AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Pilchard

form_srcid: Pilchard

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: Pilchard

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


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2010/08/01 08:23:36, Link
Author: Pilchard
Someone at UD not taking straw man pot-shots when given the chance:

Even if the selfish gene theory was valid, this would not imply that evolved intelligence could not also have evolved an independent mechanism of internal self awareness and complexity that allows choice at a higher level sometimes against evolutionary imperatives. In other words, self awareness would have evolved to respond to the environment in order to survive, and this inevitably enabled the capability to make choices which go against survival. Like the Holocaust rescuers.

Whether or not there are no ultimate metaphysical/ spiritual/moral good and evil, humans obviously desire one thing or another based on other factors such as desire for pleasure and fear of pain. At a minimum, no other motivations are really required (though they may exist).
I've only been wasting time stalking UD for a few months, but this is a pretty rare occurrence, right? I'm excited. It's like I've found a four leaf clover. He even used the word "obvious" where it actually applies.

Obviously after this it returns to damning the materialists for not ceasing all activity and embracing perfect stillness as their nihilistic meaningless universe tells them to.

Date: 2010/08/06 02:52:18, Link
Author: Pilchard
In which Gil fails to mention neural nets, genetic algorithms, or any advances in AI of the last 30 years.

A human player might say, “Hmmm, if I move here, this will create a positional weakness from which the opponent cannot possibly recover.” There is no way to encode such knowledge, which comes from human experience and positional recognition.
But if such knowledge can't be encoded, it can't be stored as information, and therefore can't have it's Complex Specified Information measured. The IDer would then have to concede to the materialist that we have no way to tell that this knowledge didn't arise through a non-teleological process. Seems like a hefty loss.

Date: 2010/08/15 06:11:03, Link
Author: Pilchard
It is Sunday, so I allow myself one religious story.
Surely such unfettered indulgence is not Christian, O'Leary?

Date: 2010/08/17 12:49:28, Link
Author: Pilchard

The metaphysical doctrine Darwinism is racist against reptilians now, just because they have 'simpler' brains. By presuming that reptilians aren't intelligent Darwinists are begging the question against substance dualism. Or information dualism. Or something.

Date: 2010/08/18 05:58:51, Link
Author: Pilchard
Scruffy dropping science  
When it comes to reptiles, I can personally say that they do seem to also have their own sense of self, their own personalities if you will. For instance, I use to own two iguanas, a male and a female. The male was usually layback but the female was rather… “high strung” if you will. She constantly tried to whip me with her tail, even if I wasn’t bothering her and she always managed to get out of the cage and climb onto the high shelf in our closest and stay in the same corner where a giant comforter usually was. It was a pain in the rear trying to get her back into the cage because she loved to whip the sh*t out of you with that tail of hers.

Birds are another animal that seem to have a much deeper awareness of the living creatures around them.
I'm taking this as more convergent evidence for the evolution of birds from reptiles.

Date: 2010/08/19 02:56:31, Link
Author: Pilchard
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 19 2010,04:59)
Quote (fnxtr @ Aug. 18 2010,22:38)
Don't make fun of Joe. Tard is a serious mallardy.

Nothing a Quack couldn't fix.

On the contrary, I think he needs a real duckter.

Date: 2010/08/26 02:53:54, Link
Author: Pilchard
Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 26 2010,04:31)
PS: Blah blah blah I’d like to see someone explain how there is no true freedom of choice involved in writing Japanese. (We have not heard from our newly wed Nakashima-san, recently.) G

How to prove libertarian free-will: ignore the arguments, make a list of things one is incredulous could be done without libertarian free-will. If pressed, mention C.S. Lewis.

I can feel that philosophy PhD coming my way already.

Date: 2010/08/30 18:25:52, Link
Author: Pilchard
The fact is that monkeys and humans do not behave similarly in key ways, as should be obvious. Otherwise, why are they in our zoos and we are not in theirs?
Has she not seen Planet of the Apes?

Date: 2010/10/10 09:39:08, Link
Author: Pilchard
I love the comments on O'Leary's sci-fi post. It reminds me of being 14 and trying to say something insightful.

For the atheist, science fiction dulls the senses without removing the source of the pain. It’s as therapeutic for the atheist intellect as materialism is for the hedonist.

I think there is a kind of displacement or a return of the repressed in science fiction, religion returning in the garb of science fiction themes, even if unintended or unconscious – in fact if a displacement and a return of repressed feelings/attitudes it can only be unconscious.

To the person tending to agnosticism or atheism, he has to look for magic and wonder elsewhere outside of religion. In the world of the irreligious (and I mean this in the broadest sense of the word) science and tech geek, science fiction offers a world of awe and wonder and infinite possibilities that he finds appealing given his background or interests, a sense of wonder (the exact phrase employed by SF writers themselves) he does not see in nature and the cosmos, because the wonder and magic of the natural world has all been explained away to him (hello neo-Darwinism and scientific materialism).

Date: 2010/10/14 11:47:08, Link
Author: Pilchard
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 14 2010,17:07)

You'd understand why Joe counts as 25 Joes if you took the effort to understand set theory like he does.

Date: 2010/11/01 21:23:58, Link
Author: Pilchard
Any gems on the Philippa Foot thread over there? I'm honestly too scared to see these people butchering metaethics to go read myself.

Date: 2010/11/19 19:25:14, Link
Author: Pilchard

Date: 2010/11/24 14:27:12, Link
Author: Pilchard
(Humanists) have more divisions between themselves than the religious because they have no guiding principles or positive doctrine to follow.

Factually solid, and so germane to his point too, whatever that point may be. It's always impressive to see somebody write that much with so little substance.

Date: 2010/12/09 13:11:17, Link
Author: Pilchard
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 09 2010,18:53)
The metaphysical recourse is there are plenty of other explanations for the rad dating than just an old earth.

It's a given that any theory is, to some extent, underdetermined by evidence. But we have good reasons to choose the simplest theory, which has historically led to the most successes in prediction and control of phenomena. And thus far no amount of sociological or theistic anti-realists have come up with a better explanation of this success than a convergence on truth.

There's a great blog post here about the efficacy of Ockham's Razor:

Date: 2010/12/19 20:05:26, Link
Author: Pilchard
I conclude, then, that the concept of God remains a defensible one, that Intelligent Design therefore remains an intellectually viable undertaking, and that Professor Tallis’s arguments have failed to undermine belief in God.

And it's all about the science.

Date: 2010/12/20 19:06:08, Link
Author: Pilchard
A typical response is that the future actions of free agents can't be known, so it is no failing of a god's omniscience that s/he can't know such things.

As to God's own free will, if a god exists outside time as theologians would have us think, he will have already made all his free decisions at every possible point in time. S/he's not beholden to following a linear flow of time. However, this doesn't work with the above lack of knowledge regarding free agents, because to make decisions in this way involves having always known humans' choices.

There's always the option of falling back on a less person-like notion of a god, but then the typical theist loses much of what's dear to them.

Date: 2010/12/30 02:44:27, Link
Author: Pilchard
The beauty you see in a living cell is more like the beauty of a story than the beauty of crystals
And just as one story cannot be changed step-by-step into another while still remaining a coherent story, so too, it is impossible for one type of living thing to change into another as a result of a step-by-step process, while remaining a viable organism.

All the Darwinists need to do to refute ID is prove that blind undirected chemical processes can change stories step-by-step one into another while remaining a coherent story.

Date: 2010/12/30 18:25:12, Link
Author: Pilchard
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 30 2010,13:03)

And just as one story cannot be changed step-by-step into another while still remaining a coherent story...

Like, say, the Gospels?


Date: 2011/01/02 18:51:03, Link
Author: Pilchard
Quote (awarfarexs @ Jan. 03 2011,00:10)
we just want to demonstrate how easy it is for us to annihilate you FUCKING BASTARDS... you forfeit your lives today....

I think what I do with bastards in my ample spare time is none of your concern.

Date: 2011/03/13 13:48:01, Link
Author: Pilchard
In said interview, she offers the startling proof of free will:
About free will, I only say, if you really did not have free will, you wouldn’t be asking. Think about it: How would you know such a thing as free will existed if it is not a fact about something, and if it is a fact about something, why not about you? You thought of it, after all.



Date: 2011/03/17 09:50:50, Link
Author: Pilchard
My take is they use it to mean that events follow from a starting point in a deterministic and computable manner.

Hence their demands for a detailed step of the movements of every atom since the big bang before ID is proved wrong.

Date: 2011/03/30 01:04:27, Link
Author: Pilchard
It's cute how he thinks we should rebut the argument he's making, as if his argument is anything more than blunt assertion. That what he's saying ought* to be so obviously correct that scientists are irrational for not breaking down in tears all the time.

It's also cute how he seems to think this is what scientists should be studying, rather than letting philosophers deal with his laboured form of tiresomeness.

* I'm making a normative statement here, YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT.

Date: 2011/04/08 14:47:30, Link
Author: Pilchard
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 08 2011,13:24)
Gordon's particular beef around epistemic access seems to not only mean he can't know anything, but can't even be confident about anything.

Believing anything leads to HYPERSKEPTICISM.

Date: 2011/04/14 17:30:15, Link
Author: Pilchard
Quote (didymos @ April 14 2011,20:24)
The real Barry:

I'm always surprised when these people don't look like the frustrated pimply 14 year olds they are at heart.

Date: 2011/04/18 18:12:44, Link
Author: Pilchard
Quote (Louis @ April 18 2011,16:50)
Collect your prize (a signed copy of Dembski's forthcoming autobiography "Why I have the Intellectual Integrity of a Pilchard") from the desk.

Cheers man. Cheers.

Date: 2011/05/27 05:51:24, Link
Author: Pilchard
"Maybe you wouldn’t have better off to go to Harvard … ?"

Denews offers a mighty triumph of unparsability.

Date: 2011/07/06 06:57:00, Link
Author: Pilchard
Quote (Driver @ July 06 2011,12:15)

Information exists ‘within’ — and only ‘within’ — minds. There is no information, whatsoever, “out there” in the physical/material world.

Another commenter at UD is off-message.

(and at odds with physics, but never mind that eh?)

Isn't Ilion talking about the dubious reified semantics notion of information here, rather than anything that could be thought of as information in physics? In which case, s/he has stumbled onto the idea that DNA is not a series of linguistic propositions.

Date: 2011/07/18 21:42:10, Link
Author: Pilchard
Quote (socle @ July 19 2011,03:19)
WTF tgpeeler

Well, I object to an eternally existing multiverse for a very simple reason. The multiverses are physical, therefore they cannot be eternal. Why not? Because they are physical, they can be counted. If they can be counted they are not eternal (infinite). Law of identity. Things are what they are.

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one"


P1. There is one God
C2. (from P1) God can be counted
P3. That which can be counted cannot be eternal
C4. (from C2 and P3) God is not eternal

Which I find quite surprising, given that it entails God's having come to exist at some point. Which somewhat undermines his/her/its use in various cosmological arguments.

Date: 2011/08/03 10:39:20, Link
Author: Pilchard
I always thought BA77 was endearingly naive and relatively harmless compared to the vindictiveness of the rest of UD, but in the hologram/giant trailer of poop thread:
I remember one comment when Hawking’s ‘Grand Design’ first book came out. The guy made it clear he wasn’t being mean spirited, but he honestly wanted to know:

‘if stephen hawking can figure out how the entire universe was made, how come he cant figure out how to get out of that wheelchair and talk?’

Kind of rough, but it does expose the sheer arrogance of Stephen Hawking’s thinking in a direct way.

And after being called out on this:
And though I feel sorry for the man with his horrible disease, the point, though rough, is none the less very fitting and valid for the claim he is making. Just think of it velikovskys, here the man is claiming to have figured out how the entire universe, in all its grandeur and glory, was brought into being, and despite this grandiose claim, a claim that certainly shows no signs of modesty (nor does it show signs of ever garnering a Nobel prize), he has not the slightest clue how to solve his own debilitating disease. A problem that should be, perspective-wise, a far easier problem to figure out than creating a universe.,,,

The not-subtle implication is that Stephen Hawkins is to blame for suffering from ALS because he arrogantly wanted to figure out the nature of physics instead of doing medical research. BA77 is a disgusting snide little shit.

Elsewhere on the same thread, where the only defence of Hawking is "If you got a problem with Hawking fine, leave the low blows,it is distasteful" from velikovskys, Ilion musters up some outrage:
What? Hawking gets a free pass because he’s crippled?

Date: 2012/09/15 06:14:04, Link
Author: Pilchard
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 15 2012,02:43)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Sep. 14 2012,21:32)
Somebody show him the Tardogram that time with Steve Story...

Fuck, that shit was awesome, full octane TARD.

Oh, here it is:

AFDave Posts a Graph, but keep reading.

(Found at UDoJ)

This...this is my new favourite thing.

Date: 2013/05/09 14:00:19, Link
Author: Pilchard
Quote (Ptaylor @ May 09 2013,03:28)
Byers' response to criticism that he is sexist? He doubles down (UD link):
Oh no folks. Identity matters. Women do not come now or in the past close to mens achievement in science. This is right or wrong.
Ms sCott is case in point. I always find the women are not up to keeping up even in the subjects they apply themselves too in science.
This is my observation.
I have no doubt Ms Scott being picked for her job was because of a desire to have a woman. They needed one in subjects of origin research that largely are male.
They always practice affirmative action. I insist.
He was inarticulate, constantly based on misunderstanding the whole issues even allowing for being on the anti -creationist side.
Thats why I liked her being there and dislike her retirement.
She messed up the very organized opposition in academia against recent rising creationism(s).
They could of done a better job at dealing with the early years of ID and YEC ascendency.
She is to blame because they should iof had a better person and that means a man these days still.
There are more women in these science things but they are STILL a poor second.
To deny the intellectual prevalence of men is what could balled SEXISM.
Identity matters in science in history and today.

"There are more women in these science things but they are STILL a poor second."

...the use of 'these science things' is too perfect.

Date: 2013/06/17 05:43:08, Link
Author: Pilchard
Quote (timothya @ June 17 2013,10:40)
This is a real sequence: (as of today, if that is a clue)

0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 14, 4, 13, 4, 12, 1, 1, 6, 2, 5, 2, 8, 0, 4, 24, 12, 3, 4, 6, 2, 26, 7, 31, 4, 1, 0, 14, 6, 5, 3, 6, 0, 7, 0, 59, 38, 26, 2, 4, 2, 5, 4, 2, 7, 3, 5, 3, 81, 10, 10, 0, 6, 37, 0, 6, 11, 11, 76, 18, 4, 4, 29, 162, 4, 1, 1, 0, 90, 6

What does it signify? What correlates would help explain the big vs small values?

I'm guessing comments on the last UD posts, and the big values come from the posts most explicitly mentioning a god/atheism?

Date: 2013/06/17 05:44:06, Link
Author: Pilchard
Or the low values are just those posts started by 'News'.

Date: 2013/07/16 05:45:01, Link
Author: Pilchard
Quote (Febble @ July 16 2013,09:26)
FYI-FTR, # 2: KeithS of TSZ and other objecting sites, inadvertently shows the self-referential absurdity of evolutionary materialism and its fellow traveller po-mo ideologies regarding first principles of right reason and other self-evident first truths

Is this a record for post-title length?

That post has a great use of the confident and authoritative END, being immediately followed by a PS.

Date: 2014/01/04 13:00:03, Link
Author: Pilchard
Quote (rossum @ Jan. 04 2014,15:29)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 03 2014,20:29)
TodAy, at skool, we lurned, commas:

And if science can only allow a certain amount of luck in any given model, the materialism, and by extension darwinism, are scientific non-starters as they rely on luck, so what is left, scientifically?

Maybe not just commas.  Perhaps s/the/then also?  It appears to have started life as an if ... then ... sentence, but somehow got morphed.  Random mutation in action, right in front of your eyes, boys and girls.

Random mutation but seemingly very little selection.

Date: 2016/12/25 12:54:17, Link
Author: Pilchard
I don't know why I'm following fifthmonarchyman on the Fatima thread try to teach Kantian Naturalist that epistemology must be and can only be magic, but reading him is exhausting. As far as I can tell his repetition is a performative demonstration of the infinite regress he wants to avoid.

Date: 2017/02/17 18:34:33, Link
Author: Pilchard
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 17 2017,17:56)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 17 2017,17:00)
Chubs got a 30 day TSZ ban, is crying about it on his blog.

Wait - Frankie was Joe G? Well don't that just beat all! :)

His work there is done.

Date: 2017/03/13 13:38:30, Link
Author: Pilchard
a warning the atheists, for years, have consistently dodged

It's how I get my exercise.

Date: 2017/03/20 05:33:16, Link
Author: Pilchard
Quote (timothya @ Mar. 20 2017,11:16)

Great dog!

Date: 2017/03/25 10:58:26, Link
Author: Pilchard
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 25 2017,16:09)
A new buzz-phrase: "inclusive fitness"?