory.
You don't have evidence.
You barely have a model.

I still want you to explain how YOUR model (that you claim can't be run on today's pathetic computers) of bug foraging behavior, can predict (to within 3.5 billion years) three events which don't actually exist.

And this is what Darwinian theory looks like:



In comparing the two, I honestly have to say that it's your theory that barely has a model!

I think I'm getting Gary's problem.  He thinks everything is like a computer program.

Well, that's one of many, really.  

Another problem is that he thinks he can answer questions about his model by taking swipes at a laughably useless and wrong strawman flowchart of someone else's model.

Gary: Here, try this.

Then this.

That's you.  Stop it.

Date: 2013/03/23 19:08:43, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Driver @ Mar. 23 2013,09:51)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 21 2013,06:53)
Millions maybe billions of dollars ended up being wasted in order to promote a hoax meant to destroy me too.

Darwin and Wallace discovered the theory of evolution long before you were born. So how can you be the target of their ideas?

If Gary truly believes that anyone gives enough of a shit about his stupid little program to even wish him destroyed, let alone to actually put any effort or ten cents into doing so, he should seek medical attention and ask his wife to lock up all the sharp objects.

Really Gary, the sad, true truth about you and your bug is that

No

One

Cares
.

Nobody.

We just think you're funny.

Kind of.

It's wearing off.

Do you have any more tricks?

Date: 2013/03/23 19:54:48, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Mar. 23 2013,20:34)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 23 2013,19:24)
       
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Mar. 23 2013,14:39)
Is this published in a peer reviewed paper? "Intelligent causation", holy batshit crazy man. In science, there is no "intelligent causation". Another pseudoscientific propaganda machine, which, by the likes of your "kind", creates all the time.

It's a illustration for the next edition of the theory of operation that comes with the computer model download that will first be published at PSC.

In the past there has long been "reciprocal causation" while "intelligent causation" needed to be put into scientific context for it to become a routine part scientific vocabulary.

I doubt that it is. Detecting "intelligent causation" is a violation, of, perhaps, science's most important principle, methodological naturalism. Sorry, it won't be detected, *ever*.

For fuck's sake, IDiots, stop blathering about how detectable design is, and fucking detect some already.  Just try.

Who designed what, where, when, how, any detail.  I'm not asking for the actual answers, just a proposal for how one might, in principle, ever try to scientifically explore such a thing.  What is the scientific question ID leads you to ask?  There isn't one.  That's by....design.

Science is about questions, not answers.  The questions get answers--provisional ones--but the answer is really just a means to generate a new set of questions.  Ask yourselves, IDiots, why is it that your IDiocy never proposes a single scientific question, and instead really only attempts to provide answers?  It isn't science because the people who hawk it are only using it to promote their preconceived answers.  ID cannot in principle ever generate a useful question, because the people who dreamed it up don't want you asking any questions in the areas of science ID attacks.  That's the whole point.

Date: 2013/03/23 20:37:29, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
your model (that you can't seem to actually run) is just full of made up shit that has as much relationship to reality as I do to the king of Siam.

You may be overstating Gary's case a bit here, since you are actually related to the kind of Siam, however distantly.  Not sure there is any relationship at all between Gary's bug and reality.  If there is, he doesn't have the communication skills to tell us what that relationship is.  Maybe posting that diagram yet again would help.

Date: 2013/03/25 09:55:45, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 25 2013,07:49)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 25 2013,01:22)
Hi Oleg! Did you enjoy Joe getting caught changing old posts on his blog? Or do you suspect it was that rascal Jim (ID Guy)?

That was one of Joe's stellar performances. The guy is so dumb he can't imagine that people can see through his shenanigans.

It would be a monumental embarrassment and a damaging ethical lapse for virtually anyone else, but in the context of Joe's body of work, it was just another day at the office blogwhoring in his mom’s basement.

Date: 2013/03/25 12:50:08, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 25 2013,12:48)
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 25 2013,06:11)
This ones better

How can that one be better? It's an udder failure! :p

k.e., don't be cowed by his criticism, he's just trying to milk the latest AtBC pun-fest for all it's worth.

Date: 2013/03/27 08:29:13, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Everyone in the world knows that information = meaning

Everyone in the world knows that ice is water.  Everyone except Joe, because he's smarter than anyone else.  You can tell how smart he is by the way he wins every argument with the same four 5th grade-level insults ("dipshit" for instance--I wonder if he thinks he coined that one himself?).

Is there a troll anywhere on the internet with a lower signal:noise ratio than Joe?

Date: 2013/03/29 04:28:43, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Driver @ Mar. 29 2013,01:33)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 27 2013,19:28)
Will Gordon Elliot Mullings never tire of his cliché?


The exact wording "red herring soaked in ad hominem" he has never used, and probably never would, as that sort of construction is beneath him. Sparc should apologise.

Despite what materialist Lewontinite Darwinian atheists may say, he has never soaked his herring in straw, either.

What he really likes is to lead away red herrings. His favourite fish has been "led away to":

a strawman
strawmen soaked in personal attacks
strawmen soaked in vicious ad hominems
caricatured strawmen
the strawman caricature
strawman caricatures
strawmannish caricatures
strawman distortions
a strawman soaked in ad hominems
distorting strawmen
a strawman distortion
a strawman distortion, and thence it was soaked in ad hominems and has now been ignited by the “fingers pointing back” accusation. Such an accusation works by clouding, confusing, polarising and poisoning the atmosphere so that we lose sight of the track of truth and of our duty to it.
distortions [poisonous and personally destructive attacks based on ad hominem laced strawman caricatures]
caricatured and deceitful strawman representations of design thought
a strawman caricature soaked in ad hominems  and set alight, clouding, choking, poisoning and polarising the atmosphere
repeated strawman caricatures
strawman caricature and soaked in turnabout false accusations, then ignited to cloud, confuse, polarise and poison the atmosphere, in defense of the existing materialist censorship on science education
ad hominem-soaked strawman caricatures
ad hominem-soaked strawman caricatures ignited to cloud, choke, polarise and poison the atmosphere
strawman caricature and soaked in turnabout false accusations, then ignited to cloud, confuse, polarise and poison the atmosphere, in defense of the existing materialist censorship on science education"
a strawman caricature of the actual case, slapped about the face and dismissed.


Polarising red herrings (a particularly insiduous Alinskyist lab experiment on light, which I may remind anarcho-materialists Isaac Newton discovered, and is a wave) have been led away to:

"strawman caricatures laced with ad homninems and set alight through incendiary remarks, and worse."

Distractive red herrings were once led away  to

"strawman distortions, soaked in ad hominem smears and set alight through vituperative rhetoric or more subtly through snide inferences and insinuations or invidious associations. These tactics seem to be increasingly dominant in ideologically tinged matters, and clearly trace to the destructive influence of Saul Alinsky."

In an avant garde twist, there is one occurence of "tangents led away to pummelled strawmen".

http://moourl.com/woot.......o=jh23c


Red herrings are not only led away (indoors), often they are led out! Where are they led out?

a strawman
a convenient strawman
a strawman game
strawman issues soaked in ad hominems etc.
strawmen soaked in ad hominems and ignited to poison, confuse and polarise the atmosphere.
caricatured distortions through strawman caricatures, soaked in slanderous demonisations and ignited through snide or incendiary rhetoric to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere. For, in a Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals world...
strawmen caricatures soaked in ad hominems and then poisoning the atmosphere by setting alight with snidely, subtly or outrageously incendiary rhetoric.
strawmen, and soaked in ad hominems then set alight, poisoning and polarising the atmosphere.
a convenient “God of the Gaps” strawman, duly set alight to the delight of the ideological atheists and their fellow travellers.
strawman caricatures and poisonous ad hominems ignited through incendiary rhetorical sparks, used to polarise the atmosphere and frustrate serious discussion.
strawmen soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, confuse, polarise and poison the atmosphere. Inadvertently demonstrating the very point Plato had to make.
the ad hominem soaked strawman of the theocratic imposition on science bogeyman
the strawman misrepresentation (laced with a personal mischaracterisation -- oil of ad hominem) and ignited to cloud, confuse and poison the atmosphere.
a strawman caricature soaked in subtle or blatant ad hominems. The soaked ad hominem is then ignited by snide or incendiary rhetoric, to cloud, confuse, polarise and poison the atmosphere.
strawman caricatures and poisonous ad hominems ignited through incendiary rhetorical sparks, used to polarise the atmosphere and frustrate serious discussion.
a duly pummelled strawman
the strawman soaked in slanderous misrepresentations, ignited to cloud, confuse, polarise and poison the atmosphere, frustrating following up the clues that point down the track of the truth.
strawman caricatures soaked in denigratory dismissals, which he lights up to try to cloud, confuse, polarise and poison the atmosphere.
a strawman “wizard.”
ad hominem soaked strawmen, ignited to cloud, confuse, polarise and poison the atmosphere.

(The last five on the same comment thread. Up until now I had only searched once per comment thread, a serious mistake.)


distorted strawmannish misrepresentations of arguments they oppose.
strawmen soaked in ad hominems and ignited. A now all too familiar darwinist pattern.
ad hominem soaked strawmen then rhetorically set ablaze to cloud, confuse, polarise and poison the atmosphere
a strawman soaked in ad hominems and ignited to cloud, confuse, choke, poison and polarise the atmosphere, frustrating serious discussion of serious issues.
strawmen soaked in oily ad hominems and ignited to cloud, confuse, choke and polarise the atmosphere: divide and rule.
strawman misrepresentations soaked in ad hominem personal attacks and ignited to choke, confuse, cloud, poison and polarise the atmosphere
strawman misrepresentations soaked in ad hominems and ignited to cloud, confuse, choke, poison and polarise the atmosphere. And, if you dare point this out, you will be attacked through turnabout false accusations
strawmen soaked in slanderous ad hominems and turnabout accusations, and ignited to cloud and poison the atmosphere.




Some variation:

"distraction (red herrings) led out to misrepresentations (strawmen) and mischaracterisations (ad hominems)"


"step 1: red herring distractors to draw attention away from the track of truth towards the oil of ad hominem-soaked strawman.

Then, on igniting it, the noxious clouds of confusion, polarisation and hostility will cause “everyone” to forget the original issue. Poisoning the atmosphere — and the climate of popular thought and discourse."





Let's not forget the "tediously familiar Alinskyite Trifecta Combination Fallacy:  

distractive tangential red herrings led out to strawman caricatures, soaked in ad hominems and ignited to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere."





"red herrings dragged to distract from the truth and led out to convenient, ad hominem laced strawmen, ignited to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere."
lacks a little something.

It is much improved as


"red herrings dragged across the track of the truth, and led away to strawman soaked in ad hominem oil then ignited to cloud, confuse, poison and polarsie the atmosphere."



"red herrings dragged across the track of truth and led out to hominem oil soaked strawmen ignited to cloud, choke, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere."

What fiend would drag herring across a railway track?!


But worse than dragging them across the track of truth, is dragging them away from it:

"willfully distractive red herrings dragged away from the track of truth and led out to caricatured strawmen soaked in (implicit or explicit) character-assassinating ad hominems and ignited to cloud, confuse, polarise and posion the atmosphere for discussion."



Cold herring is one thing, but Gulled Monsignor will not be accused of dragging a HOT herring across the track of truth:

" 'the fallacious abuse of the loaded word “materialist” serves only to drag a hot distractive red herring across the track of truth, and to lead it out to a strawman . . .'

This is of course simply a dishonest turnabout rhetorical fallacy."



"red herring strawman ad hominem game" has uncharacteristic conciseness on its side.


He doesn't just do short sentences either, as you well know:

"a red herring distractor, dragging attention away from the main issue, then leading out to a strawman simplistic misrepresentation of the presumed argument in the main being objected to. The objector then sets out to soak the strawman in attacks against the credibility or character of those making the case being caricatured, and he — almost always the case — then triumphalistically lights up the same; all, to distract attention from the main issue, and also clouding and poisoning the atmosphere with blinding hostility. That is, distraction from the track of truth, led out to agenda-serving distortion of issues and perspectives, and culminating in character assassinating slanderous demonisation of people, dismissal, polarisation and divisiveness."



What is Step 1, GEM?

"step 1: red herring distractors to draw attention away from the track of truth towards the oil of ad hominem-soaked strawman.

Then, on igniting it, the noxious clouds of confusion, polarisation and hostility will cause “everyone” to forget the original issue. Poisoning the atmosphere — and the climate of popular thought and discourse."


So true. I blame Lewontin. Does it sadden you Gordon?

"i find that there is now a sad pattern of distraction from the track of truth; distortion, bias and caricature; demonisation, scapegoating and dismissal; often  joined to the tactic of turnabout accusation pioneered by the German leadership in the 1930's."


What do we see here, GEM of TIKTAKTOE?

"we see here the trifecta rhetorical tactic — yet again — in action: distractive red herrings led away from the track of truth, to a caricatured strawman soaked in ad hominems, and set alight the better to cloud, choke, confuse, polarise and poison the atmosphere, likely triggering a confused quarrel rather than a serious discussion on the merits."

Doesn't it make you weep? Is that with just the one strawman, Gordon E Mullings?

[URL=http://bajan.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/the-subliminal-deception-within-modern-christianity-the-teachings-of-jesuit-theology-and-i




ts-influence-upon-bible-prophecy/comment-page-1/]"a classic example of the tactic of dragging a red herring across the track of truth, leading it out to a convenient strawman or two soaked in oil of personal attacks, and igniting them to cloud, poison and polarise the atmosphere."[/URL]



Is there anything else you would like to say, Gordon?

" in reply to ever so much turnabout rhetoric..."


yes?

"just as the turnabout false accusation above has had to be corrected yesterday..."


keep going...

"Please, do not try the turnabout false accusation/ immoral equivalency tactic"


Sorry.

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/science/for-record-questions-on-the-logical-and-scientific-status-of-design-theory-for-objectors-a




nd-supporters/]"This is a turnabout false accusation, in the teeth of an ongoing demonstration that I am in fact not exerting a double standard"[/URL]


I know. You're right.

"In short, I have had enough of turnabout false accusations, name-calling, ad hominem attacks, veiled threats to my family and well-poisoning rhetoric designed to smear, hurt, wound and silence.

Or, if you doubt me on this, let me cite the rule-book for such subversive nihilistic radicalism, Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky"

In short, huh? You don't need to cite the Alinsky... I have a copy next to Origin of Species on my bookshelf, just like everyone else at ATBC.

"And, no, my pointing out the vicious nature of this personal attack is a corrective, so don't even THINK to now try to twist this into a blame the victim, he- hit- back- first turnabout false accusation.

This has gone too far for such clever rhetorical stunts to now be taken as anything less than willfully complicit, enabling behaviour.

Darwinist objectors to design thought, your side has crossed the nuclear threshold here, to outright criminality, and your side has now underscored the nihilistic amoral bankruptcy of what all too many on your side have been doing and the implications of the inherent amorality of evolutionary materialistic factionalism, as Plato warned against in The Laws, Bk X, 2,350 years ago."


Ah yes, Plato's warning. You should mention that more. A thousand times is not enough.

It's not like you are obsessed. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with  being a little obsessed with one saying by an ancient philosopher. An obsession with dentistry would be more worrying

Would you like to sum up, Mr Mullings? No? Then please continue...


372f--> Evolutionary materialists, dragging their hot, distracting, polarising red herrings across and away from the track of truth, in the teeth of repeated correctives, led away to distorted caricatures of caricatured strawmen soaked in the oil of ad  hominems, duly ignited, with threats against my family resembling the tactics advocated by Alinksy in his Rules for Radicals, will employ such turnabout false accusations to polarise, cloud, and poison the atmosphere, preventing serious discussion of the serious issues we wish to discuss, the like of which we were warned of by Plato in his book of Laws XXII (Cf. here), distracting from the repeated correctives on the point of materialism in science, as propounded by the greatest scientist of all time, Sir Isaac Newton, in his General Scholium to the Principa, that makes clear and explicit inference to the Designer, with a plainly calculated CSI FSCI FSCO/I of far in excess of Chi_500 = Ip*S – 500,  bits beyond the solar system resources threshold [UPDATE 51 and appendix G42: If the 10^57 or so atoms of our solar system, for its lifespan, were to be converted into coins and tables in the teeth of repeated correctives then, despite the turnabout diversionary tactics of Lewontin  and his evolutionary materialist cohorts, inference to the best explanation would lead us to the conclusion of design, in the teeth of atheistic distractor red herrings led away to poisonous strawmen, for there are about 10^102 Planck-time Quantum states in the time since its founding on the usual timeline. 10^150 possibilities [500 bits worth of possibilities] is 48 orders of magnitude beyond that reach, where it takes 10^30 P-time states to execute the fastest chemical reactions, which conclusively shows that there are insufficient resources to search the space of possible configurations in order to produce the specified target. Therefore, ID. It is worth noting at this juncture the words of Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist of all time in the teeth of Lewontinian attempts to bar the theory of design from the table of science, in 1717:

'Yet is not phlogiston to be beheld as the principle that reveals the hand of God in the works of the Heavens in the face of Alinskyite tactics from bully-boy atheist materialists determined to promote the dogma of Darwin and hide behind red herring turnabout accusations (strawmen soaked in the oil of deceit)  able by his Will to move the Bodies within his boundless uniform Sensorium, and thereby to form and reform the Parts of the Universe. Therefore, ID.'


Yes, BA77 you make an excellent point about Alain Aspect and his experiments proving ghosts.


Bydand!

Gordon Elliot Mullings,
Executive King of the Gordon Elliot Mullings Initiative,
Frottage Heights,
Montserrat.

This is nice and all, but it tells us nothing about the odds of getting some loathsome taint.  Could you please address that?  I'm looking for a gift for my wife.

Date: 2013/03/29 04:40:23, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I will now get back to work on the code project, instead of letting the critics stop progress, by eating up what little free-time I have right now.
To paraphrase Gary, "It's YOUR fault that I obsessively troll AtBC, blathering about my bug program, instead of ever doing any actual scientific work.  SCIENCE STOPPERS!!!!!"

Date: 2013/03/30 04:48:49, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I’m going to try putting your insulting attacks out of my mind long enough to get some science work done, while you spend your time trying to think of another clever way to destroy me

Gary, this whole thread is nothing but an ongoing conversation, started by you, in which you participate obsessively, solely by your own choice.  I'm at a total loss how any reasonable person would perceive a mechanism by which you might be "destroyed" here, or by which you are prevented from getting anything else done--except the mechanism of your own freely-made choices.

I think you should take a look at your own paranoid words, and try to explain to yourself why you keep coming back here to risk your own "destruction", whatever you mean by that, and have your valuable time consumed by lengthy discussions with people who will obviously never accept your little bug program as a scientific theory.

If you're having difficulty "putting (our) insulting attacks out of your mind", we wonder why you keep coming back to provoke them.  If you're struggling to find time "to get some science done", we question why you spend so much time here of your own accord.  Unless you are a paranoid, obsessed masochist, what could possibly explain why you come here every day to waste prodigious amounts of your time risking being "destroyed" by "science stoppers"?  

I think everyone here knows the answer, which is that you're a typical internet troll with limited social skills and a narrow obsession with an idiosyncratic project nobody cares about.  You're not scienceing, Gary, you're blogwhoring, and everyone sees that but you.  We're not making fun of you for "political reasons" because your science is so powerful that we're afraid of it, we're making fun of you because you're funny.  And that's about all you are.

Whatever the case, just go away, and so will all the problems you whine about AtBC causing you.

Date: 2013/04/01 11:25:42, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 01 2013,11:18)
       
Quote (Quack @ April 01 2013,08:43)
Gary, just a simple, easily answered question:

Have you been able to teach your theory and convince anyone, anyone at all besides yourself?

Anyone who can be positively identified, as opposed to the stupid PSC thing and all of the alleged kudos he's allegedly received from unidentified parties.

Well of course he's not going to tell you that, or the next thing you know you'll force them to obsessively troll this board--thereby making them feel bad, "destroying" them, and stopping their science--just like you've done to poor Gary....

I wish I understood how that works.  Is it the same mechanism by which Big Science not only prevents IDiots from ever publishing any legitimate scientific research, but even stops them from ever proposing, even in principle, what such research might look like, or indeed from even phrasing any of their ideas in the form of anything remotely scientifically testable?  

Jedi mind tricks, or something.

Date: 2013/04/02 11:20:12, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (blipey @ April 02 2013,10:56)
Man, Gary, you are really intent on going full retard aren't you?

Writing a theory that starts a world war?  Really?  Absolutely no one in the world cares what you write. At all.  And you're trolling this forum as the best place to release your theory?  No one in the world comes here to introduce new science.

You are the poster child for stupid.

Of all Gary's gaps, that's the biggest one--between his self-representations as a Very Important Sciencer and the cold, hard reality that nobody, not one person in the whole entire world, truly gives the slightest, most ephemeral, fleeting fraction of an invisible microscopic shit about the work he (falsely) believes he's doing.

It can't be said strongly enough--Gary, nobody effing cares about you and your little bug program.  Nobody.

Date: 2013/04/03 04:11:23, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 03 2013,03:57)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 02 2013,07:44)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 02 2013,01:26)
         
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 01 2013,08:27)
I obviously have no issue with Gary citing Trehub. Gary can cite Trehub all he likes. What Gary can't do and pretend it is true is claim that he implemented a Trehub model in his PSC code. That has been revealed to be a lie. That Gary would leave an unretracted lie attached to his name does far more damage to him than any criticism I might make.

I have to say that using words I did not say to start a semantics argument where you end up parroting “lie, lie” is so childish I’m maybe best to not even attempt an adult level scientific discussion with you.

In my opinion you’re only helping to show how bizarre a mentality I’m actually up against in this forum. You resolve scientific issues with ridicule then act like I committed a crime against you while being so distortive it’s impossible to conduct a normal communication. A court would seriously have to wonder what your problem is.

At least you made it obvious that you have nothing scientific against the theory.

Outrageously false and provocative statements... thanks for confirming the troll diagnosis. I certainly consider the source regarding statements, and I don't seek the validation of anti-science advocates.

Gary forgets what words he has left behind. No matter. Here is documentation of Gary's claims to be using Trehub models in his PSC code.

Gary acts as though he has been a completely reasonable interlocutor here, when he is documented to have carried on a campaign to broadcast a false claim of unethical behavior on my part, something he steadfastly refuses to retract. Gary has been utterly dismissive of my personal experience as an actual ad hominem argument. Yes, Gary, *you* made it personal. Acting as though you hadn't ... that's bizarre.

Anybody who isn't a troll reviewing the record here will notice that I have pointed out a number of errors in claims Gary has made, and that Gary has been exceedingly resistant to correcting much of anything.

As I have time, I'll be pointing out more errors by Gary. Gary can choose to ignore those corrections, too. That's what trolls do.

You need to be thankful I’m not vengeful for your trying to bully/ridicule me out of science, because the same treatment you gave me would be sheer hell, just by my changing keywords in your replies to me, so the exact same thing comes back at you. As long as I add qualifier detail (you sure didn’t give me) so it’s not legally defamatory, a court would have to find that a brilliantly fair punishment for willingly being in a forum where that is how arguments are to be settled, and you lose one. It’s what I meant by being sorry you crossed that line, where you get caught up in the gears of science then next find yourself able to meet yourself. There’s nothing you can do about it, but back off and treat me with the same respect you demand in return.

Instead of doling out punishment to you I have been coding the new program so that I get some work done on what matters to science while you cool-off. It’s again courtly commendable that right along I have been able to mostly ignore the mudslinging, just say enough to defend myself and the very highly educational theory you vowed to help ridicule out of existence.

When a theory becomes this scientific there is no real scientific issue of whether it’s scientific or not, and trying to make an issue out of something else is inherently out of bounds, which has ways (you are now experiencing) of eliminating you from its greater scientific arena that includes this forum.  I’m essentially using the force that’s in the power of science that when properly used makes all kinds of good/bad things like this happen but no matter what that’s the way science goes, why they call it messy, and not my fault you chose to fight what you should know that you can’t.

This kind of shit makes me expect Allen Funt to step out of the back room at the end.  

Seriously, Gary, if your whole shtik isn't one big hilarious put-on, you should head down to Baystate for some serious meds, stat.  

When a scientific theory scientifically becomes so scientifically sciency that there is no scientific issue with whether it is scientifically sciency or not, science!  Science scientifically scienced science, and scientific science scientifically sciences science, hence here science sciences.

Date: 2013/04/03 04:29:28, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Quack @ April 03 2013,05:20)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 03 2013,03:26)
     
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 02 2013,10:39)
It's not even good trolling

And you should certainly know!

It's just the power of science again, not on-purpose trolling. In this case the blind belief that a Theory of Intelligent Design is scientifically impossible has no scientific hope of winning against one that is. And as you can see from Wesley's predicament, a person can seriously go nuts from trying.

Super! All that remains for you to do is to convert one other person in the universe besides yourself into a believer in your "theory".

There isn't anybody stupid enough for that here, but can you explain why you haven't yet got any convertees?

Look in the mirror, pal.  If you and your AtBC buddies hadn't forced Gary to obsessively troll here instead of working on his sciency science, thereby hurting his wittle fee-fees and destroying him, he would have scienced by now, science stopper.  His throngs of adoring fans would tell you that, if they existed.

Date: 2013/04/04 12:43:04, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Freddie @ April 04 2013,11:51)
Quote (DiEb @ April 04 2013,10:01)
And KF cites the Peano curve, again at Comprehensibility of the world.

My comment (again in moderation):
       
Quote
       
Quote
The Peano curve is important as it is continuous and a curve, i.e. it shows that points in a multi-dimansional spatial continuum have essentially the same cardinality as a line, that of the Reals.
To show that "that points in a multi-dimansional spatial continuum have essentially the same cardinality as a line" you don't need something which is "continuous and a curve" (BTW, curves are continuous), but just a bijective mapping. You could map [0;1] x [0;1] bijectively on [0;1] by sending (0.a1a2a3a4...;0.b1b2b3b3...) on 0.a1b1a2b2a3b3a4b4....

I'm afraid the only need for the Peano curve is in this context that it sounds so nice and a little bit impressive....

Never mind, DiEb, Batshit has got it covered:
   
Quote
Though the physicists/mathematicians in the preceding video, in exasperation, feel that they are at a dead end in ever successfully reconciling General Relativity within Quantum Mechanics, I would like to put forth the case that the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Himself, as strange as it may sound people, is the most parsimonious solution to the number one problem in science today.

The reason I hold that the resurrection of Jesus is the most parsimonious explanation for the reconciliation of GR into QM is that, as niwrad has pointed out in this post, and as Godel has shown in his incompleteness theorem, we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable,,

Thus if we allow God to play ‘the role of a person’ in Jesus Christ, which may be very difficult for some people to allow the possibility of, then a empirically backed reconciliation of GR into QM finds a very credible, empirically backed, solution in the event horizon evidenced on the Shroud of Turin:


ASSF!

[ETA: "empirically" - You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means]

Since ID has nothing whatever to do with religion, no not one bit, I'm kind of at a loss why this would be considered the most parsimonious solution.

Wouldn't the Great Fnitzification of the Universal Fnoot, as recorded in the Book of Fnotz, be an equally parsimonious explanation, and as supported by the evidence as the resurrection of Jesus?  It was probably just an oversight that they didn't also mention that.

Date: 2013/04/07 13:56:44, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 03 2013,17:28)
Quote (clamboy @ April 03 2013,15:30)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 03 2013,03:26)
In this case the blind belief that a Theory of Intelligent Design is scientifically impossible has no scientific hope of winning against one that is.

Theoretical theorizing about theories that are scientifically impossible is USELESS in the face of REAL THEORY that is TRULY scientifically impossible! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!

TREMBLE before GG Aulin (I've been waiting to use that one)!!!!

In this case the blind belief that a Theory of Intelligent Design is scientifically impossible has no scientific hope of winning against one that already proved it is scientifically possible.

Where did anyone assert that a theory of intelligent design isn't scientifically possible?  I think the main challenge to the theory of intelligent design is that there is no such thing.  You certainly haven't offered one.

Date: 2013/04/23 02:21:10, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2013,01:40)
   
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 22 2013,18:49)
Wes,  there are few topics on which I feel qualified to advise you,  but my college majors were abnormal psych and special ed.

Just sayin,  perhaps you are taking this too seriously. Gary is not a troll in the usual sense. He is not playing games. This really is his entire life.

You sure have that right.

Vigilantes who have nothing better to do than degrade everything I do are not only proving to be scientifically unethical they are also very annoying.

Thankfully everything I know about how intelligence works did NOT come from forums like this one, for mocking and ridiculing religion, not scientifically discussing the intelligence related issues.

Yes Gary, we know you think the party sucks.

The question is, why won't you leave?

The answer is, because you're a fucking pretentious bore with nothing better to do than stand around complaining while other people have a good time.

The fact that the good time is being had at your own expense is nobody's fault but your own--after 1224 posts here and counting.

Crank, begone!

Date: 2013/04/25 03:15:11, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I’m not confined to this forum

Just obsessed with it.

Date: 2013/04/26 15:18:45, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Seeing how we can't afford a car and have to live like paupers

I wonder how much money you could have made doing real work in the time it took you to post here 1262 times, you pathetic blaming whiner?  Get a fucking job, and take some responsibility for yourself.  There's probably a Cumberland Farms within walking distance.

Date: 2013/04/26 21:33:09, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Gary Gaulin = Larry Farfarman

Date: 2013/04/27 22:19:02, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Don't listen to the idiots, Gary, take your case to the court!

Well, he would, but it's far away and he doesn't have a car, which, apparently, is your fault.

Date: 2013/04/28 00:46:57, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 28 2013,01:42)
Quote (Nomad @ April 27 2013,22:24)
So apparently what Gary intends to do is play courtroom in the forum.  Yep, he really does intend to waste time for another hundred pages before announcing that he won and demanding that everyone give him money for his imaginary theory that was recognized by his imaginary court case.  I imagine he intends to use his imaginary supporters as expert witnesses in the court case.

Gary, that's not interesting.  Discussing the merits of your fanciful notion or your computer model was interesting to me.  I learned things, not so much from you as from the commentary presented against your ideas.

Watching you hold pretend people's court is going to get old fast.  You are in no place to act tough and demand people answer your questions.  You're running away from pages full of questions that you dare not answer.  Your tough guy act is ludicrous, but it's running out of amusement value.  When you play lawyer you're going to lose contact with reality entirely, and at that point there's nothing for me to learn watching you flail about.  There's at least a little ground to cover first, on issues such as standing, but I don't imagine that will last long.

Hire a real lawyer, get a real court date, face a real judge who will nail your hide to the wall the first time you try your tired games.  Or if you want to play pretend, play Phoenix Wright.

I would be happy with just the Nobel Prize I'm supposed to get for all this!

And you should be thankful that the baby theory and I are so easily pacified:

Dinosaurs "I'm The Baby, Gotta Love Me!" short


Did you get that Cumberland Farms application filled out yet Gary?

Date: 2013/04/29 09:24:35, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 29 2013,10:04)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 29 2013,09:01)
 
Quote (Quack @ April 29 2013,08:45)
Gary said:
           
Quote
But there is no love lost for having lost old ways that were not working, the way it works out that’s more like heroic.

Quixotic is the operative word.

The art of being it to life is for the extravagantly chivalrous actions to be in practical pursuit of ideals that we all like better even you, once you figure out what it is that is there.

Oops, was in a hurry to rush out and made a typo. Try this:

The art of bringing quixotic to life is for the extravagantly chivalrous actions to be in practical pursuit of ideals that we all like better even you, once you figure out what it is that is there.

Now that you've fixed the typo, can you translate it to English?

Date: 2013/04/29 10:15:02, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (fnxtr @ April 29 2013,10:56)
Gary Gaulin: "I'm a genius!"

The Rest Of The Known Universe: "No, you're a loon, and here's why."

Repeat ad nauseam.

Gary Gaulin:  "Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?"

Rest of world: "Lolwut?"

Gary Gaulin: "Science stoppers!  It's your fault I can't afford a car!"

Rest of world: "Lolwut?"

Gary Gaulin: "Molecules haz intelligences and my little bug program proooooves it!"

Rest of world:  "Deludedsciencefraudsayswhat."

Gary Gaulin: "What?"

Date: 2013/05/01 04:02:39, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Nomad @ May 01 2013,00:02)
Quote (Woodbine @ April 30 2013,22:43)
Quote
Programming break over! Back to finishing the eyes. Which reminds to say that no Quack I have to stay on this track, but the latest protest at PSC but model still there with it not going past that is all you really need to hold you in what happens in feedback, where it ends then that's it issue all over for good. But in keeping the model in-spirit with what it in culture expresses it needs to somehow be cotton-eyed with a glowing screen like this:

Utter gibberish.

I'm going to raise the suggestion that he is the most elaborate Poe I've ever encountered.

No, seriously, that is true gibberish.  He spends a lot of his time spouting stuff that could have been generated by gibberish generators.

But does anyone remember a long time ago, when the discussion turned to sex for some reason, and suddenly he got coherent?  It was like the fog was lifted and he could construct entirely meaningful sentences.  He demonstrated an understanding of basic forms of humor and seemed like a totally different person.

I got the distinct feeling he was winking at us.

I get the distinct feeling he is wanking at us.

Date: 2013/05/05 15:29:41, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 05 2013,16:03)
The new Intelligence Design Lab program now needs a vision system. I have been studying this paper that in Fig. 4 has a block producing "closed loop feedback commands" which in the ID model are stored in "RAM" and with "Guess" there is trial-and-error learning of how to better control itself:

Control theoretic interpretation of directional motion preferences in optic flow processing interneurons
Andrew Hyslop, Holger G. Krapp, J. Sean Humbert

And to help:

Blowfly flight characteristics are shaped by environmental features and controlled by optic flow information

Scholarpedia: Insect motion vision

From Insect Vision to Robot Vision

A two-dimensional visual motion detector based on biological principles

The ID Lab already accomplishes the same sort of thing by simply subtracting the value of one eye to the other for a correlation, and has an inner facet area sensitive to  motion direction that gets its mouth to the food. But the Equatorial Sensitivity Function charts in Fig. 3-b can be used.  The computer model also does not have a video camera image to find edges in. Its entity is in 2D virtual reality where there are already vectors to edges of everything in its field of view, which greatly simplifies the visual edge detection process.

What does this forum recommend for a vision system?

I recommend opening your eyes to the fact that your work has no scientific merit.

Date: 2013/05/13 09:38:14, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 13 2013,05:13)
 
Quote (Quack @ May 13 2013,02:32)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 13 2013,01:37)
And:

       
Quote (Nomad @ May 13 2013,01:15)
So, are you ready to explain how a model insect is going to prove that molecules think?  Just give us a rough outline of your master plan.


I never claimed that "molecules think" and I do not owe you an answer to something I never said.

       
Quote (Nomad @ May 13 2013,01:15)
I think you've further hinted that you're going in the direction I asked about.  Which is to put your alleged neural net in charge of planning the characteristics of the next generation of a simulated life form.  Care to respond to this?


I will only suggest that you download and study the theory because I am not going to respond to more of the usual loaded questions.

Incomprehensible diagrams and forty pages of BS, you call that a theory?

Why can't you go straight ahead and describe your theory in a top down manner? What audience are you aiming at?

What about "My theory is that biological intelligence exist on several levels, from a brain down to individual cells to molecules that cause action of inert matter."

Where are the brain in trees? I know trees are made of cells but am uncertain about tree brains. AFAIK, bacteria have no brains, how do they operate?

I'm seriously much better off not wasting any more time trying to communicate with hopeless nutcases.

And yet we all know you will continue "trying to communicate with hopeless nutcases" here, on and on, obsessively, for at least 1350 more posts.  Because this is the only place that lets you feed your delusion that anyone cares about your alleged scientific work in the slightest.  Don't you ever get tired of being laughed at?

Date: 2013/05/13 12:49:41, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 13 2013,13:36)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 13 2013,08:05)
Rigged demo in the news

   
Quote

Before it won the bid, Oracle also conducted live demonstrations of its software that used test scripts prepared by the university. One demonstration involved "a robust on-line application process for Undergraduate and Graduate Admissions ... that it falsely represented was an existing part of the base system and satisfied the University's requirements," the complaint states.

But in fact, "Oracle's ultimate implementation plan was to sell the University a third-party product called 'Embark' to satisfy those requirements, suggesting the initial 'live' demonstration was rigged," it adds. A "substantial" amount of customization was needed in the end, according to the complaint.


Oracle is getting sued for millions in part because they claimed something was in their demo code that wasn't.

Does that mean you will soon be in the news for snake-oil evolutionary algorithm software that helps cause another economic crash?

Instantiation #1351 of Genius Gary "wasting . . . time trying to communicate with hopeless nutcases".

Date: 2013/05/13 14:27:53, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 13 2013,14:27)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 13 2013,13:19)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 13 2013,12:36)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 13 2013,08:05)
Rigged demo in the news

     
Quote

Before it won the bid, Oracle also conducted live demonstrations of its software that used test scripts prepared by the university. One demonstration involved "a robust on-line application process for Undergraduate and Graduate Admissions ... that it falsely represented was an existing part of the base system and satisfied the University's requirements," the complaint states.

But in fact, "Oracle's ultimate implementation plan was to sell the University a third-party product called 'Embark' to satisfy those requirements, suggesting the initial 'live' demonstration was rigged," it adds. A "substantial" amount of customization was needed in the end, according to the complaint.


Oracle is getting sued for millions in part because they claimed something was in their demo code that wasn't.

Does that mean you will soon be in the news for snake-oil evolutionary algorithm software that helps cause another economic crash?

No it doesn't, and only a complete idiot would make that leap.

Thanks for tipping me off to one of Wesley's vested interests that helps explain their quote-mining, commenting on theory they did not bother to even look at, and other highly unscientific behaviors that indicate extreme bias.

But before I waste more time here!

Before you waste more time here, what?  You'll be back within an hour whining at us; there's obviously nothing else of import going on in your life.

Date: 2013/05/24 02:59:27, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 23 2013,16:42)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 23 2013,12:59)
   
Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 23 2013,12:11)
     
Quote (stevestory @ May 23 2013,08:24)
Man, I almost feel bad about doing that to Joe. Some very smart people in GFLPC's time had some deep reservations about cardinality etc. Setting that trap for him was a bit like loading a coyote snare with a hydrogen bomb.

But who doesn't love fireworks?

Why would you fell sorry, for him. He certainly deserves the trap. All he did, was harrasment, and dodge questions. I don't think, any of us should feel sorry. He deserves contempt.

Plus he's tried to bully and intimdate people here with threats of a physical meet up (before we saw what a sorry chubs he is.)

However, compared to "Kris", Joe is well behaved. That's my only complement.

You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?

Date: 2013/05/24 04:44:14, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 24 2013,04:42)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ May 23 2013,22:15)
   
Quote
If your hysteria continues for much longer then the title of this forum topic will have to be renamed to something like the "Wesley Elsberry meltdown thread". But maybe N.Wells has some advice for you too.
 Gary, the only person around here who is failing to see through your nonsense is yourself.  Give it up.  As far as I can tell, Wesley has been 100% correct and entirely non-hysterical in his statements, while your accuracy rating is in the stopped-clock range.  Get some help.

Considering how it’s been so much fun to inflict pain on others by mocking and ridiculing everything they say (bullying) the clueless know-it-alls in this forum now with their ass in a sling better start studying what they still find convenient to ignore:

Theory of Intelligent Design download page

I can’t be sure how many more years your ignorance driven scam can continue, but from the looks of things it’s already way too late to save yourselves from disgrace.

Linkspam.

Date: 2013/05/31 12:05:38, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 31 2013,08:37)
 
Quote (olegt @ May 31 2013,07:24)
Awwww, Joe is itching for a fight!
   
Quote
Who the fuck are you to say there is no point of keeping track of the LKN?

Joe should use his erm, considerable engineering and network skills to show us how we should track KLN. Perhaps a bank of supercomputers around the world, connected with super fast fiber optics? When one thinks it may have found a 'good candidate' (bites lip, trembles, but keeps shit together) it could send its candidate to all the others for verification and archiving?

HALP US, JOE!

10 let LKN = LKN+1
20 print "Tard"
30 goto 10

Date: 2013/05/31 16:33:32, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (olegt @ May 31 2013,16:37)
Joe insists the LKN is real:
 
Quote
keiths is thanking me for his inability to follow along? My point was that the LKN continues to grow keiths.

So, Joe, what's the current value of the LKN? :D

Joe = Stupid x 10LKN

Date: 2013/05/31 16:49:15, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Joe suffers from a case of testosterone poisoning so grave that it has apparently reduced his mathematical thinking ability to the level of a five year-old who sets out to count to infinity.  

The two differences are that the five year-old who does this quickly A) gives up and B) learns something.

Not gonna happen here.

Date: 2013/06/03 08:38:45, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
it's a wonder I'm still this sane after all this time

Objection, your honor!  Assumes facts not in evidence.

Date: 2013/06/03 13:07:21, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Woodbine @ June 03 2013,13:15)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 03 2013,08:36)
Even with the mud-slinging still going strong I finally made some progress on the ID-Lab2 software!

I figured, since all great theories of science are supposed to have weird stories behind them I can just let them say what they will. Charles Darwin had a divinity degree but not a respectable science degree like his critics, who (as previous discussed) trashed him real good in newspapers and magazines. The internet changed how scientists communicate, and radio changed how the masses communicate, which in my case I was introduced to in a unique way by long ago an AI radio DJ science project gone crazy making a real-life “Radio Pirate” of me.

Even though I thought it was the end of my world to have to live with that reputation, I was able to coherently petition the FCC for airspace for a tiny amount of power. Cordless or cell-phone power was fine by me, but such small power was not in the rules and having to estimate running 7000 watts or so for a “Class A” license all radio space was filled. Due to others petitioning the FCC lower power licenses were eventually made available, but at the time I tried to make that possible the radio broadcast industry was worried about by the year 2000 completion from that and from new ways to broadcast (satellite, internet) the FM band would only good for Citizens Band amateur radio (that came before fax and cell phones) type use and large-investment stations would be worthless.

I just happened to be in the at the right time and place to end up in the middle of a very major radio broadcast industry issue where from their perspective it was me against them when my goal was to complement what’s already there to help liven things up in a science minded way to help keep FM across the nation going through the rough times that were ahead. I sensed needing to somehow explain myself, real quick, which led to flight-mode in a T-Bird with sporty wheels and V-8 all chromed up with Edelbrock to the Connecticut School of Broadcasting, where to spite fears of not fitting in I soon felt right at home.

I then made connections and kept in touch with the commercial broadcast “industry” talent via fax machine then by the time low power licenses were available there came the Internet everyone moved to, which is where I most likely best belong anyway. My advice to engineers and others who read the dire industry magazine predictions for the FM band was not to worry, instead plan for good times ahead. Best case scenario is like back in the 60’s but with a real “science revolution” in the air that lasts forever in comparison to a Hippy type movement.

The way movements come and go we had to get through the Grunge movement era then reflect on how that ended before there could be something that starts by mixing oil and water with a little egg yolk that leads to theory that has the scientific establishment all shook up, but in a good way that all I know at UMass are OK with. It’s not inherently against academia, just a paradigm shift of sorts and with their having the book for Arnold Trehub online and my STEM teacher classes (one on ID) that I attended (and with my wife) you can honestly say that local colleges and universities helped make it happen, in part by simply not minding the mayhem like here in this forum. It’s nothing new to them, and Kansas is doing so well right now the KCFS forum for fighting ID is now just an archive of how the aftermath of the public hearing went after that. Kathy Martin came out looking good even though she was public enemy number one of the scientific community for having seen value in at least trying to follow the evidence from there to see where it leads before declaring that the Theory of Intelligent Design is scientifically impossible. Her shocking stimuli mostly brought the right people together for a two-term group learning experience that led to the Theory of Intelligent Design that came from Seattle to stir everything up, no longer a divisive issue that needs the KCFS forum to battle on with. That happening is in part from being ahead of the curve on very challenging wave to ride-out, where all can look back with something to their credit that’s the envy of their peers, regardless of how hopelessly crazy some (or all) were said to be.

For what it’s worth, having fun with science this way has good times behind and ahead for ones who were once scientifically powerless and left tearing themselves to pieces from what the Discovery Institute brought to Kansas, to on their own figure out. A happy ending even there indicates that the theory writing project can be surprisingly empowering, to ones who never experienced the thrill of helping to establish a new scientific paradigm. It now stands on its own scientific merit, where in turn Darwinian evolutionary theory becomes something else that is irrelevant to the real scientific issues, which keeps them equally separated. The theory never needs the word “evolution” so whatever the other theory defines it as and calls things does not change.

Wesley can go on and enjoy life too. Just have to accept that this Theory of Intelligent Design working out is a blessing, especially artists who thrive on being on the wave of something good enough to cause this panic among those who vowed to defeat it. It’s not hard. I was even impressed how he came in right after Dylan with no alibies for someone getting stupid with their email address.

Getting back to the new software, I kept working on it until all that’s around the “Confidence” module (other 3 modules that forms its circuit) is good enough to go, which just happens to be where the If..Then.. statements go. The “hypothesis” is after the “conditional" part of the question, the “antecedent“ as in earlier example is only the “Velociraptors wrote in cursive” part that comes after the word “then”. As in the ice not sinking seeming logical where only know that liquid water gets denser as it gets colder, that does not change the result of experiment, or has to spell out how to perform it. After the experiment is performed (for the second part only) the first part can become nonsense. But that does not change the hypothesis that only cares about what velociraptor behavior actually was, which is not tested by what orbits something else in outer space.

Where the two parts of the If..Then.. are this way separated it becomes easier to make the Confidence module work with the Guess module to form a two part statement where it does turn out that it’s the Guess (only) that is ultimately tested, which could also have been “Velociraptors did not write in anything” which has a very good chance of being true.

The best way to add hypothesis generation into the new ID Lab is to give the Confidence module a text area to write in If..Then.. statements that get tested which control behavior towards different things. It’s harder to code in a parser that will not slow it down but Wesley helps make the added complication more worthwhile. I’m now at that exact part of the program where forming hypotheses should end up being child’s play but I never went into that much detail before. In having caught up on that I’m now where Wesley most wants me, where hypotheses are expected to come from. But I can now see what Merriam-Webster is describing especially #3 that comes from having Confidence and Guess hooked up together like they are in the computer model.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary....hypothesis

Confidence levels direct good as possible Guesses in the second module, from logic that senses whether it’s the forward/reverse motors that are off of left/right thrust is needed, which selectively changes the structure to be (as per Richard Feynman) good guesses that can be made as complex as you want from there. As earlier explained this theory is for finding the cognitive starting point of hypotheses, which software wise reduces down to an If..Then.. parser for Visual Basic 6.0 to accept user entered statements. For the model it’s then using the If..Then.. conditional part to produce guesses that get tested and where it does not work (are false) other things are tested which in time leads to worded guesses that “Velociraptor did not write” with the best chance of holding true, as a lesson learned, from testing a hypothesis that started off a guess that is somewhat abstractly created from sensory information about orbit of planets mixing with thoughts of Dinosaur Train in the resulting guess where writing in cursive might be true, or soon will be just to help make such an excellent example of a hypothesis that at first might not look like one but the theory helps make sense of why that is most likely true. But do not know for sure until it’s tested, in the program, that I should have some time for later.

Now I just need a recursive parser, in case anyone has an idea for one that writes statements like in Visual Basic where it’s simple English language words and formulas written out like in grade school math class. Logic gates can take the place of words, where how that’s hooked together has an equivalent If..Then.. statement that can be written out, which might be even better than parsing sentences, but maybe not, so whatever Wesley wants might be best.


I had to think really hard to get it.  Thanks for the subtlety.

Date: 2013/06/05 10:52:46, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 05 2013,06:31)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 04 2013,23:51)
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 04 2013,22:34)
I might have missed before, but when did the system (whatever that means) literally get away with murder?

Gary should be able to provide the name of a deceased person to substantiate that claim.

Yes, this should be simple to provide.


Gary?

He's probably using the word "literally" in a figurative sense.

A lot of idiots do that.

Date: 2013/06/05 10:56:28, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (rossum @ June 05 2013,07:46)
 
Quote (JohnW @ June 04 2013,16:51)
   
Quote (stevestory @ June 04 2013,14:01)
   
Quote (olegt @ June 04 2013,16:15)
This should tell you everything about Joe's patience:
     
Quote
I have yet to get beyond 10 rolls without hitting a 4.

One roll of a die is not a 4 with the probability of 5/6. Ten rolls in a row have no 4 with the probability (5/6)^10 = 0.16. So it takes about 1/0.16 = 6 trials of 10 rolls to succeed.

Roll the die a hundred times, Joe, and you will likely see 10 rolls in a row with no 4.

Bonus track:

     
Quote
And computer simulations are a different ballgame. When you are rolling a die you cannot exactly duplicate each and every physical movement- there are intangibles involved.

attach a muon detector to you computer, like I did in my senior year at NCSU in physics, and you will def get randomness involved.

Attach a stupidity detector to your computer, go to Joe's blog, and...

Since the quantum particle for intelligence is the anti-moron, then the particle for stupidity is the moron.  You need to attach a moron detector.

The exact statistics are still being looked at.  CERN are trying to determine the half-life of the moron as we speak.


I prefer to use the colloquial name for the moron, "The Tard Particle."


-------
Edited because I can, and Joe can't

Date: 2013/06/05 18:01:37, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 05 2013,16:30)
   
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 05 2013,05:31)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 04 2013,23:51)
       
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 04 2013,22:34)
I might have missed before, but when did the system (whatever that means) literally get away with murder?

Gary should be able to provide the name of a deceased person to substantiate that claim.

Yes, this should be simple to provide.


Gary?

You're serious?

What are you expecting this deceased person to say? "Hi, I was bullied to death in college for being a creationist and ended up blowing my brains out after class, that's why half my head is now gone, and I defaulted on my student loans."

Gary, idiot, even if true, and even if you named an actual person who had been subject to this, these events fall far short of any useful definition of "getting away with murder" unless you can demonstrate that a specific person or persons intended to cause the suicide and took specific actions to achieve that aim.  You said murder.

Of course you cannot and will not provide the name of a victim, nor of perpetrator(s), nor any evidence that anyone intended to bring about that person's death, or that any action to this end was taken.  Because this is just one more bullshit deluded narcissistic unevidenced claim, from someone who obviously has nothing else to offer.

All you do is make shit up.

Date: 2013/06/06 03:57:42, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 06 2013,04:15)
   
Quote (Nomad @ June 06 2013,01:35)
This does not address what I said, Gary.  It is still a digital value.  You notice that one big block in the diagram you copied there?  The one labeled DAC?  Do you know what that stands for?  Digital analog converter.  You see the "digital input" side?  Digital data.  That means, and stay with me here, that it takes digital values from some kind of computer system, data perhaps stored in RAM as a digital value, and converts the data into an analog signal.

To store analog data, you're going to need an analog storage medium.  Something like audio tape.  And then to interface it with your program you will require a DAC to go the other direction to convert it into digital data so that the computer can deal with it.

This ties in with my very simple question to you, Gary.  How would you know if you are wrong?  You defended the statement that you are storing analog values by posting a schematic showing a device that uses stored digital data, and you don't even know you did it.  If posting schematics that demonstrate that you are wrong is what you think shows that you are right, what would it take for you to see that you are wrong?

The digital value represents an ANALOG amount from 0 to full scale therefore the RAM stores Analog amounts!

The fact that the PC is still digital does not change the fact that the RAM program module has code that gives it Analog data I/O that can only be incremented or decremented by one. In neural cognition it's representative of a synapse that strengthens/weakens over time.

Needing to come up a semantics argument to make it look like I don't know what I'm talking about is just being a pompous arse, again.

Who got murdered, Gary?  You said someone was murdered.  Who was it?  Who murdered that person, when, and where?  I know you wouldn't just throw loaded words like that around the without facts to back them up--I mean, it would be really irresponsible and damaging to your credibility if you did do that, right?  So, where are those facts?

Date: 2013/06/06 04:21:57, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
What is seen in this zoo is one reason science became so hated by some it was a reason they went to war against you. Military troops and others still get killed in culture-war that is sure not ended by using science to mock and ridicule while suggesting creationism destroyed the minds of Muslims too.

One might almost think that Gary, erudite scholar of the English language that he is, does not understand the meaning of the term 'culture war', and that he believes it refers to actual warfare where shots are fired and people are killed.  But that couldn't be the explanation, could it?  Of course not, because to him "Gary Gaulin doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about" doesn't appear to ever be a possible explanation for anything, as Gary is so immensely wise and learned compared to us science-stoppers.

Interesting that that phrase--Gary Gaulin doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about--is the most common reaction people have when they hear him speak, yet it never occurs to him, regardless of what drivel comes out of his narcissistic idiot mouth.

Date: 2013/06/07 03:47:52, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Gary, you said somebody was murdered.  Who was it?  You are going to substantiate what you said, right?

I mean it's not like you just made that up.

Right?

Date: 2013/06/07 04:30:35, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (damitall @ June 07 2013,05:05)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ June 07 2013,03:47)
Gary, you said somebody was murdered.  Who was it?  You are going to substantiate what you said, right?

I mean it's not like you just made that up.

Right?

When Giggles say "literally", he literally doesn't mean literally, you know.

What he does actually mean is, as with the rest of his writing, beyond our ken.

What I think he should do now, what with his educational experience and all, is to construct a lesson plan based on his - er - his - um - whatever it is he's doing, and present it to one of the many ID-friendly school boards you seem to have over there in the ex-colonies.

He shouldn't forget to record the ensuing vigorous discussion and put it up on YouTube

Why youtube that when he could just link to shit videos like "Final Coundown" by Europe?

Date: 2013/06/07 10:24:25, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 07 2013,10:30)
THRINAXODON PRESENTS THE EVIDENCE THAT HUMANS LIVED IN THE DEVONIAN.
IN A DEVONIAN FOSSIL BED, THRINAXODON FOUND CHAR. A SUBSTANCE THAT IS
EVIDENCE OF ASH. HE WAS AMAZED. IT IS THE OLDEST EVIDENCE OF HUMAN
FIRE. EVEN MORE DISTANT THAN 1 Ma.
======================================
Thrinaxodon scaring this guy, to DEATH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....in6PIo8

======================================
Thrinaxodon, in the form of prion, infecting this person's temporal
lobe, and causing DEATH SLOWLY!!!!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped....gios...

PROOF OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_....z5q.jpg

=================================
THRINAXODON KILLS A RABBIT WITH A COUPLE OTHER PEOPLE
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped....uret...
=================================
THRINAXODON IS NOW ON TWITTER.

ASH IS EVIDENCE OF HUMAN ACTIVITY BECAUSE NOTHING EVER CAUGHT ON FIRE UNTIL HUMANS INVENTED THE BIC LIGHTER 300 MILLION YEARS AGO N0STRADAMUS PREDICTED THIS WHEN HE WROTE THE BIBLE THEREFORE JESUS

(insert link to some youtube crap here)

Date: 2013/06/07 10:26:18, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Why won't this board let me use the word Nostrad@mus?

Date: 2013/06/07 11:51:11, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 07 2013,11:54)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ June 07 2013,10:05)
Really?

Yes. I have even found a human femur, in the Devonian strata.

Random internet dooshbag singlehandledly overthrows the most broadly-supported theory in the history of science using youtube links, wild unsubstantiated claims and a lot of capital letters. Now there's something I don't see every day.*


__


*but only because I don't go on the internet every single day

Date: 2013/06/07 14:49:17, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ June 07 2013,14:14)
Gary needs to get in touch with Abdul Alim, who is on the way to overthrowing all of cosmology and physics. Witness his [URL=http://www.scribd.com/doc/142414402/New-Hypothesis-Models-and-Explanations-of-Physics-Which-May-Unify-Everything-From-Atom-to-



Universe-Amended-15]NEW HYPOTHESIS, MODELS AND EXPLANATIONS OF PHYSICS WHICH MAY UNIFY EVERYTHING FROM ATOM TO UNIVERSE (AMENDED-15)[/URL].
Therein Alim tries to
       
Quote
... explain presently accepted theories, models and explanations of physics in the book as well as I have included some new hypothesis, models and also explained some unexplainedproblems of physics which may unify everything from atom to universe. On the basis of explanations in the book I have also formulated the "Theory of everything?.  

All these seem to be logical to me and many others.


Like Gary, Alim has suffered at the hands of the academy:      
Quote
The above new ideas are the result of my 25 years research and observations. I welcome you all to prove the new ideas. I hope that some of the new ideas will be proved in near future. If these new ideas are helpful in any way to the physics community then I shall be able to forget all the sufferings which I had to face in doing this.


One interesting thing is that although Alim doesn't appear to be a native English speaker, his prose is much better than Gary's.

Needs a few more "here"s.

And cowbell.  More cowbell.

Date: 2013/06/07 17:48:40, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush

Date: 2013/06/08 05:56:26, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 07 2013,21:38)
Quote (N.Wells @ June 07 2013,20:23)
I read it (at least an early version, and I downloaded and tried out your program), but I thought that what I could follow of what you wrote was a load of rubbish.

Then your assessment shows that you have a very serious reading comprehension problem, likely caused by your being hopelessly biased.

From you I need YOUR cognitive computer model for demonstrating how "intelligence" works and theory that explains how "intelligent cause" works. Having neither, only goes to show that you should not have presented such an argument from ignorance.

Oh genius Gary, please enlighten us to what logical system you use, which requires me to provide a better explanation for a phenomena than yours, before I am allowed to point out that your explanation is shit?  It's not a logical system that is of any use in determining the truth or validity of any idea, let alone being of any use in doing science.

And BTW, who got murdered?  Are you ready to retract that, or will you be providing evidence for your claim?*





*Of course you won't, because you just make shit up and everybody knows it

Date: 2013/06/10 04:27:40, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 10 2013,04:19)
   
Quote (Driver @ June 10 2013,03:02)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 10 2013,08:14)
You only want to sidestep science so you can instead play politics that includes making pompous claims that it’s not a theory when it certainly is.

In all other cases (especially when it’s a paper written by someone in this forum) it’s easy to say “that’s the best theory we got” but a theory that takes the wind out of your lofty religious crusade is not even acknowledged as a theory.

1) If you have a theory, how does it explain

- common descent
- transitional forms
- the evidence for the fusion of human chromosome 2
- ring species

?

2) How are we to know your theory is a better model than the theory of evolution?

The ONLY thing that matters to a theory that was premised to explain "INTELLIGENT CAUSE" is how well it explains INTELLIGENT CAUSE.

The burden is therefore on YOU to better explain how INTELLIGENCE and INTELLIGENT CAUSE works.

So you tell me what YOUR theory explains about INTELLIGENCE and INTELLIGENT CAUSE.

Sorry, your "theory" can be shit all by itself, without any need for anyone to provide an alternative in order to be justified in pointing that out.

All claims are shit, unless and until they have been supported in their own right.  You do nothing to support yours except post the same irrelevant flow chart dozens of times, link to crap youtube videos, and complain about science-stoppers.  Which isn't support, it's white noise.

Your "theory" is shit.  It isn't ever going to be anything else.  Your insistence to the contrary is delusional and narcissistic, and nobody anywhere thinks otherwise strongly enough to type a single sentence in support of you, your non-theory, your silly bug program, or your persistent fantasies of relevance and importance in areas you demonstrably know little about.

You'd be far better off focusing on supporting yourself better financially (so you can afford a car for instance) and seeking help with your mental health issues.

Date: 2013/06/10 13:00:08, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 10 2013,05:37)
 
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ June 10 2013,04:27)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 10 2013,04:19)
       
Quote (Driver @ June 10 2013,03:02)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 10 2013,08:14)
You only want to sidestep science so you can instead play politics that includes making pompous claims that it’s not a theory when it certainly is.

In all other cases (especially when it’s a paper written by someone in this forum) it’s easy to say “that’s the best theory we got” but a theory that takes the wind out of your lofty religious crusade is not even acknowledged as a theory.

1) If you have a theory, how does it explain

- common descent
- transitional forms
- the evidence for the fusion of human chromosome 2
- ring species

?

2) How are we to know your theory is a better model than the theory of evolution?

The ONLY thing that matters to a theory that was premised to explain "INTELLIGENT CAUSE" is how well it explains INTELLIGENT CAUSE.

The burden is therefore on YOU to better explain how INTELLIGENCE and INTELLIGENT CAUSE works.

So you tell me what YOUR theory explains about INTELLIGENCE and INTELLIGENT CAUSE.

Sorry, your "theory" can be shit all by itself, without any need for anyone to provide an alternative in order to be justified in pointing that out.

All claims are shit, unless and until they have been supported in their own right.  You do nothing to support yours except post the same irrelevant flow chart dozens of times, link to crap youtube videos, and complain about science-stoppers.  Which isn't support, it's white noise.

Your "theory" is shit.  It isn't ever going to be anything else.  Your insistence to the contrary is delusional and narcissistic, and nobody anywhere thinks otherwise strongly enough to type a single sentence in support of you, your non-theory, your silly bug program, or your persistent fantasies of relevance and importance in areas you demonstrably know little about.

You'd be far better off focusing on supporting yourself better financially (so you can afford a car for instance) and seeking help with your mental health issues.

So says another anti-social cyber-bully destroying science and science education, as well as people's lives, while trying to make it appear that the opposite is true.

Date: 2013/06/10 13:01:25, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2013,12:00)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ June 10 2013,07:57)
Gary, I'd recommend you seek help immediately but my hands are covered in blood. Dried, caked blood. The blood of innocents!

Oh, if only Africa would download your 50 page theory!

When I have the dried caked blood of innocents on my hands, which I often do, as gary says, I find this works pretty well:


I enjoy the fact that the hand on the label is making both a jerk-off gesture and a G (as in Gary); quite apropos.

Date: 2013/06/10 13:31:31, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 10 2013,05:37)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ June 10 2013,04:27)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 10 2013,04:19)
       
Quote (Driver @ June 10 2013,03:02)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 10 2013,08:14)
You only want to sidestep science so you can instead play politics that includes making pompous claims that it’s not a theory when it certainly is.

In all other cases (especially when it’s a paper written by someone in this forum) it’s easy to say “that’s the best theory we got” but a theory that takes the wind out of your lofty religious crusade is not even acknowledged as a theory.

1) If you have a theory, how does it explain

- common descent
- transitional forms
- the evidence for the fusion of human chromosome 2
- ring species

?

2) How are we to know your theory is a better model than the theory of evolution?

The ONLY thing that matters to a theory that was premised to explain "INTELLIGENT CAUSE" is how well it explains INTELLIGENT CAUSE.

The burden is therefore on YOU to better explain how INTELLIGENCE and INTELLIGENT CAUSE works.

So you tell me what YOUR theory explains about INTELLIGENCE and INTELLIGENT CAUSE.

Sorry, your "theory" can be shit all by itself, without any need for anyone to provide an alternative in order to be justified in pointing that out.

All claims are shit, unless and until they have been supported in their own right.  You do nothing to support yours except post the same irrelevant flow chart dozens of times, link to crap youtube videos, and complain about science-stoppers.  Which isn't support, it's white noise.

Your "theory" is shit.  It isn't ever going to be anything else.  Your insistence to the contrary is delusional and narcissistic, and nobody anywhere thinks otherwise strongly enough to type a single sentence in support of you, your non-theory, your silly bug program, or your persistent fantasies of relevance and importance in areas you demonstrably know little about.

You'd be far better off focusing on supporting yourself better financially (so you can afford a car for instance) and seeking help with your mental health issues.

So says another anti-social cyber-bully destroying science and science education, as well as people's lives, while trying to make it appear that the opposite is true.

Your hysterical reaction is typical of you, Gary.  Your claims:

1)  That I am anti-social: No Evidence

2)  That I have ever bullied anyone: No Evidence

3)  That I am destroying science: No Evidence

4)  That I am destroying science education: No Evidence

5)  That I am destroying people's {sic} lives: No Evidence

6)  That I am trying to make something other than the truth appear to be true:  No Evidence

Of course that's just par for the course at the Gary Gaulin Country Club.

Date: 2013/06/10 18:40:31, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
Who doesn't think your "theory" is complete bollocks?

Well there was somebody, but they got murdered.

Date: 2013/06/11 03:27:47, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
I have many things to finish, for a much larger number of people than you can imagine

I can imagine a billion to the billionth power people, all waiting on your important output.  Is it more people than that, or are you just demonstrating your well-known inability to use language properly, yet again?

Date: 2013/06/13 02:31:48, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote
The dog-eat-dog competition is very fierce. And writing papers for science journals is just something that's required to stay in the game, goes with the territory, or else they're immediately out completely.

Right, so why not skip that step, make up a bunch of random crap, call it a "theory", program a cartoon bug that has nothing to do with the "theory", and flog it obsessively on the internet at a discussion board devoted to making fun of obsessed cranks, crackpots and creationists?  That'll pay the bills.

Date: 2013/06/13 11:14:07, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ June 13 2013,11:37)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 13 2013,09:30)
All totaled the number of people now influenced by my work is tens or hundreds of millions. I'm in Encyclopedia Britanica and more because of K-12 work like this:


Please share with us, Mr. Wizard, how you know that your numbers (tens or hundreds of millions) are accurate and how you know that anyone has been influenced by your "work."

You'll get that at the exact same moment he tells us who got murdered, or how the people on this discussion board are responsible for religious strife in Africa.  Never.

Because all Gary Gaulin does is make stuff up.

He's not capable of anything else.

Date: 2013/06/21 14:12:29, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 21 2013,14:40)
     
Quote
Best thing I can think of
Is to grow another bite.
To eat there,
As big as the poop that does not look;
Like a giant nipple
Just the food inside;
Where the BobaBot can instead,
Just eat the whole thing.


Poetry

I can see the movie posters now

   
Quote
The Poop That Does Not Look: The Gary Gaulin Story
The best thing he could think of was to grow another bite

Date: 2013/06/29 12:19:38, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 28 2013,23:34)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 28 2013,21:06)
I'm making progress

no you're not

Gary couldn't "make progress" finding his own ass using both hands, a flashlight and a 100GW nuclear-powered ass detector.

Date: 2013/07/02 16:39:23, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2013,17:32)
   
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 02 2013,16:09)
I have it on good authority that The Theory of Intelligent Design is being used to clothe an emperor.

As a matter of fact the Theory of Intelligent Design is (metaphorically speaking) being used to clothe all of YOUR naked emperors. They need to look their best, for proclaiming that a Theory of Intelligent Design does not exist.

Your "Theory of Intelligent Design" doesn't exist.  It can't be a Theory of Intelligent Design if it's not a theory.  It's not a theory, it's an incoherent mess of words and a silly bug program.

Another thing that doesn't exist is the person who you claimed was murdered.  Another thing that doesn't exist is any example of you being censored here.

Why do you lie so much?

Date: 2013/07/02 16:55:35, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2013,17:07)
 
Quote (stevestory @ July 02 2013,15:21)
Everybody's watching you, hiding from simple reality.

The reality is that even though you cannot see all the places it goes this Theory of Intelligent Design is already doing remarkably well in science and education.

And yet you can never once cite a single person who agrees with you.  Name one scientist and one educator who agree that your "theory" is "doing remarkably well in science and education".  Go ahead.

ETA:  These people need to actually exist and have names, unlike your censors and murder victims.

Date: 2013/07/02 17:07:30, Link
Author: Occam's Toothbrush
Gary Gaulin debates Gary Gaulin

 

 

 

=====