AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: PTET

form_srcid: PTET

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: PTET

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


DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2008/01/25 12:49:00, Link
Author: PTET
How exciting. My first post on this board. Hi everyone.

Did anyone see this from interviews plugged on UD, with Dembski & Behe on a spanish pro-ID website? Dembski corrects his interviewer by pointing out there has been no science resulting from ID... And Behe comes out and endorses Common Descent. Might not be news to you guys, but certainly will be to the IDiots I've been talking to recently.

   "CA: Dr. Dembski, ID has come a very long way since its inception; and ID proponents are making inroads in a vast array of scientific disciplines such as astronomy, biology, and chemistry. How has your own work in mathematics (namely, The Design Inference and No Free Lunch) helped or influenced the development of novel ways of doing science?

   DEMBSKI: It’s too early to tell what the impact of my ideas is on science. To be sure, there has been much talk about my work and many scientists are intrigued (though more are upset and want to destroy it), but so far only a few scientists see how to take these ideas and run with them."


   "ML: In The Edge, you make a defense for common descent (p.182) and later attribute it to a non-random process (p. 72). Considering the convergent evolution of the digestive enzyme of lemurs and cows, hemoglobin of human and mice, and in your own work resistance mutations that also arise independently (p77), why such a commitment to common descent? Isn’t genetic convergent evolution or even common design (considering your view of mutations) good alternative explanations to common descent?

   BEHE: I don’t think so. Although those other explanations may be true, I think that common descent, guided by an intelligent agent, is sufficient to explain the data. It has the great advantage of being easily compatible with apparent genetic “mistakes” shared by organisms, such as the pseudo-hemoglobin genes I wrote of in The Edge of Evolution."
Full links and refs on my blog.

Date: 2008/01/25 18:16:12, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 25 2008,15:17)
Quote (PTET @ Jan. 25 2008,12:49)
How exciting. My first post on this board. Hi everyone.

Did anyone see this from interviews plugged on UD, with Dembski & Behe on a spanish pro-ID website? Dembski corrects his interviewer by pointing out there has been no science resulting from ID... And Behe comes out and endorses Common Descent. Might not be news to you guys, but certainly will be to the IDiots I've been talking to recently.

   "CA: Dr. Dembski, ID has come a very long way since its inception; and ID proponents are making inroads in a vast array of scientific disciplines such as astronomy, biology, and chemistry. How has your own work in mathematics (namely, The Design Inference and No Free Lunch) helped or influenced the development of novel ways of doing science?

   DEMBSKI: It’s too early to tell what the impact of my ideas is on science. To be sure, there has been much talk about my work and many scientists are intrigued (though more are upset and want to destroy it), but so far only a few scientists see how to take these ideas and run with them."


   "ML: In The Edge, you make a defense for common descent (p.182) and later attribute it to a non-random process (p. 72). Considering the convergent evolution of the digestive enzyme of lemurs and cows, hemoglobin of human and mice, and in your own work resistance mutations that also arise independently (p77), why such a commitment to common descent? Isn’t genetic convergent evolution or even common design (considering your view of mutations) good alternative explanations to common descent?

   BEHE: I don’t think so. Although those other explanations may be true, I think that common descent, guided by an intelligent agent, is sufficient to explain the data. It has the great advantage of being easily compatible with apparent genetic “mistakes” shared by organisms, such as the pseudo-hemoglobin genes I wrote of in The Edge of Evolution."
Full links and refs on my blog.

Good to see you here, PTET. Welcome.

I love this quote:
It’s too early to tell what the impact of my ideas is on science.

I guess the Bible Code hasn't revealed that information to him yet.

btw, I highly recommend this link: Blog Reactions to Uncommon Descent. (thanks, ERV!) Not only does it provide links to some great takedowns of UD's crap, there are also links to some potential deposits of unmined Tard. Including some foreign language Tard.

I found this in the list of people who have added UD to their favorites. It looks to be "Reasonable Finns" (Danes? Norse?).

I found this in the list of people who have added UD to their favorites. It looks to be "Reasonable Finns" (Danes? Norse?).
Definitely Finnish.

I messed about with a Finnish Translator, and blog header comes out as something like "Intelligent Planning - If the world was designed how would we know about it".

If I remember from my old TalkOrigins usenet days, the Finns have always had their own crazy creationist contingent.

Date: 2008/01/26 11:31:45, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 25 2008,13:12)
Quote (ERV @ Jan. 25 2008,12:46)
In my inbox this morning, via dr. snail:
Today's UD post -

Craigslist Post Aug 30, 2007 -

Well, I suppose more evidence WAD is GF.  They both plagiarize.

Ha!  The "Leading Light" of ID theory, reduced to plagiarizing  6 month old magazine articles.  

ERV - So, GF = Fucking Little Lier?

I wonder if someone might take time out of their busy schedule and call and/or email Craigslist?

As I explain at length here, "Intelligent Design Theory" provides a perfectly innocent explanation of this occurrence.

And glorifies God in doing so.

Praise Jesus!

Date: 2008/01/26 15:19:43, Link
Author: PTET
Gerry Rzeppa
2:41 pm

Uncommon Descent: OOL is a Sticky Situation

“Seeing these identical DNA molecules seeking each other out in a crowd, without any external help, is very exciting indeed. This could provide a driving force for similar genes to begin the complex process of recombination without the help of proteins or other biological factors. . . .”

A similar effect has been observed when autumn leaves of a given biological variety “seek each other out in a crowd” and spontaneously collect under bushes, along street curbs, and by the inside corners of nearby buildings. This phenomenon is very exciting and could explain - without recourse to intentional beings - the driving force behind the curious recombinations of leaves that we often find inside large, plastic, twisty-tied bags.

Do these guys think each cell is full of invisible dancing pixies running around clumping proteins together in bags with twist-sticks? Or what? I guess it would fit in with all their talk about unseen agents and realms and stuff.

I have a recurring nightmare where the "cdesign proponentsists" turn to be as whackjob-crazy as the "logical conclusions" of their arguments would require them to be.

Date: 2008/01/27 10:42:42, Link
Author: PTET
[quote=blipey,Jan. 26 2008,10:17][/quote]
Duke of Earl said...

   Darwin's unsubstantiated hypothesis* (which is all it could ever be described as, it lacks the empirical requirement to be a theory) was not responsible for a belief in the equality of races...

Darwinism is the belief that all living forms are descended from a single form which in turn arose from non-living matter. The kinds of changes required for this to be true have never been observed.

I seem to have been banned or blocked from commenting at RK just for "agreeing" with them that racism didn't exist before Darwin. It must be "great" being a creationist. You get to just completely make stuff up. Don't like reality? No problem! Have your own reality.

My favorite creationist argument goes like this: X exists. There is absolutely no way in the Universe that X could have happened without God. Therefore God did it.

The logic is "impeccable".

I'm new to the RK thing. So, on a scale of 1 to 10, exactly how crazy is FtK?

Date: 2008/01/27 12:02:22, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Mister DNA @ Jan. 26 2008,16:07)
Quote (PTET @ Jan. 26 2008,15:19)
I have a recurring nightmare where the "cdesign proponentsists" turn to be as whackjob-crazy as the "logical conclusions" of their arguments would require them to be.

PTET, say hi to your new friends, Larry and Joe.

Larry seems quite sweet... More from the "I don't need these ivory tower eggheads to tell me what to think" school rather than anything  dangerous. He does come across like a "blathering idiot", as one comment on his blog suggests.

Joe, on the other hand, seems like a right cross-the-street-to-stay-away-from-this-one nutter.

Being Europeanian, it seems odd that these sorts of people have so much influence. And yet papers in the states seem to publish letters from crazies like these guys all the time. Hmmm... I suspect over here we do have a similar number of crazies - it's just that no-one gives them airtime of treats them the remotest bit seriously. Hey - I love your country nonetheless :)

Date: 2008/01/27 12:38:37, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 27 2008,12:10)
Hey, FTK, why you not post peoples comments on your blog? Why bother having comments open at all?

I suspect it's because FtK and her ilk know that nothing "unbelievers" can say will ever affect *their* thinking... But they don't like to risk that with any of their "real" blog readers.

But I could be wrong.

I also suspect that it's because they think unbelievers are sub-human. That certainly seems to be one of J P Holdings "justifications".

But I could be wrong about that too.

What would Jesus do, FtK? Would he allow comments on his blog?

Date: 2008/01/28 00:45:55, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 27 2008,16:27)
For those of you who haven't checked out PTET's blog, he has an awesome Darwin Photo, complete with demonic red-laser eyes fully armed and capable of shooting Evilution Education into the brain of unsuspecting Chreationists like Sal and FTK.

Sweet of you to say... But my original Darwin pic wasn't quite up to scratch, so in your honor, I took another pass at it...

And yup, I totally understand the level of ignorance out there. Apparently 30% of the UK population "don't believe" in evolution. Hey, I guess I think it all comes down to a general dislike of smart asses... And no one likes those ivory tower egg-heads who think they are so smart, with their "science" and their "degrees" and all. What's maybe different about Western Europe and the USA, is that over here people are also skeptical those who wear their "faith" on their sleeves... While in the America a large chunk of the population seem to lap that right up. Hey ho.

Date: 2008/01/28 07:19:46, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 01 2008,23:55)
RB and I'd like for you et al to consider the following:

The time interval between the Fall and the first time that Adam realizes that he can beat his meat by himself.

The brief interlude between the closing of the doors on the ark and the first time that Noah considered banging one of his daughters, for the first time.

I know  this was from a long time ago but I just got to this thread and its so wonderful it has to be repeated.

I take it there is no word on these important questions from the many labs around the world researching Creation Science?

Is there are news on why my comment on FtK's blog was blocked?

Do you know who else blocked comments on their blogs, FtK?

I think you do.

It was the Nazis...

Date: 2008/01/28 07:34:16, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Jan. 23 2008,15:13)
I'm hoping that Stein is telling the truth for once:

Ben, himself, has lost opportunities because of his work on the project and regularly receives hate mail.

Not the hate mail, if true, but I don't mind either people telling him that he's an ignorant twit promoting theo-fascism, nor the fact of people who prefer liberty to his brand of dictatorship not hiring such a cheap con-man.

Glen D

This seems like a good a place as any for a competition competition... Obviously the attached pic is far too childish to publish anywhere... But what *could* Ben Stein be writing with that spray-can? He is after all, this generation's rebel...

The best caption "wins a prize".

Date: 2008/01/28 09:31:26, Link
Author: PTET
Posted by Ash75 on January 29th, 2008
Casey's Critical Thinking

I’ll admit that some of the ways God deals with people in the Bible, especially in the OT, seem horrible. But then I remember he has a much better concept of the way life is set up than I do, since he created it. If he chooses to take people to the second stage of their lives by drowning them, who am I to say that my ways are more righteous?

The more I think about this quote, the more I need to go and have a lie down...

Date: 2008/01/28 10:43:34, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 28 2008,09:47)
I'm picturing the statue looking more like the Army of Darkness poster, with Bill standing there with his shirt torn, and Denyse clutching his leg.


Date: 2008/01/28 14:10:04, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (hooligans @ Jan. 28 2008,13:42)
There has got to be a Dembski meltdown soon. The pressure has been building for awhile.

I keep hearing about these meltdowns. Does anyone have a list or a timeline? I guess the big one was his packing up his blog and not letting anyone play with it for a while after Darwinism's Waterloo in Dover... But, kind of like taking measurements from a smoldering volvano, it would be good to know when it's safe to play around the edge, and when one should run for the hills to watch from a safe distance...

Date: 2008/01/30 04:02:04, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Nomad @ Jan. 29 2008,23:30)
if dinosaurs and dogs didn’t live at the same time, I would still be in my sins. But I am not in my sins, so therefore dinosaurs and dogs must have lived at the same time.

Holy crap.  My standard favorite quote of "the creator is in my heart" as proof of creationism has now been firmly rejected in favor of this new load of steaming illogic.

On the other hand.. it would appear to indicate that all we have to do is show people sinning to prove that dinosaurs and dogs didn't live together.

Wait a minute.. So.. *I* could sin, and disprove creationism.  Right?

Oh, the power...

I think you are missing the big picture here... This Tard is *without sin*. Holy crap indeed. It's the Second Coming! Has this guy got an agent?

Date: 2008/01/30 04:26:45, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Jan. 30 2008,04:00)
There is so much irony in there, that I don't even know where to begin.

Here's an exchange I had on UD
which never made it past moderation:

Unlettered: Why do you think very skeptical atheists after studying the universes physics become theists? The same goes for some who study the OOL inquiry. No one twists their arm, they come to the conclusion after studying the evidence that these things were designed.

PTET: Physicists are substantially less likely to beleive in God than the general population. Biologists are even less likely.

That simple fact is too controversial for UD.

Must... Avoid... Reality... At... All... Times...

Leading to such wonderful UD statements as:  
2:56 am

If an electrical engineer can be so blinded by the liberal media, just think what the secular elites are doing to our children in the schools.
And Jebus Wept.

Date: 2008/01/30 05:28:20, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 30 2008,04:25)
Near as I can tell, the only way they could make themselves look more WADtuse than they have to date is to stand in a big circle, all wearing these:

I hear UD just got a special delivery:

Date: 2008/01/30 14:43:31, Link
Author: PTET
1:55 pm

It’s clear to me that ID needs a major event, something so big that it will knock everybody’s socks off, scientists and laymen alike. Somehow, I don’t think that debates, arguments, movies and websites are going to cut it. I may sound like a pessimist but deep down, I’m an optimist. There is no doubt in my mind that we’ll win this fight when the time comes and we’ll win it hands down. When that happens, the enemy will be totally discredited and ridiculed. There is a mountain of crow waiting just for them.
Time to break out the Kool Aid, Billie D...

Date: 2008/01/30 14:51:46, Link
Author: PTET
Now FtK is at it...
2:11 pm

I’ve listened to Carroll lecture, and he most certainly did not provide me with any “overwhelming factual evidence” that negates ID. His evidence wasn’t even overwhelming enough to support common descent.

Common descent, which Michael Behe himself says ("guided by an intelligent agent") is the best explanation?

Still think "The Flood" really happened, eh, FtK?

Date: 2008/01/30 17:57:02, Link
Author: PTET
6:38 pm

The solution to unlocking the ironbox of unbelief in the mind of the population is via preaching Christ crucified. Not court cases, not school wars, not screaming blogs, not endless debates of who’s right or wrong. When people accept Christ (truly accept Christ, not give lipservice or play Church & Appearance of Goodness game) then and only then will the Holy Spirit lift the spiritual blindness and allow one to see the truth which is so plain to see to those who love God.


They're having quite a night over at UD...

Date: 2008/01/31 01:14:26, Link
Author: PTET
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.

Date: 2008/01/31 06:27:22, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 31 2008,05:00)
Incidentally, there is a creationist talking at next month's Skeptics in the Pub in London if any UKians are interested. It should be a larf (returning to Peter's topic of "debating" creationists). Rotten fruit sellers the nation over have gone out of stock in anticiption. It might be something of a bloodbath, it might not.

So, on a serious and related note, any tips from the professional creationist debaters as to how to question/pin down this chap?

Here are the event details.

"Paul Taylor joined the staff of AiG (UK/Europe) in August 2005 as a writer and speaker... After becoming a Christian in his late teens Paul had a Saturday job in a Christian bookshop in Ashton. It was there that he first noticed a booklet by a group of Christians who did not believe in the theory of evolution! This was a complete shock to Paul, because he could not conceive how people could fail to believe in what he thought was established scientific fact. However, the bookshop manager persuaded him that it made scientific sense to believe the Bible's account of creation in Genesis, and sent Paul home with such books as Evolution or Creation by Professor Enoch,  The Genesis Flood by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris, and Morris'  The Genesis Record."

Good grief.

Once the Evil Atheist Conspiracy takes control, we can burn people like this at the stake.


Date: 2008/01/31 07:33:52, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Jan. 31 2008,07:02)
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?

I've only been back blogging a week, and already the biggest thing I've learned is that 99% of ID supporters don't have the first clue what "ID Theory" says and does not say.

Why this surprises me I do not know.

Has Uncommon Descent always been an mondo bizarro as it is at present, or have I come at a "special" time?

Date: 2008/01/31 08:20:33, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 31 2008,07:47)
I dunno.  There is some good shit over there and if one of you guys is making it up, I would love to learn from you O Wise One.

That much is obvious. What is brilliant, ofc, is how neither UD nor us can tell which is which...

Deleting the trolls and puppets, you have a rather homogenous group of christian conservatives, most describable by 'fundagelical'.

Indeed. Without the YECers and absurd Hugh-Rossers UD is left with trolls and fruitbats.

And yet newspapers and politicians all over the US give these people an inordinate amount of media time. I guess it sells.

So what next? The ID crowd give up on ID-as-science and make it into a battle about how the entire science of biology is a conspiracy.... The fundagelicals eventually get fed up of never-ending "Great Disappointments" and move on to the next bunch of snake-oil salesmen, I guess...

Date: 2008/01/31 09:11:16, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 30 2008,11:30)
Can someone photoshop "fight club" into "tard club", please?

Quick & dirty...

There's a Fight Club stylee
font if you want.

Date: 2008/01/31 09:18:33, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 31 2008,09:00)
I don't think they have considered what might happen if somehow they were to defeat the darwinismus materialismus etc etc.  I can just imagine the silence as they scratched their heads and thought about what to do next.  All the science at their fingertips, what to do next?

Apologies for a repost, but this exchange with Dembski says it all. The interviewer gushes about what ID achieved, and Dembski admits he's achieved... Bupkis.

CA: Dr. Dembski, ID has come a very long way since its inception; and ID proponents are making inroads in a vast array of scientific disciplines such as astronomy, biology, and chemistry. How has your own work in mathematics (namely, The Design Inference and No Free Lunch) helped or influenced the development of novel ways of doing science?

WD: It’s too early to tell what the impact of my ideas is on science. To be sure, there has been much talk about my work and many scientists are intrigued (though more are upset and want to destroy it), but so far only a few scientists see how to take these ideas and run with them."

Date: 2008/02/07 15:36:31, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 07 2008,13:42)
They’ve denied his due process rights throughout this entire appeal,” Luskin continued.

Apparently Luskin is as confused about law as he is about science.

There are no "due process" provisions in the constitution regarding a tenure dispute at a university.  The meeting of regents is not a court of law.

I used to think Luskin was a clever propagandist, lately I'm convinced he's just dumb.

I have a friend who has some legal training... In a non-USican sense.

"Due Process" could apply in the vernacular to the University's own rules. If the University had not followed its own rules, this could be the basis for a lawsuit on the basis "Due Process" was not followed.

I have no idea whether Luskin has used the correct terminology under Americanian Law, but I imagine that's what he's alluding to.

Date: 2008/02/07 17:09:20, Link
Author: PTET

5:09 pm

...darwinist materialists often act hypocritically when they seek to maintain a reputation of loving truth where ever the facts lead, when, in fact, they often engage in lies, deceit, half-truth, character assassination, political maniputation, etc., for their own ends. Some of us think they should be taken to task for it. It’s time to make a cord of whips.

A chord of whips?

Looks like all of UD is heading for a Friday Meltdown...

Date: 2008/02/07 18:34:28, Link
Author: PTET
From the Wistar thread...
3:44 pm

Bevets, this is pretty cool. ‘Seems that without even observing the evolution of an irreduceably complex system, Ann Gauger has falsified the unfalsifiable ID.

Not bad work!

bFast is spinning hard. ID's own labs finding beneficial mutations is a good thing for ID.

Clearly he's not taking his logic far enough.

Since beneficial mutations don't occur in nature, clearly the capacity for this beneficial mutation was front-loaded in its DNA by the Designer itself.

Obvious when you think about it.

Date: 2008/02/08 04:35:35, Link
Author: PTET
5:02 am

...If the genomes of various species of a genera or family (such as cichlids, birds, various types of mammals) get sequenced and the gene pools of these species show only a reduction in the gene pools of the species from the estimated gene pools of the original ancestors, such research would obviate the creativity of the modern theory of evolution. If it shows that the gene pools of all the species in these families do not exhibit any creative elements but only reductions in the gene pool from some prior larger set, then this is ID supportive research. Such research is going on in the biology labs today all over the planet and like Lenski, the researchers would probably be upset to know that they are doing pro ID research...

Any biologists out there who can help on this one?

Has (by Jerry's argument) ID already been refuted by Lenski?

Date: 2008/02/09 12:22:20, Link
Author: PTET
1:06 pm

...I question your question of my civility. If I referred to President George W. Bush, which is his proper title, by any other name I doubt you’d make any objection. And by the way, calling Rush Limbaugh a jackass is hardly an example of civil speech. Your double standard is showing. Better tuck that in as it’s rather unbecoming...

...If Barack Hussein Obama wants to avoid mention of his legal middle name then he can easily change it. The fact is he didn’t so it’s totally fair game for political discourse.

DaveScot is a cast-iron, a-grade, out-and-out prick.

Date: 2008/02/10 02:40:41, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 09 2008,23:40)
Quote (PTET @ Feb. 09 2008,13:22)
1:06 pm

...I question your question of my civility. If I referred to President George W. Bush, which is his proper title, by any other name I doubt you’d make any objection. And by the way, calling Rush Limbaugh a jackass is hardly an example of civil speech. Your double standard is showing. Better tuck that in as it’s rather unbecoming...

...If Barack Hussein Obama wants to avoid mention of his legal middle name then he can easily change it. The fact is he didn’t so it’s totally fair game for political discourse.

DaveScot is a cast-iron, a-grade, out-and-out prick.

If "George W. Bush" is his proper title, then why isn't "Barack H. Obama" Barack's proper title?

For the same reason people don't say Willard M. Romney.

Hey, in a comedy setting, say what you want. But DaveScot was supposedly having a serious discussion... And my "beef" was with the way he treats "his" blog readers, not with his politics.

Date: 2008/02/10 02:54:23, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Nomad @ Feb. 08 2008,23:41)
It seems to me that such people care more about labels than reality.  Just as slapping the label of atheist onto the entire scientific discipline allows people to discard the views of thousands of scientists in favor of accepting the views of a handful of engineers and computer programmers, so the label of conservative hearkens back to a fantasy caricature of the Reagen era, a past that never was.


Date: 2008/02/11 04:55:42, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 11 2008,03:57)
Part of NCSE's tips for testifying at school board meetings:


9. Call on the clergy.  Pro-evolution clergy are essential to refuting the idea that evolution is incompatible with faith.  Voices for Evolution contains useful statements from mainline religious organizations (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish) affirming that evolution is compatible with their theology. If no member of the clergy is available to testify, be sure to have someone do so- the religious issue must be addressed in order to resolve the controversy successfully.

That's because religiously-motivated antievolution is a socio-political stance, not one that is primarily driven by consideration of the scientific issues. This remains the case whether pointed out by someone who personally is an atheist materialist or by a theist. There is no dishonesty involved in recognizing -- and publicly noting -- this fact. Even if one denies that the observed state of affairs is a fact (though the evidence is overwhelming that it is), it remains an arguable position to advocate, and thus also not one that can be used to label someone noting it as "dishonest".

Not that I expect that to get through Morton's Demon...

Morton's Demon then denies the faith of those denying the science of creationism. Here's Wakefield Tolbert from yesterday:

"If one is not going to follow any Biblical ordinance and then have links to atheist resources as a kind of “failsafe” to any other argument, then for all practical purposes you have what Darek Barefoot has called “provisional atheism”—-in other words a situation where many people MIGHT posit some kind of vague notion or faith in a higher power but God is not part of their regular lives outside of Chapel at Easter and so they might as well join the other camp, especially if mockery is their forte’ and modus operandi for 99% of all conversations about religion."

If there isn't a comedy flowchart showing Morton's Demon/The Creationists Mind in action, there oughta be.

[edit: ty for edit button]

Date: 2008/02/12 16:25:17, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 12 2008,15:25)
I just got moderated:

Might be just cause you posted twice in a row too quickly or something. But golly gosh the tardation there is wordy...

Date: 2008/02/12 17:00:09, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 12 2008,16:13)
New book adevertised at UD:

They're not even pretending any more. It's all about the advertising revenue & book sales.

All creation science so far!!!

Hmmm... You can advertise at UD automagically. Although that book says a frikkin' huge amount about the market for ID.

Date: 2008/02/14 16:56:27, Link
Author: PTET
4:02 pm

DaveScott: Do you “love” your toaster and washing machine too?

Not as much as my computer or my cats. It’s a matter of degree.

Careful with asteroid orifice comments. I’ve banned for less.

Yeah, Dave. I’m trembling with fear. You’re a psycho, dude. Ban this! :-D

ZOMG. Eleventy eleven. Etc.

Et tu, Mapou?

Hey everyone. What a day for my broadband to go down :)

Date: 2008/02/15 03:38:37, Link
Author: PTET
Re: Colson Praises PETA - Darwin Worldview

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 14 2008,16:59)
I say I say is it me or did something awful funny just happen to that UD thread?

Don't worry guys.... My new mole within Uncommon Descent sent me a copy before it was deleted. I doubt I have the whole thing, but I do have Mapou calling Dave a psycho, etc.

Here it is:  Colson Praises PETA - Darwin Worldview


Date: 2008/02/15 06:43:59, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 15 2008,06:07)

Is that you DaveTard? On leave from UD?

Date: 2008/02/15 11:28:04, Link
Author: PTET
A Darwinist Successfully Employs Design Detection!

In the thread I deleted “A Sterling Example of Anti-Religionists” one of the commenters noted that the URL linking to the offensive article had undergone a point mutation. One letter in it changed that made the link go somewhere else. He implied that this didn’t happen at random and that someone purposely changed it.

Guilty as charged. I changed that one letter - a k to an h to make it difficult to see at a casual glance. But let’s look at how my design was detected.

We all know that bits can flip at random in computer data from various causes just like they can flip at random in DNA from various causes. This wasn’t a complex mutation. A single letter changed. Yet the Darwinist STILL made a design inference. That’s the power of specification. The mutation that occured was specified in that it served a purpose. In this case it served to make the offensive article inaccessable from Uncommon Descent. Even with a very small level of complexity to work with the commenter successfully employed the concept of CSI - complex specified information - and reached a correct design inference.

ID theory works! Even for Darwinists who hypocritically employ it without admitting it.

Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this argument? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

I can't wait to see the tard that comes from the UD supporters on this post.

Countdown to the next meltdown... 10...

Date: 2008/02/15 11:45:55, Link
Author: PTET
leo stotch
12:29 pm

Plus it shows that mutations only can lead to a loss of information.

First comment.

I hope he's taking the piss. The changed letter could have led the tinyurl to a frikkin' Encyclopedia...

Date: 2008/02/15 13:43:44, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 15 2008,13:10)
And thanks to DaveTard for keeping us in mind of A Sterling Example of Anti-Religionists with his argument that stupid acts prove intelligent design. Anyone happen to grab it?

It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open . . .

DaveScot Apologises

* [Edited for hit whorage.]
** [And to say the bloomin' thread is at the link above]

Date: 2008/02/15 14:45:39, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 15 2008,14:36)
Quote (PTET @ Feb. 15 2008,13:43)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 15 2008,13:10)
And thanks to DaveTard for keeping us in mind of A Sterling Example of Anti-Religionists with his argument that stupid acts prove intelligent design. Anyone happen to grab it?

It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open . . .

DaveScot Apologises

* [Edited for hit whorage.]
** [And to say the bloomin' thread is at the link above]

I  think it was a Notpology, forced on old Davey by Mr. Bill.

Something tells me (his long-term body of work)that Davey is not normally the apologizing kind...  

Has to be Billy Boy forcing the Davester.  I wonder if he liked it?

Doesn't this all show that Dembski is DaveScot's bitch?

If he can get away with this, he can get away with doing a big turd on Dembski's desk. All he'd have to do is apologise. Someone else even gets to "clear up" the mess.

Date: 2008/02/15 15:26:41, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 15 2008,15:03)
If he can get away with this, he can get away with doing a big turd on Dembski's desk. All he'd have to do is apologise. Someone else even gets to "clear up" the mess.

I think you may be right... I apologize!  

For some reason, I forgot about Denyse, but she is the forgotten, wronged "woman" (allegedly) in all this.

Denyse - The Face That Launched 1,000 Posts  


Are we having the same conversation twice? :)

Is DaveScot really some sort of evil genius? Or is he just more evil and more of a Genius than WmAD?

I should probably apologize to the good doctor for distracting him from his important work overthrowing Darwinism, polishing up his Nobel acceptance speech, and picking up his laundry...

Date: 2008/02/16 09:08:41, Link
Author: PTET
Can Mrs. O’Leary escape arson charges by blaming cow?

OLD TOWN – Late last night while we were all in bed, old Mrs. O’Leary lit a lantern in her shed. "The cow kicked it over," she winked to the judge then said, "we had a hot time in the Old Town last night!"

Too good not to share.

Date: 2008/02/16 11:48:45, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 15 2008,19:35)
Mister DNA,

For what it's worth, there already is a Casey Luskin Graduate Award.  Can you guess the first recipient?

I thought the Overwhelming Evidence post about that was a troll that they hadn't noticed.

'For his work with IDEA, the Intelligent Design and Undergraduate Research Center [("NAMBLA")] named an award honoring college graduates for excellence in student advocacy of intelligent design the "Casey Luskin Graduate Award."'

Phillip Johnson gets the first Phillip Johnson Award. Then Casey Luskin.

How long until WmAD gets the first William Dembski Genius Award For Exceptional Cleveritude?

We should have a competition. Closest to the actual day gets to humiliate Dembski. If anyone gets the prize name right they win the chance to overthrow materialistic science.

Edit: ID is like a ponzi scheme. Everyone who joins gets to win an award named after themselves.

Date: 2008/02/16 13:17:30, Link
Author: PTET
Venus Mousetrap
7:06 am

...If molecular shielding exists to protect nucleotides from macroevolution, then it must be capable of not only deflecting radiation, but also has a physical component to prevent unwanted chemistry. It’s a perfect forcefield on an atomic scale. The possibilities if we could get access to this power are amazing… we’re looking at totally real forcefields capable of stopping both matter and radiation. The US military would kill for stuff like that. Even better, because it is nano scale to begin with, it can have more mundane, practical function in materials; wire shielding, radiation suits, overalls.

From the ID's "predictive prowess" thread. I like his style...

NB: From 220 posts to date in that thread, WmAD got 3 predictions.

Date: 2008/02/17 16:05:09, Link
Author: PTET
4:50 pm

larrynormanfan, I am a Christian of the go to church every Sunday variety. Yet I do not find Miller’s theistic evolutionary view to be any less theologically palitable than ID is. (I actually find ID to be at significant tension with my “inspired word of God” upbringing.)

That said, it is not my faith that has me hold to an “agency” view of evolution — that our development was twiddled with along the way, it is the fact that I develop computer software. Every bone in my software developer’s body says that DNA did not develop as the simple byproduct of a set of laws. Not in a million years.

Tard overload.

Date: 2008/02/17 18:09:48, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (blipey @ Feb. 17 2008,17:52)
* On the plus side I learned that the laws of physics preclude there being a sky.

And I just learned that bats got echolocation, not through evolution, but through magic.

Date: 2008/02/18 07:59:02, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 18 2008,00:44)
I'll only celebrate over at UD if Dave puts up a thread like this.  I'm sure the likes of Mapou and Joseph will be keen to pass on their fondest greetings.  I'll just make sure they have the first slice of any cake they give me.

Happy birthday Bob. I hope DaveScot gives you a big kiss from me.

(Of course I'm just jealous that he talks to you).

Date: 2008/02/18 13:54:11, Link
Author: PTET
Skeptics In The Pub
Tuesday 19th February 2008, 7pm, £2
Holborn, London

Dr Matthew Smith
Matthew was awarded the Gertrude Schmeidler Award for an Outstanding Contribution to Parapsychology by the Parapsychological Association. Dr Smith’s current research, funded by the Bial Foundation, is examining the role of experimenter variables in ganzfeld-ESP research. Matthew has also received funding from the Perrott-Warrick Fund, the Parapsychology Foundation, and the Society for Psychical Research. Matthew has made several television appearances as a Resident Parapsychologist for Living TV's Most Haunted.
Anyone going along?

Date: 2008/02/19 14:50:45, Link
Author: PTET
3:21 pm

The difference between the Christian Faith and others is it is 99% belief on what is rather than what is man-generated philosophy. The 1% seems like 99% in light of our fallen nature and dependancy on our Originator - don’t you think?

But of course.

Date: 2008/02/20 03:17:22, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Mister DNA @ Feb. 19 2008,18:37)
Has anyone addressed this post at Overwhelming Evidence?

The bulk of my life's work concerns not UFOs, but the peculiar Earth Mystery called “Ley-Lines”. At their most basic, Leys are precise linear alignments in geographical features. The most significant of these alignments can be often feature a number of historically significant landmarks, every one arranged in a perfect land across the landscape.

Is this guy a troll? Whoever he is, the post it great, as are the responses.

"Experience teaches us that this kind of symbolism does not come about by mere accident, and if the intellectual successes of the ID movement teaches us one thing it is that we should follow our experience."

A subtle sledgehammer. Quite Borges.

Date: 2008/02/20 03:18:36, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 19 2008,23:45)
Poor Dr. Dr. Dembski.  Seventy three years of college and even the people who test parrots for telepathy don't respect him.

Is there a "line of the week"?

That's for my sig, that is.

Date: 2008/04/08 15:43:41, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ April 07 2008,14:01)
...If God does influence this world, is this influence measureable in any scientific way? If not, how can it be detected? I'm really interested to hear from anyone who approaches this from a theistic position.

How about these guys...
"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove... No product is ready for competition in the educational world." - Philip Johnson, father of the ID movement, 2006

"Intelligent Design is a really, really bad idea --scientifically, politically, and theologically. I say this as a dedicated conservative, who has on many occasions defended and espoused religion and religious conservatism. I also say it as a professional molecular biologist, who has worked daily (or at least week-daily) for years with biological problems to which the theory of evolution has contributed significant understanding -- and to which Intelligent Design is incapable of contributing any understanding at all." - Mac Johnson, Intelligent Design, and Other Dumb Ideas, 15 Nov 2007

"I don’t believe in intelligent design mainly because there’s no scientific evidence for it, but also because it’s problematic theologically as well. A belief in evolution doesn’t immediately lead one to become an atheist—no matter what the atheists say. It does mean that you can’t take the Bible literally, but with all deference to my Fundamentalist readers (and I use the term “Fundamentalist” in its exact sense, not as a slur), the Bible is not a work designed to be taken literally." - Jay Redding, 18 February 2008
Where has KevinMiller gone? Maybe all those facts everyone keeps posting have scared him off?

Maybe he's been taken up?

Date: 2008/04/10 08:36:16, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 10 2008,08:01)
...It's all bullshit from the top down and bottom up but these bastards have polished their narrative and rhetoric and delivery to where to anyone paying half attention it sounds reasonable, it could be true, like NPR or something.  JEsus what a douchebag.

The Fundies have put a lot of effort & money over the years into "debate teams" and the like.

Now they have armies of neatly dressed zombies who can take any piece-of-crap argument and make it look nice for an audience that's just hearing what it wants to hear anyway.

The problem is, these Master Debaters believe their own shinily-polished bullshit.

Can you guess who else liked rhetoric?

Anyone? Anyone?

Here's a clue... [edited to fix pic!]

Date: 2008/04/11 06:40:25, Link
Author: PTET
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

Quote (guthrie @ April 11 2008,06:07)
Quote (Louis @ April 11 2008,03:35)

Date: 2008/04/11 16:10:02, Link
Author: PTET
Larry Fafarman


2:45 pm

I have heard a lot of rumors that Ben Stein is Jewish, and this settles it — he says that he’s Jew

Rumors? Either Larry Fafarman is a fucking idiot, or he's doing a damn good impression of being of a fucking idiot.

To be fair, Conservapedia does manage to ignore the lack of Christ in Stein's heart, and we all know the average UD'er can't use Google in case their heads explode.

'Course, the interview Larry's talking about on UD is itself ghastly...
Jerry: What’s a nice Jewish boy like you doing in a nice Christian film like this?


EDIT: Hermagoras beat me to it! Damn his Larry Norman loving eyes :)  He "poached" my disdain before I could post it!

Date: 2008/04/11 16:24:32, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (dheddle @ April 11 2008,16:17)
He forgot to add "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

Bad Larry, bad!

It somehow escaped me that Larry Fafarman is I'm from Missouri. It take back the "idiot" line. The guy is simply insane. Here's a picture from one of his recent posts...

Do you know who else was creeped out by Jews? Anyone?

Date: 2008/04/12 16:45:49, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (godsilove @ April 12 2008,16:12)
Am I misunderstanding what "Intellectual Property" means?

Dense O'Leary:
Lots of things can be owned, but not ideas.

Copyright protects the expression of ideas, not ideas themselves.

If the Expelled animation is materially copied from the Harvard animation, then it would be a breach of copyright.  If the Expelled animation was a new creation - a new expression - of the original ideas, then there's no breach. Fair use doesn't apply. There is no criticism of or credit to the Harvard animation.

If I was the Expelled guys, I'd be more worried about being sued by the schools they're maliciously libeling. They can't support the claim that institutions are discriminating on the grounds of religion  and not science... They even edited out Kenneth Miller specifically because he confused their message that this is about Christianity vs .Atheism, not Science vs what most Christian biologists say is "magic".  

I imagine they've been careful to avoid implying that any particular atheists are Nazis. What's doubly absurd is Ben Stein's shilling for a crew who friendliness to "Israelites" rests on rather slimy foundations.

"What's a nice Jewish boy like you doing in a nice Christian movie like this". Indeed.

Date: 2008/04/12 16:55:22, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (BCtheEra @ April 12 2008,14:46)
Hmm... this almost sounds like the good Dr. Dr. but where is the declaration that all this foes will soon meet their Waterloo?  Surely the EF would fail to detect this post as Dembskian without such an essential feature of Dembskian dialogue.

Was that really posted on UD? Did anyone else see it? If so that is outstanding work...

Date: 2008/04/15 08:49:11, Link
Author: PTET
Hey Ftk

I wanted to congratulate you on this comment you made at UD...

Anyone who actually considers themselves a “theistic evolutionist” isn’t going to be swayed by anything. “Science” always comes first for them…they adapt their philosophical leanings and everything else to match up with the popular “scientific consensus”.

That is without a doubt the most hypocritically, dishonest and moronic thing I have read today. And I've been reading UD.

Well done.

I look forward to the day when you admit that your entire existence is a joke designed to show the world that creationists are ignorant, bigotted fuckwits.

Keep up the good work.

Date: 2008/04/17 07:58:39, Link
Author: PTET
6:18 am

Thus all these people, and not just atheist evolutionary biologists, have been incited to crime and are at risk of succumbing to the temptation to commit a crime because they do not have a personal relationship with the risen Lord.

All science so far.

Someone must have cranked up the stupidity dial at UD, 'cause the tard is reaching record levels...

And Janice, should you ever leave UD and stumble  across this post... I think you are a c__t.

Date: 2008/04/18 04:29:33, Link
Author: PTET
It's Tard Overdrive over at UD...

I’m disappointed in NewScientist for this. Anyone else feel conflicted when a magazine they otherwise enjoy taints their credibility with such naturalism?

Douglas Moran
If you’ve never played with Legos you won’t understand this concept: reuse of common building blocks is a strategy of design driven by intelligent forces, not by random serendipity.

Jonathan Sarfati
Barb, I also thought that chapter attacking the Bible was ludicrous. The christophobic author relies on suhc amazingly scholarly sources as Wikipedia...

This is truly a war of stupidity vs. reality.

Date: 2008/05/05 05:03:24, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Ptaylor @ May 04 2008,20:40)
Quote (Dr.GH @ May 02 2008,21:24)

STEIN: Yeah, it`s interesting. I wrote about this already, that if you -- what`s going to happen, if you marry up eugenics and limited access to universal health care, it`s going to be you just go die, you just go off and die. Already in Germany I`m told people are given this little pill when they get old and sick and they take the pill and go to sleep and don`t wake up.

Ben Stein is a poster-child for the malevolent stupidity of creationism.

"Germany has had no penalty for either suicide or assisted suicide since 1751, although it rarely happens there due to the hangover taboo caused by Nazi mass murders, plus powerful, contemporary, church influences. Direct killing by euthanasia is a crime. In 2000 a German appeal court cleared a Swiss clergyman of assisted suicide because there was no such offence, but convicted him of bringing the drugs into the country. There was no imprisonment." - Assisted Suicide Laws Around the World

"Active euthanasia is explicitly banned in Germany, but the law on assisted suicide is less clear." - BMJ

That damnable Charles Darwin. Somehow he managed to travel back in time to 1751 and change Germany's laws on assisted suicide.

Doesn't the Bible say something about bearing false witness?

But as ever, it's ok to lie if you're doing it for God. Right, Ben?

Date: 2008/05/14 08:47:05, Link
Author: PTET
joseg is a tard...

It would shake my faith a bit if some aliens showed up and said, “You know that intelligent designer youre all talking about? It’s us.” And then proceed to prove it by , I dont know, creating designed living things and new universes and all that.

But then again I’d ask them, Well youre obviously designed, so who designed you?

It's turtles all the way down. Everyone knows that, bozo!

It would shake traditional Christian belief I guess but not God belief.

Why not I wonder? Because tard brains stop working when God gets involved, perhaps?

(I forget the title of that science fiction book written by a Canadian where aliens visited Earth and it turned out they were theists and said the existence of God is pretty obvious from creation.)

I didn't know they made IDiot porn... Sounds ghastly.

Date: 2008/05/14 08:55:11, Link
Author: PTET
Not quite on topic here, but ARN has an eye-popping review of the SF-ID book joseg was on about...

A sub-plot revolves around a couple of fundamentalist abortion clinic bombers - a shade too dumb, in my view - who moonlight by blowing up the “lying” Burgess Shale fossils that fascinate Hollus. But could these guys blow up a beach ball? I doubt it.

It’s interesting to look at the question, post-911. Nine-eleven completely changed popular culture’s idea of a terrorist bomber. No longer is he a sweaty, two-neuron rube griping about liberal values - he is an intelligent Middle Eastern suicide aspirant, disgusted by Western depravity.

Presumably real-life abortion clinic bombers, disgusted by western depravity no doubt, are actually intelligent aspirants. Like Middle Eastern terrorist bombers.

It could be worse - they could be Darwinists. Do you know who else was a Darwinist?

Edited to add... The review is by O'Liary. Whaddaya know?

Date: 2008/05/14 09:37:23, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (didymos @ May 14 2008,09:07)
Actually, not a bad book at all.  The cover blurb is here.  The "God" in the book, however, is absolutely nothing like the Christian concept besides being involved in the creation and unfolding of the universe.  It's closer in concept to the eponymous Star Maker of Stapledon's book.  It's definitely an intervening intelligence, even fiddling with various species, but it has its own motives for what it does and is not concerned with individuals or worship or anything like that.

The author is no IDist, though.  That I'm sure{snip}

Cheers Didymos... it does sound interesting...

I skimmed O'Ghastly's review far too quickly, so I missed this gem from her...

Why start a book that addresses the intelligent design controversy only in order to end up throwing it at the wall when the author turns out to know far less than a person can find out just by reading a single chapter of what a respected ID theorist actually says.

She's the gift that keeps on giving...

Date: 2008/05/14 17:40:31, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 14 2008,14:33)
Here's what I was looking for!
larrynormanfan insults D O'L.  

Hyperbole, thy name is O’Leary.
larrynormanfan - I don’t like your tone. Thy name here is history. -ds

DaveScot, so quick to defend O'Leary's honor.

I totally hearted LarryNormanFan. He is sorely missed.

Ofc, only DaveScot is allowed to be unimaginably rude to Dense O'Liary. Hypocrisy, thy name is DaveScot...

Date: 2008/05/16 09:40:28, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (dheddle @ May 16 2008,09:17)
Who is Stash? Has he ever posted on UD before?

Oh yeah.

Stash is so mindbendingly stupid I'd call POE... If he wasn't posting on the front page at UD.

Here's a classic exchange...

How many times does the phrase “battle for life” come up in the Origin of Species? It’s there over and over again. Battles have winners and losers — they are about inequalities and invidious distinctions. To say that Darwin was not an intellectual forebear of Hitler is simply ludicrous.

...The human race was so peaceful and nice before Darwin came along. Now look at it. Disgusting. All the fault of Charles Darwin. His real name was Lucifer. Can I get an amen on that my brother?

Props to DaveScot on that one. He may be a fat cnut. But sometimes he hits the spot...

My guess Stash is someone at UD's idiot niece/nephew. And also that "stash" is what they vist before every post...

[Edited for spelling. Do'h.....]

Date: 2008/05/19 14:33:24, Link
Author: PTET
William Dembski
1:30 pm

During my seminary days in the mid 90s, the joke was that UCC (United Church of Christ) stands for Unitarians Considering Christ. It was by far the most liberal protestant denomination in the U.S. at the time, having approved, for instance, homosexual clergy well before the Episcopalians, Methodists, and Presbyterians got around to it. That the UCC should endorse materialist evolution at the expense of ID is therefore hardly surprising — if anything, it’s a recommendation for our cause.


Dr Dr Dr DumbTard

A) Doesn't like TEH GAYZ any more than he likes Hitler and/or Darwin
B) Thinks Christians who accept evolution DENY CHRIST
C) Equates ID with conservative christianity yet again again again

Just when I thought I couldn't think any less of the guy.

Date: 2008/05/20 03:56:50, Link
Author: PTET
Born in Glasgow, lived lots of places, and now so central in London it would make your eyes water... As would the tiny size of my flat (or "apartment", for you colonials)  ...

Date: 2008/05/20 05:55:23, Link
Author: PTET
London nightbus journeys are an anthropological/sociological, hell even taxonomic, experiment every time.

They are shining example of either the fallen nature of man, or our primitive reptilian ancestry, according to your point of view...

You've also reminded me of the Glasgow night buses. More culturally homogenous, and more mental... But at least there's an outside chance of a sing-a-long. In general, strangers in London will not talk to you. Strangers in Glasgow talk to you all the time... It's just that they are often scarily nuts.

When I was working in Kent (East UK) and my wife (then girlfriend) was working in the very west bit of the west country we worked out it was easier, cheaper and quicker to meet in Paris every two weeks than meet at one of our domiciles every week. (Think: standard UK trains vs Eurostar). We, sadly, worked this out towards the end of this period of long distance relationshipping.

Don't the French have a saying like "I thought of it on the stairs". It's always after the fact that you realise how good you almost had it...

Date: 2008/05/21 06:10:03, Link
Author: PTET
Great thread BTW. w00t!
Quote (JohnW @ May 20 2008,12:23)
It also explains the continued popularity of the "Darwin deathbed confession" meme.  Even if it were true, it would make no difference to whether life evolved.  But if you see this as a battle between followers of Jesus and followers of anti-Jesus, the deathbed confession sounds like a devastating argument.

I think this misunderestimates the power of the fundamentalist mind to warp any argument to support their position.

Here's Conservapedia on Mother Theresa:      
In August 2007, it came to light that she often questioned her faith in God and this doubt stayed with her until the time of her death. At one point she even stopped praying... It is widely acknowledged that her skepticism, while healthy in any truly faithful believer, made her works in the name of God much more meaningful as a symbol of her devotion to Him.

Darwin's "doubts" invalidate Darwinism.

Theresa's "doubts" stengthen Christianity.

William Burroughs, QFT:-

"If you're doing business with a religious son of a bitch, get it in writing. His word isn't worth shit, not with the good Lord telling him how to fuck you on the deal."

[Edited to change "religious" to "fundamentalist". Apologies etc., etc.]

Date: 2008/05/21 10:46:11, Link
Author: PTET


Date: 2008/05/22 09:28:09, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 22 2008,07:17)
Kairosfocus brings the good stuff.    
In re:

   I ask again, how is this different than a subjective assessment? I had thought CSI was a computational system developed by Dr. Dembski. I will be a bit discouraged if it has only advanced it to the “yes”, “no”, “more”, “less” level of formalization.

ALL measurements are digitisable. So, in principle [and in praxis too . . .] ALL measurements are a chain of yes/no, more/less decisions.

Equally — and as pointed out above — ALL measurements incorporate a subjective element. Indeed, ALL knowledge inevitably incorporates a subjective element. Further to this, every quantity is also about a quality: how much of X is in the end about in part recognising the presence/absence of X. Moreover, once we address information, as opposed to mere concatenations of elements forming a contingent whole, we are dealing with issues of intent, purpose, context etc — i.e the active mind, thus again the subjective.

Objectivity is about whether there is credibly more than the merely subjective, and CSI — especially FSCI — far and away passes that test.

In short you may be falling into dismissive, selective hyperskepticism; which is inevitably incoherent.

Shorter KF

I can't address your question about the emperor's lack of clothes, but if you just breathe more deeply from this pipe o'tard, you won't notice that any more.

Shorter shorter KF.

2+2 might equal 4. But if I don't like the result then goddidit.

Date: 2008/05/24 11:04:03, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 24 2008,10:12)
I was granted the golden mop to this forum on November 6, 2007.  As a comparison, we've banned two commenters since then.

Here's an updated score card since then:

AtBC - 2:


David Mabus

Uncommon Descent - 35 (that we know of)

I was never explicitly banned... But my comments did mysteriously stop appearing at UD.

Teach the controversy, huh?

It's like Conservapedia. Wikipedia is evilly biased because it doesn't follow the Whackjob Christian Fundamentalist line. That means Conservapedia gets to be as goose-steppingly Conservative Christian as it likes - and that doesn't count as bias.

Oh yeah - do sockpuppets count? A big hi to vesf if he's listening :)

Date: 2008/05/26 11:31:31, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ May 26 2008,10:31)
Quote (dheddle @ May 26 2008,10:59)
Smolin's idea is interesting, but is rests on the the notion that the child universe has similar physics to the parent universe. I see only handwaving type arguments to support that idea.

That's right. He more or less just asserts that it is so. His argument for why this should be the case (changes in the laws of physics represent phase transitions that occur only under special circumstances) doesn't speak at all to why the changes are likely to be small.

As I recall, unlike our ID friends, Smolin doesn't pretend that his conjecture is science...

Date: 2008/05/27 11:24:38, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 27 2008,09:43)
Then you need some categories with rankings..

I think they probably start with these letters:


Get on this AtBC photoshoppers!

Some thoughts...

Age of Earth

Other possible catagories...

Darwin Hating
Hitler Comparing
Meltdown Potential
Preposition Dangling
Irony Meter Busting
Cheesy Poof Consumption

Date: 2008/05/27 11:38:49, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (BopDiddy @ May 26 2008,10:37)
...I think "Expelled" was the dying gasp of creationism trying to appear as legit science to the legit scientists and educated segments.  As was said (very well) earlier on there's trashing but the head's been cut off, now we just wait for the slow twitches.

Shamefully, an astonishing number of people still believe true creationism, so the underlying stupid isn't going away.  Regardless I think it'll be awhile before the true scientific poseurs return in significant force for our entertainment...

No matter how sciencey they pretend to be, the tards on UD tend to share a secret desire...        

I think it would be awesome if you guys proved it was a young or younger universe than what the standard dating proposes.

The media in the US has got to be a big part of this. From what I can see from here across the pond, TV & newspapers in the States seem to regularly give these bozos "equal time" in science discussions. In Europe (the UK anyway), the IDiots hardly get the chance to see the light of day. Sure, plenty of people in Europe "don't believe" in evolution.. But I think that's a soft belief. They don't pretend to know anything about it. In the States it seems loads of people have no problem pretending to know, scientifically like, why Darwinism "can't be true"...

I don't suppose anyone would like to give me a research grant so I can come over and poke at the tard first-hand?


Date: 2008/05/28 09:39:02, Link
Author: PTET
6:07 am

...On Fusion, why not look at the previously linked Wiki article? [I find Wiki can give very useful 101 level intros to many topics, once the ideological biases don’t kick in. E.g. don’t trust them on ID or anything related . . .]...

Damn those idiological biases  ...  ;)

Date: 2008/06/25 04:13:01, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 25 2008,03:14)
The Shlafly - Lenski exchange is not to be missed. Nor is the associated talk page. I'm amazed, really, that WAD saw fit to link to them, because Shlafly is shown to be a dishonest blowhard and a fool who deserves the contempt he receives.

He's still at it. Here's his latest response:
The comments above by defenders of withholding data have been unsatisfactory, to say the least.

Lenski says in his published paper: "Z.D.B. and R.E.L. [Lenski] analyzed data"[4]

So where are all the data Lenski said he analyzed?--Aschlafly 00:27, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Schlafly must be so used to humiliation that he doesn't notice it any more.

Date: 2008/08/08 11:11:15, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 08 2008,10:11)
The John Wayne accent sounds gay to me, particularly imitations of the accent.

A friend of mine has long referred to

"The World's Strongest Man"


"The World's Gayest Fat Bloke"

...i LOL every time...

Date: 2008/08/13 15:04:35, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Aug. 13 2008,10:29)
Hey in the "ID is winning" thread O'Leary links to the nasty shit that Dave Tard wrote about her.  Look for the "try this stuff link.  Yes, she's playing the davetard victimized me card!  Hurry up davey, she's calling you out you tough marine you!

If anyone clicks on the link she provided and they read all that morphodyke stuff we could have a real winner on our hands.

Fellow tardologists, fasten your seatbelts, this could be a very fun thread when davey shows up!

edit - attention all moles and sock puppets, please add some dave tard quotes found from the link o'leary provided to the "id is winning" thread. help o'leary and davetard make up!


The Black Knight of ID, Denyse disses me. That is surreal. She made me write a blog entry too, the old witch...


Date: 2008/08/17 12:37:40, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 16 2008,14:54)
A bit cryptic, but I say it belongs here:

12:46 pm

Dear bililiad,

I installed a WordPress upgrade that included a beta test version of something called Troll Filter v1.0. Upon activation all your comments disappeared. Sorry about that. We’re working with wordpress to determine the root cause of the problem.

Yes indeed.

Farewell, Bililiad, we hardly knew ye...


At the start it was easy. Beginning my first UD comment with "DaveScot as always you are absolutely right" got me out of moderation and into straight-posting before I could say "Jack Robinson". For a while, I took things fairly easy. Sure, my comments were dumb, some immensely so, but Intelligent Design Creationism is a big tent, and at the start no-one seemed to notice just one more slightly unhinged visitor to UD. Eventually though, as so often in life, I got just too smart for my own good. No-one, surely, could be that enthusiastic about Denyse O'Leary's senseless wittering. As with all good things, my sock-puppetry came to an end. After six months of occasional posting, DaveScot's genius-level IQ spluttered into action. With a firm thump to the side, his nixplanatory filter managed a rare true-positive. Credit where credit is due, Dave played his cards with good humour...

Date: 2008/08/22 10:50:31, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 22 2008,10:38)

Retroviral promoters in the human genome

The paper whose abstract lies below the fold has been cited as supportive of intelligent design here by my friend Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute . I’m afraid I disagree with Casey’s analysis but I don’t have access to the full paper and would welcome review of my take on it from someone with access and expertise in virology. I’ve never agreed that ID, per se, predicts that “junk DNA” isn’t really junk. That’s a prediction based on young earth creationism.

Maybe this is DaveScot getting ready to throw in the ID towel?

In any event, we have our regularly scheduled Tardfight/Friday Meltdown.


(As an aside... I always thought PannenberOmega must've been a deep cover sock puppet. Come on... Who was he!?!?)

Date: 2008/08/23 10:26:10, Link
Author: PTET
AAAS Response to Expelled

Personally I think these people are either liars who are not convinced they see God all over the place or they are being truthful in becoming convinced of things with no rational evidence which technically means they are hallucinating and probably shouldn’t be allowed to drive a car lest they start seeing these big designing hands in the road and swerve to avoid them.

Sorry if I’m offending anyone but these people disgust me. They’re all like “I believe in rational inquiry, science, and bearded thunderers who live in the sky and worry about my immortal soul”. Please. Choose one or the other but not both.
DaveScot appears to have completely lost it on this one. His reasoning is practically bi-polar.

And yet the tardlets at UD cheer him on in the comments to this thread.

Yet again, we see TARD that is all but indistinguishable from parody...

Date: 2008/08/24 10:43:22, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 24 2008,10:29)
Happy birthday!

Perhaps even Dave will join in the congrats.

DaveScot appeared to me in a dream this morning... And he did indeed wish you happy birthday Blipey :)

Date: 2008/08/24 14:25:33, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 24 2008,12:28)
Quote (EyeNoU @ Aug. 24 2008,10:01)
If you were going to make fun of of another website's data, would common sense tell you to run your own site first to save possible embarrassment later?

Except we aren't his target audience. Dave is trusting Bill's flunkies just to accept his bullshit and not to investigate further. He knows them well.

Could it be that DaveScot is undertaking a long term plan to make UD look ridiculous? What with this and his "science... or... bearded thunderer" stuff and such? Or can be really be so stoopid?

Hmmm... Thinking aloud, televangelists don't care about the nonsense they spout. The money keeps coming in anyway. Could it be UDhave given up the idea of changing the world entirely, and now care only about spoon-feeding kool aid to their target market?

Or will everything be the same tomorrow as it is every other Monday...

[Edited for typos]

Date: 2008/08/29 12:20:27, Link
Author: PTET
Denyse gets all sciency...
These findings generally support the non-materialist view that human consciousness is not a slowly evolving thing. Once present, it changes everything very quickly. Assuming otherwise leads to mistakes about early humans.

Oh - my mistake - it's the usual magic crap.

"Non-materialist"? What the frick does that mean? Is she for real?

I loved this bit:  
The textbook belief was in fact based on the now-rotting Tree of Life popularized by Darwin and his modern-day followers. They assumed that modern humans (homo sapiens) were “superior” to the Neanderdumbsters, and interpreted all facts about the latter to fit that view.

Oh noes!!!!eleventy!one!1!

Scientific opinion changes as new evidence is found.

Film at 11.

Date: 2008/08/29 14:18:27, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 29 2008,13:45)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 29 2008,12:04)
Afarensis put a thread up:  

-- she supports the teaching of creationism in schools.

I just read the afarensis post and was going to come over here to say that about creationism, she doesn't seem opposed to it, but she doesn't seem particularly enthusiastic either. She's certainly no Pill I mean Bill Buckingham.

I'm not Americanian and I don't live in Americania... But I did watch all of "The Wire"*, so I feel qualified to comment on Americanian politics.

I don't see that Sarah Palin said any more in support of creationism than the bear minimum required to get elected Republican...

* I also loved "Bonanza" and "Batman" when I was v young.

Date: 2008/08/31 12:19:30, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 29 2008,15:32)
Who the hell told this woman Denyse O'Leary that she was a "journalist?" She takes a Science Daily article that is simply a rehash of the U. of Exeter press release and then spins it into dross.

I posted a link to deadman_932's excellent post above (potw surely?) in a comment at SalvoMag, and got a reply from Professor O'Leary herself:
Well, ptet, I don't know, and I am not sure that it matters.

If anyone is willing to descend so far from the ivory tower to actually knap flint for three years and test the results, they stand a good chance of knowing more about Neanderthalers vs. homo sapiens than the individual who orders tools online and merely theorizes from theories about Ye Tree of Life. - cheers, d.

<deep breath>Wishes loving kindness and compassion to all beings.</deep breath>

Date: 2008/09/04 07:32:30, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Gunthernacus @ Sep. 04 2008,06:37)
Does anyone have a guess as to why this thread was for-oh-Ford?  It was stupid, ignorant, and fawning - but not noticeably so for UD.  An articulate and reasoned comment would have just gotten the commenter banned and deleted - but not usually the whole thread.  Perhaps they were aiming for the thread with DT's knuck-dragging-bible-thumper comment and missed?

I guess someone pointed out to PaV that big birds losing the ability to fly was a wonderful example of evilution losing functionality rather than gaining it... Whereas, of course no novel functionality can ever evolve. It has to be front-loaded there first by TEH DEZIGNORZ (when he wasn't too busy being the baby jebus).

Either that or PaV realized that this wasn't some "new discovery" as he'd first thought, and the whole thing made him look like a frikkin' idiot.

Although why anyone should care about any of this I don't know. It's not like anyone reads UD. Except us anchovies.

Date: 2008/09/04 07:52:51, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 04 2008,07:33)
Larry Fafarman: Now I am really confused — I thought “descent with modification” was the modern definition of evolution, not Darwin’s definition.

Yes, you are somewhat confused. The phrase "descent with modification" is found repeatedly in Origin of Species. We *observe* natural variation in populations.

Larry Fafarman: {Darwinists} can just go to hell so far as I am concerned — I am going to go back to using the old definition of RM + NS.

You insist upon using the term "Darwinist" but you haven't even bothered to read Darwin's seminal work, Origin of Species. That might explain the source of your confusion.

The source of Larry Fafarman's confusion is that he's from Missouribatshit insane.

Date: 2008/09/05 12:18:16, Link
Author: PTET
Please vote in my Glamorous Granny Contest.

Oh go on :)

Date: 2008/09/06 10:16:33, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Jkrebs @ Sep. 06 2008,09:51)
I work with children every day, and it is common to find children who will blatantly lie about something even when presented with direct evidence to the contrary.  It's not so much that they are inherently dishonest, but rather that they are still immature enough to think that if they pretend that they can't see the evidence others can't also.  They have not yet fully learned that adults are not stupid.

A marvellous bit of venting, that. POTW surely?

And the quoted part sums up the entire political process, the culture wars, and pretty much most of the rest of modern life stunningly well.

Unfortunately, Jack, your post will never get thru DaveScot's reality filters. To do that, you need only say "DaveScot as ever you are absolutely right". Not that he'll listen anyway, But hey.

Date: 2008/09/08 06:37:02, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 07 2008,22:29)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 07 2008,23:12)
The Allmacht Of The Squid Hordes

comments off.  these people are stupider than i ever imagined.  i discover this daily.  race to the bottom.

Wow. That has to be seen to be believed. They're attributing McCain's post-convention bounce to PZ's cracker affair.

I had to read that several times.

"They're attributing McCain's post-convention bounce to PZ's cracker affair."

I feel like Dave Bowman at the end of 2001: "My God, it's full of stars!"

Uncommon Descent are actually, genuinely, attributing McCain's post-convention bounce to PZ's cracker affair.

Surely this is a new level of stupidity - tard, if you will - that deserves to be marked somhow, a day to remember... To tell our grandchildren about!?

Date: 2008/09/08 08:29:44, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Jkrebs @ Sep. 08 2008,08:15)
I predict that parlar won't last long because Dave will get irked at having to continue to "correct his mistakes."



Nice try but no cigar...

Has there ever been a bigger dick in the entire history of the Universe than David Scott Springer?

Date: 2008/09/10 09:09:32, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 10 2008,07:06)
Filed under Intelligent Design:

PharyngulaWatch: Update 9/10/08: B. Hussein Obama, in the process of self-destructing, says of McCain/Palin “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig“. We here at UD note that you can put a Harvard law degree on a misogynist pig, but it’s still a misogynist pig. Given the Muslim faith I guess we should be thankful the pig didn’t suggest Governor Palin put on a burka and get back in the kitchen where she belongs.

Let's see.

*  Hussein
*  Harvard Law
*  Misogynist
*  Muslim
*  Pig
*  Conflated a moderate liberal with very conservative, foreign and domestic cultural norms.
*  Comments Off.

Same tired arguments that avoid the issues, with dissenting opinions not allowed.

Filed appropriately under Intelligent Design.

Comments off? O noes!!!eleventy!!one1!

Then how can all the principled, ethical, fair-minded people at Uncommon Descent point out that John McCain used the same phrase before talking about Hillary Clinton?

They must be devastated!

Date: 2008/09/15 09:03:48, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 15 2008,00:43)
I do like this comment from the thread where Casey and Denyse are lying

LOL. Here's my fave bit of Denyse's post...

Huh? Why isn’t this happening in Canada? I thought we had cornered the Western world market on suppression of thought and speech.

Edited to add: Denyse's quote on religion from here.

99th post, i think...

Date: 2008/09/15 09:12:32, Link
Author: PTET
[Edited to add] In celebration of my 100th post at AtBC, I present to you a completely made up post from Denyse O'Leary.  
Hello and welcome to the latest addition to my family of blogs. Yes, you're read that right. I'm delighted to have been asked to post at PTET, my one-hundreth blog, in celebration of his one hundredth post to "After The Bar Closes". I've never been there myself. Apparently it's materialist, Darwin-worshipping, God-hating heaven.

For those of you who don't know me, I'm a Toronto-based journalist; Roman Catholic Christian. I'm an avid blogger, an award winning author, and three time winner of a "world's best grandmother" mug. Look out for my books of ghost stories, "The Spiritual Train" and "The Spiritual Lane". I got help with the big words from a real scientist I met at a dinner party! Coming soon, there's a sequel set in the world of sewage management, "The Spiritual Drain", and a children's book set at the docks of old Newfoundland, "The Spiritual Crane".

Darwinists are mean and spiteful because in their world-view, life is meaningless. I mean if all we are is material atoms, then what possible use could here be for love, hate, science or helping people? We'd all just be animals rutting, rutting, filthy rutting to pass on our genes.

Darwinists persecute me because of my beliefs. Sometimes I wish I was Jewish, because they really get persecuted, but I get persecuted so much for being Roman Catholic I don't think I'll change.

Life is so obviously, like, designed. I mean, just look at it. Do I look like a monkey? Do I look like a rutting animal? OK, so DaveScot is like the missing link (joking!), but that nice Dr. Dr. Dr. Dembski says there's some incredible secret they have which means it's important Mr Stroppy Cheesy-Poofs won't be going anywhere for a long time.

"Intelligent Design" is so obviously not religious. Just look at it? Does it look religious? Darwinism - now there's a religion. That's why Christians (and my Jewish friends!) don't believe in it. Some people call themselves Christian evolutionists, but they're so far removed from real spiritual beings that I can pretend they don't exist. And anyway, they say that God is bigger than science. That's absurd. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain. That nice Dr. Dembski has three doctorations so he's very very, very clever. He agrees with me that it's completely obvious that everything is front-loaded into our DNA... So all of us carry the entire future of the Universe already written in our genes!

Materialists never dream. What's the point if all we are is rutting beasts? They're not interested in the future, where maybe one day President Palin will be arm and arm with a Toronto-based grandmother journalist, thrust by popular acclaim to be Prime Minister of Canada? With a pony! Now that's a future we can all believe in.

Now, over at "The Mindless Hash", bake the best communion-cookies you've ever tasted.

Don't miss me at "Salvage Blag", where I tell all those "scientists" with their fancy-pants "degrees" just where they are going wrong.

Date: 2008/09/15 12:11:47, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 15 2008,11:40)
PTET, could you do us a favor and tell us who said that and/or where they said it?

Oh dear. Not obvious? A fake post by Denyse, to celebrate my 100th post here.

I'll get me coat...

Date: 2008/09/16 09:23:30, Link
Author: PTET
From the front page of Conservapedia.  
Barack Obama lets the truth slip out that he is a Muslim: "John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith"[36][37]
Taqiyya allows a Muslim "to deny or denounce his faith if, in so doing, he protects or furthers the interests of Islam." [38]

These people are actually, genuinely, authentically, evil.

Date: 2008/09/18 10:03:55, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 18 2008,06:55)
Bob O'H, that's the last bit of nonsense we're going to hear from you. You're out of here. - rb

Just in case it's needed...

Date: 2008/09/20 05:47:34, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 20 2008,04:13)
I don't know if this is due to bannination but it seems as if the've messed up the Obama thread. It doesn't build up completely.

Just an aside, but wouldn't any unintended consequences arising from the interference of an intelligent designer mess up any "divine plan" in nature?

Or are DaveScot's banninations all part of God's purpose!?

Now my head is hurting...

Date: 2008/09/21 06:21:41, Link
Author: PTET
21 September 2008
And they call us religious whackaloons?

Uncommon Descent post an obviously faked video about Obama... And present this as evidence that his supporters are unstable.

What're the odds that any comments there are wiped - or even that the whole thread will vanish - before the end of the day?

Just another Sunday meltdown at UD...

Date: 2008/09/21 07:56:36, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 21 2008,07:22)
The video isn't fake. UD has been Poe'd. That was just one of the early unofficial McCain ads. YouTube makes unauthorized ads rather cheap and easy.

Surely. By "fake" I mean not real Obama video; and one deliberately edited to make Obama & his supporters look bad.

And I'm certain the UD-poster knew it wasn't "real" either. But s/he posted it anyway as if it was.

I'm sure the intelligent designer is looking down approvingly at UD, as s/he no doubt always does...

[Edited to make sense ;>]

Date: 2008/09/21 10:06:18, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (J-Dog @ Sep. 21 2008,09:51)
PTET - What happened to the icon you had that was a rare photograph of Jesus Holding The Dinosaur?

Jesus-with-the-baby-dinosaur was a bit of genius from Monty Propps at B3ta. Is Sarah Palin really too much? If so I'll try and find something more unsuitable. In the meantime, Rexella says hi.

Now, if anyone has any video of Denyse...

Date: 2008/09/21 11:05:43, Link
Author: PTET
Fannie Mae, Fraud, Kickbacks, and Obama
from Uncommon Descent by DaveScot

...Want to see the U.S. crash into some REALLY crushing poverty like that which plagued the former Soviet Union? If so then by all means vote for Mr. Barack “Karl Marx” Obama. On the other hand, if you want to see more of the greatest peacetime economic expansion in history which occured under Ronald Wilson Reagan, the kind of economic expansion that brought the Marx inspired socialist Soviet Union to its knees, then vote for war hero John McCain. The choice is just that simple.

Washington Monthly

...a heads-up on this jaw-dropper from McCain's article: "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."

Remember, this doesn't reflect McCain's thinking from previous years -- the article was published in the current, Sept/Oct issue of the magazine. McCain believed, very recently, that the key to "better" care at "lower" costs was to make the healthcare industry look more like the financial industry.

Reality hurts, hey DaveScot!?

And since when did ID become entirely "Republican"? (As well as being, ofc, all but entirely religious...)

Date: 2008/09/22 05:51:20, Link
Author: PTET
5:45 pm

...I can’t really think of how to explain in simpler words that you might understand the irony in that Pharyngula mocks people for having religious belief in a savior while at the same time they stand up for Barack Obama who presents himself as a savior.

Yeah - because the two are exactly the same.

Way to go, DaveScot, trivializing Christianity, demeaning faith and imposing your opinions on everyone else. Why does Dembski put up with this? What does DaveScot have on him?

Date: 2008/09/23 10:28:19, Link
Author: PTET
Can some lovely person please link or post that "har har this is you" pic of the guy plunging the toilet? For the life of me, I can't find it...

Date: 2008/09/25 10:30:17, Link
Author: PTET
There's no mention of evolution, but I've got a bit of video up of Jack Van Impe talking about Sarah Palin and World War III.

Don't worry too much... The War isn't going to start until *after* the Rapture, apparently.

Date: 2008/09/25 13:13:52, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 25 2008,12:53)
Somewhat off-topic, Palin has one of the ugliest accents I've heard in a long time. Where the hell'd she get it? Is this a normal accent for white people in Alaska?

I reckon Palin is playing up the homely-hic chic with her accent - especially when she gets out of her depth in interviews/speaking. Which means "normally".

Did you read that the morons at NRO are apparently calling for McCain to let Palin take his place in debates with Obama? That I would *pay* to see.

Date: 2008/09/27 07:07:54, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Sep. 27 2008,05:04)
Hi there, I'm here now...

W00t! Welcome... I missed your posts from UD :)

Date: 2008/09/28 06:51:45, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 26 2008,12:58)
It is funny you should mention "Fargo" because whenever I hear her voice, I imagine a cabinet meeting with her saying (a la Marge Gunderson) "I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your policy work, there, John. "

Yeah. I get Fargo too. Apologies for yet another link, but here's my wee wee spoof of Palin's CBS interview about Russia.

What's really scary is that Palin still doesn't get why she's mocked for claiming that living next to Russia counts as foreign policy experience... Like no-one at the GOP has told her that yet...

Date: 2008/09/28 07:38:27, Link
Author: PTET
27 September 2008
Burning Down the House

Make it viral. Link to email to everyone you know, post everywhere you go...

DaveScot's latest bandwagon is a viral video blaming the current credit crunch on every democrat from Jimmy Carter onwards. I also saw it linked at that home of rational debate and lucid discussion, Rapture Ready.

The video blames the Community Reinvestment Act. (The relevant wikipedia article is being updated, presumably in response to this viral.)

Dave like the vid because it paints John McCain as the unsung hero, trying to regulate the mortgage industry in the face of Dem opposition. There's no mention of the $15,000 a month paid to McCain's campaign manager's firm; or McCain's calls for US healthcare to be (de)regulated the same way as the financial system; or any alternative viewpoints or analysis or anything like that.

So in summary: throw one narrow bit of information at people and tell them that's the whole story. It's business as usual at UD.

[edited for a bit of clarity]

Date: 2008/10/05 11:54:01, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 05 2008,10:16)
Palin and the Experience Factor

Oh for heaven's sake - Sarah Palin has never heard of Hamas.

I'd always considered "American Thinker" to be one of the stupidest and most hilariously named websites of all time. FTK's link confirms that nicely.

Date: 2008/10/09 06:32:10, Link
Author: PTET
[quote=oldmanintheskydidntdoit,Oct. 09 2008,03:04]
Obama and Islam
The odds of Obama being truthful in his claim that he converted to Christianity are less than 100 to 1 against it, as fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity
is worthy of Dr Dembski himself as it's the sort of specious reasoning he is wont to use.

I loved this line from the "Talk" page of the Obama article...

We Should add "allegedly" to everything just to be fair

These morons are apparently the future elite of the Christian Right...
College for the Home-Schooled Is Shaping Leaders for the Right

No amount of ridicule is enough to humiliate these idiots.

Date: 2008/10/09 16:21:20, Link
Author: PTET
Totally inappropriate... But she does know how to please a crowd...

Date: 2008/10/12 06:55:22, Link
Author: PTET
Aaaaaaaah... Want ma hole
I want ma hole
I want ma hol-idays

To see the cunt
To see the cunt
To see the count-ary

Fuck you
Fuck you
For curios-ity

I want ma hole
I want ma hole
I want ma hol-idays

[Traditional Glasgow Singalong]

Date: 2008/10/13 05:24:56, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 13 2008,02:16)
Bill Kristol now says the McCain campaign, with 3 weeks to go, should junk their entire campaign and start anew. Why, O why, did my beloved NYT hire this Idiot?

Comedy value I think. Kristol is comically wrong about practically everything... Although he did pick out Sarah Palin as the ideal running mate for McCain back in June...

Date: 2011/04/17 04:46:02, Link
Author: PTET
idcurious has been silently banned, with some posts vanished. The UD regulars are clucking away how he's run off leaving their points unanswered. Just another day in that vacuum of intellect and integrity which is Uncommon Descent.

His life is archived here, mainly because it will annoy Clive.

Apologies to anyone who sat through it. Sorry too, Sparc, that IDC didn't get to reference the 1969 Nobel Prize. It was next on his list.

Hello again Onlookers. It's been a while since I de-lurked.

Date: 2011/04/17 07:09:01, Link
Author: PTET
idcurious and KL join the roll of the silently banned.

"In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for 'Science.' The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of IngsocIntelligent design." - George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 9

Date: 2011/04/18 03:56:05, Link
Author: PTET
6:24 am
Consider this thought experiment:
In 100 years, with your advanced quantum computer, you create a simulated world full of sentient, living things. They have no knowledge of you or any record of how they came to be. (Note the lack of anything supernatural in this illustration.)...

ScottAndrews thinks we don't have "any record of how" we "came to be".

Not even the Bible, apparently. I understand him chucking out genetics and the fossil record. After all, per KF and Clive Hayden, we weren't there to see it happen...

The argument that design requires the supernatural and therefore isn’t scientific really translates to, ‘This possibility seems way to hard to investigate, so we’ll just keep looking over here instead.’

According to his own words in his same post above, we can't even consider non-supernatural explanations, because we don't have any evidence about the past.

Date: 2011/04/18 14:52:44, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (Freddie @ April 18 2011,07:51)
Of course - its not possible to see idcurious's posts as for some reason all of them beyond post 230 seem to have vanished...

icdurious was vanished after asking KF "Would it be cruel to compare you to a hypocritical windbag?". As KF seems to have been keeping idc alive, that was unwise. It's true though.

Uncommon Descent is apologetics. It exists to give comfort to believers that there is progress being made with "Intelligent Design". Much of it isn't actually meant to be read (hence Denyse, KF, etc.). Behe is a scientist who supports common descent. No wonder they ignore him.

Look at the effort UDders put into saying we can't know anything about the past. Their redefining of science isn't about finding positive ways to "prove" design, but rather to make sure that no evidence could possibly exist to support evolution in nature.

Pick any Pro-IDder you like. You'll find them saying something really, really stupid... But there they are, the all-science-so-far vanguard for creationists everywhere.

edit: gz utidjian :>

Date: 2011/04/19 07:23:08, Link
Author: PTET
A sample of todays idiocy...    
GilDodgen: Let’s face it, either the Christian worldview is correct or the Darwinian worldview is correct in this particular debate.

What a moron. I love the complete lack of pretence that ID is in any way about science.
Jonathan Wells: … modern medicine owes nothing to Darwinism.

Can someone please ask these rubes how much "modern medicine" owes to The Bible, and how much it owes to the the "materialist" scientific method these idiots are so keen to get rid of?

Date: 2011/04/19 10:59:11, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (JohnW @ April 19 2011,10:41)
...I just thought of something.  Could one of the active UD sock-pilots ask Joe if hail hates electricity?

Anyone with a sock puppet that wants to die, that would be. I had meant to say that idcurious had asked Joseph if he was "Nowhere Man" of old. That led to me realizing this entire comment was disappeared from the relevant thread:

8:06 am
Joseph @ 239

I know the human body generates electricty you dolt.

The website you linked to to attack evolution (which you said ID does not do) argues that water does not conduct electricity. That is utterly moronic.

You are completely ignorant about the evidence for evolution and even the fact that ID is an “inference” with no actual evidence to support it.

If there was evidence, UD would be packed with post after post discussing it – rather than a place where commentators (QuiteID? KL?) vanish without trace and where thread after thread is dominated by KF doing absurd BIGNUM sums to “prove” that none of us could possibly be here.

Oh yeah Joseph. I missed one of your greatest hits from this thread: “[Ribosomes are] About as “naturally occurring” as my cars.”. LOL.

I remember from c.2003 there was this guy “Nowhere Man” who was famous for asking “Caves? I thought this was in Africa. Where are there caves in Africa?”

That wasn’t you, was it?

Did I remember reading that Joe [*was] "Nowhere Man", or has the explanatory filter failed again?

I see Joe is crowing away that idc has been banned, safe in the knowledge that his own extreme idiocy was expunged from UD - straight after the above was posted.

Date: 2011/04/21 10:05:17, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 21 2011,09:29)
...Shorter Gordon:  Until you understand my genius, I shall not stoop to respond to you.

KF states that primatologists have wasted their lives developing fairy tales about hominid development. Yet, he has provided no alternative explanation/model from the ID perspective.  And he won't provide any such explanation until you jump through a series of hoops set up by him.  There is a turnabout challenge on the table, but I don't think you are the one playing it.

As ever, kind of the like the Bible Code, there are clues within KF's circumambages...

"...I spoke of generally accepted records of observation by intelligent, credible observers, as the context suggests. Fossils, BTW, are not records, but objects on the ground. We construct a record based on recovery of same and compilation into a body of record, mostly over the past 200 or so years."

iow, KL's husband and his colleagues are not "intelligent, credible observers" and Fossils aren't records.

Can you guess who FK does think was an "intelligent, credible observer" as to the history of life on earth? Here's a clue from the same thread:

"12 –> If you find it offensive to be reminded that 2,00 [sic] years ago the apostle put his worldview on the line on the contention that the evidence would compellingly point to a designed nature, and has been supported over 2000 years of investigation, that tells me a lot about attitude, and none of it good."

The shorter shorter KF: Are you calling Jesus a liar?

Date: 2011/04/21 12:14:07, Link
Author: PTET
...Mr. Gallien stated, "It is painfully obvious that you do not have an understanding. Dr B's work does not support blind and undirected processes. I am just going by what the data says. Obviously you need someone to hold your hand and tell you what the data says and only if it agrees with what you already think will you accept it."

Dr. Batiza would disagree. I looked up her work after you posted text from her work ...

Here's Joe speaking to idcurious:

"Strange how none have left ID to become blind watchmaker proponents."

...Because many "ID supporters" weren't ID supporters to begin with...

And of course Joe doesn't like to mention Templeton Foundation. Weren't there also various other people who formerly said they supported ID but recanted?

Date: 2011/04/26 07:46:39, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (sparc @ April 26 2011,00:32)
5:19 pm

These “42 Nobel Laureates” commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Appeals to Authority are valid when they are from Lewontin or C.S. Lewis or teh baby jesus.

Appeals to Authority are invalid then they come from "a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it"* where that source opposes ID.

It's easy when you know.

[* ty Conservapedia & edited for typo]

Date: 2011/05/02 16:31:34, Link
Author: PTET
Kottke: There's a serious proposal to build an undersea electrical grid as part of the infrastructure for future offshore wind turbines.

Pfft. Joe could tell them that's not gonna work.

Date: 2012/01/03 11:52:24, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 03 2012,10:49)

Great stuff - and a nice reminder that objections to "macroevolution" are just rehashes of Zeno's Paradox...

(Happy new year all. /relurk).

Date: 2012/02/24 05:17:08, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 24 2012,04:25)
Science all the way Part 74:      
If you want lions, you have to have lambs. Those who condemn God for animal suffering are saying that God should have created in a world in which all animals were vegetarian and there were no parasites. But why should he have done so? Perhaps he wanted a world in which the plenitude of being could be expressed. Who are we to say what God should desire or execute?

And maybe He's a Sadist.

All science so far.


Forgive me, but isn't that exactly what they are claiming? That they know precisely what "God should desire or execute", for teh bibel tells them so?

Date: 2013/03/17 09:58:49, Link
Author: PTET
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 17 2013,08:09)
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Mar. 17 2013,07:34)
All of Glenn Morton's web pages are now available here:

Glenn is claiming copyright on those pages. I doubt that is valid unless he paid for the server on which they were published. But it would be a good idea for people to save them in case they disappear again.

Copyright would belong to the the person who wrote the material.

(Unless he was paid to write the material specifically by a publisher which seems unlikely).