AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Ptaylor

form_srcid: Ptaylor

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: Ptaylor

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


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2006/08/30 20:48:09, Link
Author: Ptaylor
This from the philosophy, not science thread

Richard Dawkins is either congenitally deranged or was molested as an altar boy by an Anglican priest. I can conceive of no other explanations for his writings, each book more bizarre than its predecessor. God only knows what he will come up with next. I shudder to think.

It is hard to believe isn’t it?

“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics and it stems from the same source…They are creatures that can’t hear the music of the spheres.”
Alice Calaprice, The New Quotable Einstein, page 204

“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison

Comment by John A. Davison — August 30, 2006 @ 3:58 pm

Flippantly talking about priests molesting altar boys is over the top, John.

Yer outta here. Again.

Comment by DaveScot — August 30, 2006 @ 8:51 pm

Long time, first time etc

Has DT had his bannination powers given back to him, is this wishful thinking, or is he expecting moderators to do the deed for him?

And on an O'Leary thread too!

Date: 2006/10/30 23:21:39, Link
Author: Ptaylor
This, about 3 hours ago (now 10:50 pm, New Zealand time; GMT + 12 hours). Middle of the night for many of you.
P. Z. Myers — does he have a clue how bad this looks?
by William Dembski on October 30th, 2006 · 5 Comments

P. Z. Myers — does he have a clue how bad this looks?
by William Dembski on October 30th, 2006 · 3 Comments

You guessed it - the 2 deleted comments had pointed out that Professor Myers attending a meeting, and then asking no questions is not much of a story, much less an 'escapade'. Sorry, my cache did not store the deleted comments - maybe someone more tekkie can revive them?
"does he have a clue how bad this looks"!

Date: 2007/01/10 00:40:25, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I've noticed the "If the horse is dead..." thread at UD has dropped from 13 to 12 comments. Just for the record the deleted comment was
12. Inquisitive Brain  // Jan 9th 2007 at 2:08 pm


   If the horse is dead, why keep beating it?

Because your own paradigm for looking at the universe is meaningless, boring, and not particularly helpful in scientific praxis.

Comment by Inquisitive Brain — January 9, 2007 @ 2:08 pm

I was surprised it appeared at all.

Date: 2007/01/24 00:15:52, Link
Author: Ptaylor
From the Religious Education OP:
Dawkins and his ilk are nothing but liars, creeps, and mental lightweights.

Reminds me of this classic exchange:
Westley: You're that smart?
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Westley: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.

Yes, I know the PB quote has been mentioned before, but it seemed so...apt.

Date: 2007/02/15 00:01:07, Link
Author: Ptaylor
There is some vintage tard going on in the comments of the Kansas science standards thread, after Jack Krebs has paid them a visit.
Just one example:




11:42 pm

Jack, you would have us believe that science is only about exterior surfaces and that we should all just sit down and shut up and listen to the experts tell us to go ahead and marry men to men and tell our kids that it doesn’t matter because the muslim religion is just as good as the one that we have here in america so don’t worry because there is no heaven anyway, unless you’re budhist or muslim, in which case there might be, but if you burn our flag, it makes you cool like all the scientists who claim that all we are is a temporary agglomeration of atoms held together with organic vegetables and defended by vegetarian hippies. You just don’t get it.

Classic stuff.

Date: 2007/02/20 23:57:43, Link
Author: Ptaylor
We Kiwis drink alike. I'm having a glass of Grande Reserve as I type. Kia ora.

Date: 2007/02/23 00:48:35, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Carslonjok (referencing Amadan):
Dude, you rule!  One of the funniest moments recently was when Patrick quoted one of you UD comments over at OE.  He even managed to include True Athiests Reject Darwinism.

It was a thing of beauty. Unfortunately, I can no longer locate that comment. They must have wised up finally.

I didn't see Patrick's comment at OE but I did have a couple of Chimay-spurting moments watching the Blasphemy Challenge thread when Amadan persuaded a couple of the faithful there to repeat the TARD battlecry. Indeed, Amadan's comments there no longer appear. Another UD thread decreasing in information over time, as it were.  I took the liberty of saving a few choice tidbits at the time. I'm too lazy to boldface the TARDs, pick them out for yourselves.

Amadan enters:



9:01 am

shaner74: “I’m just wondering which world he examined, because the one I see has plenty of evidence in favor of God.”

Intelligent people of all backgrounds look at the same evidence as you and do not interpret it in a pro-theistic light. If material, reproducible evidence pointed unequivocally to the god of the Bible, do you not think that far more people than you would have seen it? If you alone are in the privileged position of having seen such evidence, please let us in on it!

“I’m also wondering how much of a role NDE played in his decision. I’m guessing, oh, about 95%.”

In fairness to neo-Darwinians, they generally only claim that that body of ‘thought’ applies only to questions of gentics, biology etc. I’m not aware of any of them using it like Mao’s Little Red Book to justify all or any irrational decisions. That said, and pardon me for reiterating a point I have made before, neo-Darwinism fits more comfortably into the ‘assuming-your-conclusions’ mentality that tends to underlie religious apologetics. A scientific discipline based on empirical observation and logic,such as ID, has not yet, as far as I know, produced evidence of a ‘god’, biblical or otherwise.

True Atheists Reject Darwin!

Amadan engages DT:



10:54 am

DaveScot: “Intelligent people of all backgrounds experience the numinous which can be quite compelling, quite impossible to ignore, and thus resists discounting by rationalization.”

They likewise experience Terror, Amusement, Revulsion and Desire - all at root subjective responses. The stimuli for them (and the numinous) can’t be relied on as useful evidence for anything except the fact that they provoke such responses. That is not good ‘evidence for a god’. Agree?

Amadan gets one of the followers to repeat the cry:




5:44 pm

[blather blather blather]

“True Atheists Reject Darwin!”

Amen. :)

The Doctor Who reference (continued from an earlier thread) was hilarious. Part of Amadan's response to Shaner74:
Apologies for reading too much into your post. Put it down to osmosis - there are a lot of Xtians around here. (No offence to anyone else in the ID Tardis!)

Finally, ole Gil himself joins in:



8:12 pm

“True Atheists Reject Darwin!”

God doesn’t believe in atheists. :-)

Thank you, Amadan, for the laughs. They're pretty good at providing them unaided over at UD, but it's nice that someone gives them a helping hand sometimes.

Date: 2007/04/19 20:26:25, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Jerry from JohnW's post above:
One of the things ID proponents should be trained to do when making presentations is to answer all the common objections as part of their presentation. It would undermine all the hecklers or sign waivers and marginalize their comments.

How does he think signing waivers will help?  ;)

Date: 2007/04/25 06:30:33, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Somewhat off topic, but one of my favorite IDiots, Joseph, makes an appearance at onegoodmove re the Richard Dawkins/Bill O'Reilly interview, with a few good replies to him if you scroll down. Apologies for pointing somewhere other than UD, but it's been very quiet there lately.
Also, Phonon, I'm a bit worried by your comment about :
And I'm still trying to figure out the waivers thing.
I hope I haven't caused any confusion here with my initial link - I was only pointing out a silly typo that Jerry had made. Please let me know if I should expand.

Date: 2007/05/07 02:57:32, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Much as it goes against my nature, I'll continue the theme:
Dennis, there's some good tard over here
A choice snippet from Bork:
I am not sure what point I am trying to make here, but I think you all understand.

Borne continues with        
Atheism is a system of denials of reality. It is tantamount to intellectual suicide.

Nothing in atheism can be proven.

Atheists are always claiming, in their defense, “you can’t prove a negative” - i.e. you can’t prove, in their case, there is no god.

Fine. Stop right there and then realize that if you can’t prove prove atheism’s base statement, then atheism is based upon nothing logical.

The are zero proofs available for “no god” claims. But everything that exists can be used as a foundation for inferring the existence of a supreme intelligence behind nature.

A hard line atheist says, “there is no god.” Yet knows he has no evidence for this - therefore he believes without evidence. It’s called blind faith.

Of course they always come back with idiocies like, “can’t prove there are no invisible pink unicorns either so they must exist too?”

Well 1st, it is easy to prove there are no invisible pink unicorns (or flying SMs).
(my emphasis)
There's more, especially several comments from Shaner74, check it out. There is one low point, a rather disappointingly sensible comment from BrianG, but not to worry, he'll get banned soon enough if he keeps it up!

Date: 2007/05/07 03:01:18, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Darn, I somehow missed stevestory's comment about BrianG above - sorry.

Date: 2007/06/16 16:59:45, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Meanwhile WD himself is pointing toward the "growing number of non-religious ID proponents". The link goes to the weblog of one William Brookfield, who claims to be founder of "An International Coalition of Non-Religious ID Scientists & Scholars".

Trouble is, William B seems to be the sole member of the coalition (I could be wrong).

When challenged in the comments to his first "Darwinism is a Hoax!" post (read: NS + RM are solely destructive mechanisms, and anyway microevolution may be true, but macroevolution...) William gives us this little gem:            
I don't hold any degrees from any university of any kind. My job as a citizen scientist is to represent science in general and the general public. I learned about the theory of "ontogeny recipitulating phylogeny" in my elementary school playground in 1968 -- from a friend (Calvin Jackson). Throughout the 60's and 70's I was a Darwinist. In 1979 I began to suspect something was wrong with Darwinism.

So William is a citizen scientist and presumably his colleagues are citizen scholars (from several countries). The folks over at Scienceblogs must be quaking in their boots.

Date: 2007/06/18 19:53:52, Link
Author: Ptaylor
The ICON-RIDS site has been updated to reflect all the hubbub.

(Now to go and find this has already been noted elsewhere - c'est la vie)

Date: 2007/06/26 20:47:41, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Borne is angry with Rob. It's very good tard, indeed.

Strange, though - he quotes Rob's comment which mentions a "small, hardly differentiated mass of cells". I can't see the comment anywhere in that thread. Am I missing something, or does this indicate that Rob's comment has disappeared?

Date: 2007/06/29 17:35:43, Link
Author: Ptaylor
PaV has an interesting prediction re Behe's latest book:
I’m not given to hyperbole, but I must say, taken as a whole, TEOE strikes me as possibly being as powerful and influential a book as “The Origins of Species”.

Once I would have said words fail me but I guess I'm too used to the never ending stream of nonsense coming out of UD.

Date: 2007/06/30 21:54:51, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Over at the Prayer studies thread StephenA infers that he is privy to the tardest of the tard.
Ok, that has to be the stupidest argument against the supernatural that I have ever heard.
And I’ve heard some pretty stupid stuff.

(My emphasis)
I'm sure you have Stephen, I'm sure you have.

And thanks for posting that link, Lou FCD.

Date: 2007/07/04 15:17:40, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Kevin Beck has a nice take on Dembski's latest.

Date: 2007/08/20 01:15:44, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 20 2007,00:07)
Yeah, you Americans are lagging behind when it comes to evolution.  Our European Journal of Evolutionary Biology managed to stagger on to September 2007.

And we don't have to hide in some God forsaken place like New Zealand when we want to meet each other.  No, we go to Sweden instead.


Well, if God has forsaken New Zealand, I guess that's one more good reason for living here.  ;)

Date: 2007/08/20 20:19:44, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Tribune7 comes over all charitable. Wanker.
Also, check out Sal continuing the misrepresentation of Nick Matzke in the comments (but it's OK as the post is filed under humor).

Date: 2007/08/23 20:09:23, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Aug. 23 2007,17:37)
Jehu shoots! He scores! (on the Crackpot Index anyway)

The ape skull story is an excellent example of Jehu?s Law, which is that new discoveries will always push evolutionary events further back in time. For example, if you google ?evolved? and the phrase ?earlier than expected? you will get over 40,000 hits.


Heh. Speaking of crackpots, I liked this comment from a couple of days ago on the PZ Myers-getting-sued thread:    
If everyone who has been called a crackpot (which probably includes every one of us at one time or another, no doubt!) sued then the courts would be tied up till kingdom come.
(my emphasis)
Tyke is presumably speaking on behalf of everyone over at UD! Or, just possibly s/he is having a good laugh him/herself.

Date: 2007/08/27 20:10:51, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Looks like ex-xian is about to become an ex-commenter:
I'm still new here, but I can't help but people actually read the articles before declaring they falsify evolution?

TroutMac follows up two comments later.
Edit: Darn those question marks.

Date: 2007/08/29 05:19:58, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Tarnation, you beat me to it OMITSDDT. Well caught & good comment, although shouldn't the verb be bannination?

Date: 2007/08/29 20:26:49, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Joseph continues his tardity. Part of his post, aimed at PZ Myers:    
Look pal, if you can?t even follow a simple post how the heck can we expect you can follow the scientific data?

(This under O'Leary's Darwinist threat to sue filmmakers thread)

Edit: Not Joe G at UD, Joseph

Date: 2007/09/03 04:29:24, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Hooray! Larry chimes in.

Date: 2007/09/22 20:04:27, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Peter Irons responds to "Billy Botnick" over at Pharyngula.

Date: 2007/10/23 01:08:21, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Seizure Salad @ Oct. 23 2007,00:49)
Yee-haw for photoshops.

I found this one on the SomethingAwful forums a couple of days ago:

It's pretty good, but there needs to be a chunk of text that says "EXPERTS: And why you know more than they do."

That linkie doesn't work for me:
I get a message "No linking from this host:(", but on C&P-ing it I get:
The image “” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.
Can you fix?

Date: 2007/10/24 19:41:36, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Tard fight!



4:52 pm

Gods iPod,

You wrote,

   That smells of quote-mining to me.

What the heck is “quote-miniing”? Unless you are trying to argue that the quote is taken out of context the objection makes no sense. Personally, I think that the term “quote mining” is thrown around by people who are completely ignorant of the relevance and importance of an admission by a party opponent.

Date: 2007/10/31 01:05:24, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 30 2007,21:18)
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Oct. 30 2007,21:55)
Once again UD leaves me in despair. I don't know how you chaps stay cheerful all the time.

There have always been dumb people; there will always be dumb people. If you let that bring you down, you will be unhappy.

No, wait. You are really playing into their hands - remember this?
Believe it or not, it really helps that the other side thinks we’re such morons.

From WmAD himself!

Date: 2007/11/08 00:08:27, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 08 2007,00:03)
Quote (deejay @ Nov. 07 2007,19:58)
2.  Someone else here (please claim the credit you deserve) broke news of Dembski tripping over his own feet yet again by saying that Dembski had been "hoist by his own pe-tard."

When Davescot says something blatantly contrary to something Dembski's previously said, like that the designer doesn't have to be transcendent, or that only losers would argue against common descent, is Dembski then hoist by his own retard?

...or his own pet tard?
(Apologies to deejay for the near plagiarism but I thought the reference to DT gave it extra meaning)

Date: 2007/11/09 16:11:54, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Daniel King: "Hey - someone ban that guy!"


Daniel King


4:57 pm

   You sir, I am sure, will be both prayed over and condemed to hell.

I thought there was moderation on this site.

Date: 2007/11/12 23:46:36, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Aside, I wonder how long this comment will last there?

Well, for all his faults (and there are many) BarryA has shown a much greater toleration of critical comments than his friends over there, at least as far as I call recall:
Aesahaettr, yes, I know what a petard is, a seige device that lifted a bomb up beside a wall. “By” is the more ususal sense, but the original (in Hamlet) is “with.” “On” does no violence to the meaning.


Date: 2007/11/13 23:52:55, Link
Author: Ptaylor
For those like me afflicted by the tyranny of distance there is a good step by step liveblog of the show over at Pharyngula.

Date: 2007/11/19 18:10:30, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Uh-oh, comments on the book release thread have been disappeared! Has anyone saved them?

EDIT: Typo, and beaten to it!

Date: 2007/11/26 03:12:25, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Classic tard from long time UDer (only way to tell they're genuine nowadays) Robo:




2:25 am

Tyke, you sound like a hyper sensitive atheist scientist friend of mine who changes the subject every time Hilter is mentioned. If u r an atheist, you need to own up to the implications of your belief system.

I am NOT saying that being an atheist WILL make you into a Hilter. What I AM saying is that as an atheist you have no epistemic right to claim that moral vaules are absolute. Thus Hilterism, while entirely inconsistent with Christianity is entirely CONSISTENT with atheism.

Did you catch the shot of the leopard in the film?

As for being an atheist … have u heard of the presumption of atheism? Can u prove God does not exist? Then ditch atheism and become an agnostic for goodness sake.

Who is this Hilter and his Hilterism? Can I become a Hilter?

Check out Jehu's similarly incoherent follow-up comment.

Edit: I am sorry if I imply there is no more to criticise in Robo's comment - it is moronic on so many levels; I only chose one.

Date: 2007/11/28 23:50:28, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Oh dear. UD gets another visit from a real scientist.:




12:30 am

I’m sorry, but Casey Luskin isn’t qualified to evaluate Gonzales’ publication record. He’s a lawyer, not an astronomer. I, however, *am* an astronomer. While none of us will probably ever know what went on at ISU, let me offer some perspectives based on my *own* experience of the tenure process in astronomy departments at research universities.

Date: 2007/11/29 13:28:22, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Double bannination!





1:22 pm

After watching the actions of Lazarus and cdesignproponentsists for a while I decided to block them. I cannot tell if they legitimately believe what they are saying but they are not here to reasonably discuss issues, they are here to accuse people based upon a disagreement on priorities. Besides, some terminology they used made me suspect they were frauds. If they’re not going to have any positive contribution to UD I don’t see why they should stay.

Date: 2007/12/06 13:12:04, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (djmullen @ Dec. 06 2007,01:53)
Kwok banninated - from!

Check the Amazon review page and you'll find that Kwok's review is gone.  The graph now shows 9 five star reviews and zero other reviews.  Dembski gloats here.  See comments #13, 14 and 15.  If anybody kept a copy of Kwok's review, please post it here.

Here it is:
46 of 85 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Teach The Controversies of Evolution (Or How Not to Teach Science, Courtesy of the Discovery Institute), December 4, 2007
By John Kwok (New York, NY) - See all my reviews
On December 20, 2005 Federal Judge John E. Jones, a Republican jurist appointed by President George W. Bush rendered this decision:

"The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

"Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."

"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

"With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

Two years have elapsed since Judge Jones issued this historic verdict. A decision which was, without question, a staggering blow to both the Discovery Institute's Intelligent Design advocates, and to many others, who, regrettably, still harbor ample, rather disingenuous, pretensions to asserting the scientific validity of an idea that was soundly rejected once before, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and deserves its widespread current repudiation by modern scientists, especially from those who are professional evolutionary biologists (If you don't believe my claims, then please read the many ludicrous, often hysterical, comments posted by Intelligent Design advocates (who truly deserve British paleontologist Richard Fortey's perjorative nickname, IDiot) and other creationists at the product page for Dr. Michael Behe's "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits to Darwinism", often relying upon vituperative attacks on supporters of evolution, and in, general, on reason itself.). However, the conservative Discovery Institute, and its fellow intellectual travelers in the Intelligent Design and creationist movements are in a total state of denial, still refusing to admit their devastating debacle at the hands of a Republican Federal jurist. The most recent example of the Discovery Institute's ongoing delusional state is this very textbook co-authored by Discovery Institute Senior Fellows William A. Dembski and Jonathan Wells, who, in spite of their impressive academic credentials, have not published anything that would be regarded as valid mainstream science by their peers in the scientific community for nearly a decade and a half. Their book is the widely anticipated sequel to the earlier Intelligent Design creationist textbook "Of Pandas and People", whose "evolutionary" history was one of the important pieces of evidence used by plaintiff attorneys against both the Dover Area School District and Intelligent Design advocates during the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial. It can also be seen - and I believe quite correctly - as the Discovery Institute's last ditch effort at grasping at intellectual straws, by urging high school educators to "Teach the Controversy" - which this textbook emphasizes with respect to contemporary evolutionary theory - instead of trying to explain why Intelligent Design deserves ample, serious consideration as a valid alternative in attempting to explain the origins, history and current complexity of Planet Earth's biodiversity. Indeed, it should be regarded as a valiant, yet hopelessly inane, effort by two Fundamentalist Protestant Christian-oriented "scholars" who remain quite determined - almost to the point of religious fanaticism as seen from the likes of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda brethren - to seeing their narrow, tormented version of a Christian origin myth taught alongside genuine science in North American science classrooms and elsewhere around the globe.

This new textbook doesn't even try to defend Intelligent Design's pretense of being a better alternative to contemporary evolutionary theory in discussing the origins and history of life on Planet Earth. Nor does it demonstrate that it is valid science, but instead, stresses the current "controversies" with respect to our understanding of evolutionary biology, with topics ranging from those pertaining to the fossil record to evolutionary developmental biology; the latter known popularly as "evo-devo". Indeed, in private e-mail correspondence with both Dembski and Behe, I have received no definitive statements from either, indicating that Intelligent Design is truly, a compelling, scientifically more valid, alternative than contemporary evolutionary theory in explaining the origins and history of life on Planet Earth. Instead, the best response I received from them was this, quoting from Dembski, " Intelligent Design raises questions". It does indeed, but not those that he alludes to in his prolific writing, simply because he, Wells, Behe, Minnich, Gonzalez, and their fellow Intelligent Design advocates, have had more than fifteen years to make their case within the mainstream scientific community, and have failed miserably, not just once, but again and again (Much to my amazement, Philip Johnson, the spiritual "godfather" of the Intelligent Design "movement", has conceded recently that Intelligent Design is not yet a valid scientific theory.). I asked both Dembski and Behe these questions: "Where are Intelligent Design's testable hypotheses? Where are the productive scientific research programs inspired by Intelligent Design? Where are Intelligent Design's peer-reviewed scientific papers published in such eminent mainstream scientific journals such as Nature, Science, Paleobiology, Cladistics, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Evolution, American Naturalist, among others?" The replies I received were only deafening silence from both. So much for Intelligent Design's pretensions for being a valid scientific theory, right?

Dembski tries to make a persuasive case on behalf of Intelligent Design, using the same probabilistic models he developed for his "No Free Lunch" and "Explanatory Filter" concepts; the very models that have been harshly criticized by his former Ph. D. dissertation advisor at the University of Chicago, who is now a highly respected mathematician teaching at a prominent Canadian university (Incidentally, three times I have asked Dembski - who has a M. S. degree in statistics from the University of Illinois, Chicago - a basic statistics question which he couldn't answer, both twice, in person, after the 2002 American Museum of Natural History Intelligent Design debate, and, recently, in private e-mail correspondence: "How do you calculate the confidence limits for the Explanatory Filter?" Three times he hasn't provided me with any answer but a deafening, stony silence.). I wonder what the current president of the University of Chicago, distinguished mathematician Robert Zimmer - who is a prominent alumnus of my prestigious New York City public high school - thinks of Dembski's "research", especially when Zimmer has taught mathematics at the University of Chicago for decades, except for a relatively brief stint as the provost of Brown University (my undergraduate alma mater); it's quite possible that Zimmer served as a member of Dembski's doctoral dissertation committee in mathematics. Since Dembski's concepts are fundamentally, just metaphysical, pseudoscientific, religious nonsense, it seems that a more appropriate usage of his fine literary talents would be writing a textbook on Klingon Cosmology; a potentially lucrative suggestion that he has rejected (For reasons which I have noted elsewhere, here at, I believe that there is substantially more evidence in support of Klingon Cosmology than there is for Intelligent Design.).

Two years ago I attended an alumni gathering in the auditorium of my high school alma mater, New York City's prestigious Stuyvesant High School (Many regard Stuyvesant as America's premier high school devoted to the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. Its many prominent alumni include distinguished scientists, mathematicians, engineers and doctors, including four Nobel Prize-winning scientists and an economist; the most of any high school in the United States; with the notable exception of arch rival Bronx High School of Science's seven Nobel Prize-winning alumni in physics. Barely three percent pass of those taking the annual competitive, quite rigorous, entrance examination for the nearly 800 places available in the following year's freshman class; an acceptance rate that is substantially lower than gaining admission to Harvard University's undergraduate college.). Stuyvesant's current principal, Mr. Stanley Teitel, pledged that Intelligent Design would never be taught at Stuyvesant, as long as he served as its principal; a pledge made by Mr. Teitel during the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial (Mr. Teitel has taught physics at Stuyvesant since the mid 1980s, and still teaches one course of senior-level physics to a class comprised of entering freshmen.). Why did Mr. Teitel make this pledge? The answer is obvious. Unlike Dembski, Wells, Behe, and their Discovery Institute colleagues, Mr. Teitel recognizes that Intelligent Design is unscientific.

In my review of British filmmaker Matthew Chapman's hilarious, yet profound, eyewitness account of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial, I concluded with these remarks, which, upon reflection, are an appropriate ending for my review of this latest example of mendacious intellectual pornography - which is how I regard Intelligent Design - being disseminated by the Discovery Institute:

"I concur with Ken Miller's observation that introducing Intelligent Design into science classrooms would be a `science stopper'. It would conflate most students' understanding of what exactly is the difference between religious faith and science, though I suppose that some truly gifted students, like those attending prominent American high schools such as Alexandria, Virginia's Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Tchnology, and New York City's Bronx High School of Science and Stuyvesant High School, might readily understand and appreciate these distinctions. And yet I am inclined to agree more with the harsh view articulated by distinguished British paleontologist Richard Fortey in his essay published in the January 30, 2007 issue of the British newspaper Telegraph, contending that it is an absolute waste of time arguing with Intelligent Design advocates, and that they ought to be dismissed as `IDiots'; by extension, so would be the teaching of Intelligent Design alongside evolution in a science classroom. I would rather see talented students from Thomas Jefferson, Bronx Science and Stuyvesant engage themselves fruitfully in genuine scientific research of the highest caliber, than in trying to understand the metaphysical, religious nonsense known as Intelligent Design and other flavors of creationism. I think, in hindsight, so would Charles Darwin."

I didn't save any of the 30+ comments, although apparently the good Dr Dr can provide those.
Later: Hmmm - what does this 'Edit' button do?

Date: 2007/12/09 23:44:09, Link
Author: Ptaylor
R Bill:
(I was thinking we could save some time by simulating all this on a supercomputer. To make it realistic, we'll need to infect the operators with multiple diseases.)

We should also load lots of viruses into the computer!

Annyday re Shaner74:

Nobody could be this stupid. NOBODY.

You go and say something like that and - bang - Gil comes along.

Date: 2007/12/20 13:20:17, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Further to RTH's comment - Denyse's suggestion that UDers go over to Amazon to vote down negative reviews of the Dr Dr's latest book looks to have backfired.  




12:42 pm

A bunch of new negative reviews just popped up and in a matter of hours have received hundreds of positive votes. The Darwin propaganda machine is working overtime. The entire thing is such a joke.

Check it out at Amazon - sure enough there are 14 x 5 star vs 15 x 1 star reviews at the moment. I counted 13 vs 3 less than 24 hours ago. Anyone have any ideas about the huge numbers of votes on the new reviews?
Edit - Pharyngula explains a lot - thanks RTH.

Date: 2008/01/31 18:10:03, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Golly, the new post by Dr Dr Dembski has pushed all the other stuff a long way down the page!

Date: 2008/02/01 23:51:26, Link
Author: Ptaylor

Let me add my thanks for saving the 'debate' thread. I notice that Richard Dawkins has linked to your comment as well.

Date: 2008/02/14 13:18:51, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Looks like the link on DT's post no longer points to PTET. I wonder why?

Edit: As commenter Ric  at PTET has already noted.
Another edit: ...and by others in this thread. I'll just go away now.

Date: 2008/02/25 13:31:13, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 23 2008,20:56)
More Good Taste from UD:          
23 February 2008
Expelled change of release date centers on the dates of Darwin’s birth and death
Ben Stein’s Expelled ( was originally scheduled to be released on February 12th of this year — Darwin’s (and Abraham Lincoln’s) birthday. The official release date now is the weekend of April 18th. Saturday, April 19th, is the day that Darwin died. Perhaps this shift of dates is not coincidental.

If you’re going to see Expelled opening weekend, think about seeing it on the 19th to celebrate Darwinism’s passing.

There's a very slim chance this isn't a case of juvenile bad taste.  Many Catholic Saint's Days celebrate the day the saint became a martyr.  Maybe he's trying to say Darwin is a saint and martyr.  But I think that the odds of Salamanca not being a juvie prick are way over the Universal Probability Boundary.

Looks like the whole Expelled release/Darwin's death day thread has been 404-ed.

Date: 2008/03/12 03:25:42, Link
Author: Ptaylor
How's that? Too small? Still too big?

Just right for me, but it now shows an uncomfortable similarity between their logo and the one in your avatar - what's the relationship?

Date: 2008/03/27 00:54:34, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Dr. Dr. D wishes to remind us of how creepy he can be:
Last week was spring break at Southwestern Seminary where I teach. The seminary is located in Ft. Worth, about 200 miles north of Austin. As it is, in the middle of the break (last Wednesday), Richard Dawkins was going to be speaking in Austin. I therefore challenged my class to go listen to him and provide proof that they had actually been there (the preferred proof was to have him sign a copy of THE GOD DELUSION). The incentive to go was extra credit for the course. Six of my students went. I told them that they should greet Richard from me should they speak to him.

My emphasis.
Overtones of the nasty birthday message episode, if you ask me.

Date: 2008/04/04 00:12:53, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Another Brites post. Man, that's just plain embarrassing.

Date: 2008/04/07 04:49:42, Link
Author: Ptaylor
This is OT, as it does not come from UD, although it is a quote from our favorite twodoctors over at Baptist Press. He says:
"These sciences [i.e. archeology, forensics, SETI], however, are uncontroversial because any intelligence detected through them could be an 'evolved' intelligence," Dembski said. "Most of the action with ID, on the other hand, centers in biology, so that any intelligence involved with the emergence of living things is likely to be an 'unevolved' intelligence. ID therefore challenges materialistic theories of evolution, such as Darwinism."

Emphasis mine, & see full article  for context. Surely this goes against the standard "ID postulates nothing about the designer" line. Yes, I know he thinks he can spout off about who the designer really is (wink wink) when he is on friendly ground, but help me, where in ID before have we seen the concept that the designer is likely to be 'unevolved'? How is this assumption made? And how does 'most of the action with ID' centering in biology lead to the assumption of an 'unevolved' intelligence?

Mods/whomever: move this to the right place as you see fit.

Date: 2008/04/14 15:30:05, Link
Author: Ptaylor
DT has another <0.3 day.
See the comments. For posterity:
Dick to the Dawk on Bill Maher

I watched Dawkins on the Bill Maher show last night. Among other interesting things he said was when it comes to belief in gods if you were to rate his belief on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being most belief and 10 being least he puts himself at a 6. Then he compares belief in gods with belief in fairies and pink unicorns. So I guess he’s conflicted about those too. Bill Maher then ridiculed religion in predictable trite ways which caused Dawkins to reconsider the belief rating and up it to “6 point 9?. Hilarious. Richard Dawkins is really a centrist on religious beliefs. Who’da thunk?

Too bad Bill Maher didn’t ask Richard Dawkins to rate his belief in the existence of material intelligent agents who can alter the course of evolution by tinkering with the DNA of living organisms. Personally I put that “belief” at a 1 (no doubt) unless someone convinces me that Craig Venter doesn’t really exist.

Watch that '1 to 10' figure over the next few hours.

Date: 2008/04/14 16:35:04, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Yes, Dave has made a correction . But 1 - 7 is a silly foreign scale, and anyway he qualified the OP with "who'da thunk?", so he was right after all (as he is 99.7% of the time). My bad.

Date: 2008/04/15 15:38:56, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 15 2008,15:09)
DI, Hitler, Darwin:

What is it with those wankers? Oh yes:
The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site.

I'd forgotten that.

Date: 2008/04/16 05:48:42, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Dr 'That'sTwoDoctorsToYou' quotes someone quoting someone else:
A biologist I know recently bleached his hair and changed his appearance in other ways so as to be almost unrecognizable. I’m being deliberately vague about his looks and identity because he was going undercover. When I last saw him, he was ready for a stint of researching and lab work on intelligent design at a university that he declined to name. On returning to the lab after winter break, he said he would adopt a different disguise?
The purpose is to avoid being spotted by scientists hostile to intelligent design (ID). If Darwinists realized that this stealthy biologist was working in their midst, as the guest of a professor at the same university, they could make that host professor pay a heavy career price.

This has to be called bullshit upon. Going undercover, donning a disguise to 'research' ID? Presumably also gaining a fake ID, a fake career background/resume in order to somehow persuade someone to employ you to do this research? What research do you actually do? How do you explain the absence of the real 'you' in the meantime? What do you do with the research data that you've collected? (Actually one of the commenters has touched on this).
The purpose is to avoid being spotted by scientists hostile to intelligent design (ID). If Darwinists realized that this stealthy biologist was working in their midst, as the guest of a professor at the same university, they could make that host professor pay a heavy career price.

Could it be that this story is coming full circle around to describe the Dembski and Prof Robert Marks’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab affair from September last year? Sure, the story mentions a biologist, and Dr2 D is not one, but the post says details have been altered, and what do facts mean to these people anyway?

The whole post seems so dimwitted that I feel that I may be the victim of a parody. Somebody put me out of my misery if this is the case.

Date: 2008/04/24 02:38:38, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Heh, there is this post by the good TwoDocs. I like the last paragraph:

Hard as it may be to believe, I get my share of intemperate letters by (ostensibly) rabid Darwinists who listen to people like Dawkins, Shermer, and Dennett, and conclude that I’m trying to destroy science. Do I publicly charge Dawkins et al. with duping them? I suppose I could play Dawkins’s game, but I prefer to hold people accountable for their own indiscretions.

Bolding mine.
Ignoring the laffability of the first sentence, let's consider the accountability for indiscretions comment. It's a good point. Remember the sincere apology when caught using copyright material in his lectures?
Recall the graceful  climbdown after the Baylor Board of Regents affair where Dr D helpfully added:
In offering this apology, however, I mean in no way to mitigate the gravity of Baylor’s wrong

Heck, didn't Dembski first come to public prominence because of his model-of-discretion comments in the Polanyi Center affair?
I suspect I could go on and on (remember the Pianka/Homeland Security incident, and the snarky birthday message to Richard Dawkins) but it's dinner time.
Anyone care to add to this list?

Date: 2008/05/01 16:04:19, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Did anyone notice a post by Dr Dr D about the Darwin-Hitler 'connection' that was up for a few minutes? Something about critics getting their panties in a bunch. It was above the Pseudo-documentary post but it's gone now.

Date: 2008/05/04 20:40:46, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Dr.GH @ May 02 2008,21:24)

I watched a short part of an interview Stein did this afternoon on CNN Headline News talking head Glenn Beck. I got dizzy and had purple spots in front of my eyes.  Stein was explaining that even today German doctors pass out pills to kill people.  Maybe I hallucinated.  No... he actually said that.

Here's the transcript:
BECK: It`s exactly what happened in Germany. And what happened in Germany, when you couple it with this kind of thinking that you see in the movie, bad things happen.

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.


STEIN: Yes, yes, that`s happening a lot in Germany.

BECK: What`s the name of the pill? That`s being prescribed by doctors?

STEIN: Apparently it`s a super powerful barbiturate. And people take it and that`s it for them.

BECK: You say we`re never going to forget -- what the .

STEIN: The problem with that of course is what if you`re just in a bad mood for a couple of hours and you take it and then you`re gone for good. You can`t change your mind.

BECK: I don`t know if that`s the -- I mean .

STEIN: That`s one of the problems.

BECK: That`s one of the problems. The other problem, I see it, doctors are prescribing -- are killing people in Germany.

STEIN: Well, again you might say. Again. Yeah, again. We showed this -- we documented in the movie that they`ve been doing this for a while.

BECK: You know what, let me go to this because you went to the Hatimar (ph) Clinic which is a death clinic where the German doctors, took two of them, had to sign a form say, yeah, we`ve got to kill this person. Watch this.

Scroll about 1/5 of the way down, or Find the string 'pill'.

Date: 2008/05/09 02:40:03, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (didymos @ May 09 2008,01:12)
Back on topic, what the fuck is Dr. Dr.'s point?

Here's my guess: it's almost Friday, and there have been too many days since the comfort of Church Day - the pressure is growing. Something reminds him of Dawkins and he snaps. He goes out into the Internet and finds something that at first glance confirms some part of his low opinion of his arch nemesis. I have no idea what it is; quite possibly it is what Didymos speculates.

He adds, or is about to add, some snarky comment which would have explained it (and made the post hilarious), but a little voice of sensibleness in his head says "Hold on there, Wonderful - remember the times when We've felt like this and things haven't turned out as expected? Remember when We sent Dawkins that birthday message then crowed about how it was censored? We had to close down comments on that one. Remember almost having to (shudder) actually apologise after We were, well, not 100% correct, when we exposed Dawkins' pathetic publishing record?" [tip: the link now goes to a 404 page]

So he deletes, or doesn't add the comment, imagining the faithful will get the point. Which they, and everyone else, do not.

As I said, it's just a guess - any other theories?

Date: 2008/05/13 15:19:22, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Ho, hum - yet another bannination:




8:50 am

I think immature comments like those from dreamwalker007 should just be ignored. In any case, he’s now banned.

Date: 2008/05/21 01:44:52, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (nuytsia @ May 20 2008,10:09)

It could be worse, you could be living in Tasmania.

Think I might be the most isolated lurker here.
I wait to be proven wrong. ;)

We could perhaps argue that one - North Shore of Auckland, New Zealand is where I work and play.

And yes - rugby, watching, not having played since secondary school (it hurt).

Before this, living in Islington and working in Covent Garden, London. Once long ago 2 years in Bethesda, Md, just out of DC.

Date: 2008/05/22 16:44:15, Link
Author: Ptaylor
BS77 is back with his 12 things materialism didn't predict list!

Date: 2008/05/22 20:31:24, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Second bannination on the No controversy thread:
Cue: I’m not following this thread too closely, but to say that methodological naturalism is an essential ingredient of the scientific method betrays a gross ignorance of the history and philosophy of science. Indeed, it’s not even fair to say that there is one scientific method. Percy Bridgman put it this way: “the scientific method, insofar as it is a method, is doing one’s damndest with one’s mind, no holds barred.” In any case, you’re out of here.

It's Friday (at least where I am) - any bets that Dr Doctor is going for the record?

Date: 2008/05/25 04:25:11, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 25 2008,03:22)
Can we expect comments from Ms Sharples soon?

I think you mean Sheena Arples.  :D

Date: 2008/05/29 15:13:20, Link
Author: Ptaylor
M Caldwell won't be around much longer:


M Caldwell


2:33 pm

Mr O’H,

It seems Patrick is bent on running this thread into the sand with an inane post of mindless blather.

ETA: Wow S/he has pulled all the stops out - see comments starting here, including:


You are a bright guy. Why in God’s name to you continue to hang about with these losers?



M Caldwell


2:51 pm

Oh and Gordon E Mullings,

You are the most verbose, vacuous and vapid commenter it has ever been my misfortune to encounter.

Date: 2008/07/05 21:46:59, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 05 2008,14:12)
P slips in and out from time to time, and yeah, I think he uses the Bender av.

Happy birthday P, wherever you are!

Gee, thanks everyone. It's not actually Bender, it's Flexo, another Unit 22 bending unit (note the goatee).

For those who have asked I am a Kiwi based in Auckland, although I have also lived in London, and Maryland (DC suburban, although some time ago).

And, no, I am not the AIG P Taylor, although I was mortified to find that he, like me, is a Paul.

Thanks again.

Edited to fix the stupid implication that I didn't discover my own first name until recently.

Date: 2008/07/08 19:10:42, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Calling R Bill, calling R Bill; we have a bannination in progress:


15 DaveScot

07/08/2008 6:17 pm


We have gross models of gravity that permit us to predict trajectories of projectiles with considerable accuracy. Similarly, we have gross models of evoluton.

You really lost the plot there. NDE predicts nothing. Look at poor Dr. Lenski and his 20 years and 40,000 generations of E.coli. He couldn’t predict jack diddly squat about what or when (if anything) was going to happen to them in the way of evolving. All he could do was watch, wait, then when and if something did happen he could explain it after the fact.

You had better a get a clue pretty quick or you’re history here.

On second thought, get lost. That was just too stupid to tolerate.

Date: 2008/07/08 19:35:43, Link
Author: Ptaylor
You beat me me to it - well done.

Date: 2008/07/09 21:38:57, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Wow, this must be a first - Sal Cordova has been hit with the bannination stick (if only temporarily):


9:16 pm

stcordova’s last comment was deleted for inappropriate graphic sexual content and he, for the time being, is no longer with us.

Edit: Darn! Beaten to it again by olegt over on the BlogCzar years thread.

Date: 2008/07/15 17:59:36, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthday, bystander, from across the ditch.

Date: 2008/07/18 03:17:19, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (bfish @ July 18 2008,02:58)
And can we get a show of hands....... how many people have read damn near every word of part I of the Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread? I would be one. I'm sure I haven't missed more than 20 or 30 pages - and possibly none. Rather daunting, really, in retrospect.

*Raises hand

I don't comment frequently, but I was watching from the start.

And I also agree with earlier comments that just when you think UD can't keep up the level of tard - it does!

(Comment mostly added just to get onto the 1st page of this thread)

Date: 2008/07/21 20:33:56, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ July 21 2008,16:31)
For super DLH tard take a look at what he contributes to conservapedia.  That dunce makes Dave Tard look smart.

Any particular pages/articles there that you recommend?

I have noticed he (well a DLH) made an edit on the Wikipedia PZ Myers discussion page (see the stuart blessman heading) after the Expelled prescreening affair and got a pretty quick smackdown for "sloppy scholarship".

Date: 2008/07/23 02:18:51, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Slightly off topic, but I haven't heard any mention here yet of the 4 YouTube clips of Dr Dr D and Sean McDowell re their upcoming book. I found them here,  although you can go directly to the first one at YouTube here. Lots of good ID-is-science, praise-the-Lord sorta stuff. Money quote from the first clip - WAD:      
[I put this quote on all my syllabi] What you believe to be true will control you, whether it is true or not.

The ironing is delicious.
Apologies if this has been mentioned elsewhere here.

Date: 2008/08/04 15:19:07, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 04 2008,13:30)

Under his user name at UD, Cheesy Poof Boy hasn't ventured out of his yard for quite a while.

Actually, I spotted him over at Amazon defending Expelled yesterday. However, it is far from DT at his best - he does seem to have been out of sorts lately.

EDIT - Whoa! - I spoke too fast - Dave is back to form with a bannination! My sympathies, sparc.

Date: 2008/08/21 17:54:09, Link
Author: Ptaylor
PannenberOmega congratulates the UD moderators for not being arseholes...
The fact that Jack Krebs is still blogging on Uncommon Descent is a true testament to the fairness and good naturedness of the people who run this site.

...unlike himself:
If I were running this place, Krebs would be outta here so quick, your head would spin!

(Jack follows up with a perfect rejoinder two comments later.)

Date: 2008/08/22 02:50:13, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 22 2008,02:21)
Is UD currently down or do firewalls of universities protect users from ID BS?

It's down. So's UE.

Date: 2008/08/23 00:58:14, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Ho hum, another bannination, this time by the big guy.

William Dembski
11:59 pm

I’m paying special attention to this thread so that only civil, thoughtful comments are entered. “Physicalist,” whoever s/he was, is no longer with us.

Did anyone catch the offending comment?

Date: 2008/08/25 02:05:50, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy (probably belated) birthday.

Date: 2008/08/28 02:30:14, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 27 2008,22:03)
holy drooling fucktards this entire thread is one huge circle jerk of idiots trying to out-dumb-fuck the next.

easily the dumbest thing i have read in a while.  not even worth it.

Meanwhile Jerry and StephenB do their bit to keep the tard flowing on one of O'Leary's latest threads. Sample from Jerry (after Jack Krebs reminds him that the "vast majority of the world’s biologist[s] disagree with you"):
8:14 pm

Jack Krebs,

Could just one of that vast majority please provide some empirical data since you/we know that you cannot do so. You obviously know that you are making the fallacious argument from authority. You just admitted that there is no information otherwise you would be all over it. Is that any way to teach science to children and young adults. I would be embarrassed by your answer.

And Jack you have an educational background in evolutionary biology.

Ahh, that old combination of tard and arrogance that is the hallmark of UD. And I like the "just one of the vast majority" argument, so beloved of the creationists - "show me the one book, the one article, etc, that proves evolution". Imagine using it in a court setting:

There's been a murder - someone's been shot dead
The suspect was seen leaving the scene of the crime, gun in hand, after people nearby had heard the fatal shot
Forensics showed that the bullet had come from the suspect's gun and his DNA was all over the scene
The suspect had a motive for wanting the victim dead
Suspect's acquaintances say he admitted the murder to them

Fantasyland Judge Jerry: "Never mind all that - just show me the one piece of evidence that completely proves your case."

Date: 2008/09/03 18:53:51, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Trouble at t'mill:
2:24 pm
Like most cynics, Pigliucci’s attempt at irony backfires because his analogy contradicts his argument. Flat earth and Darwinist ideologies came first, and have become obsolete; round earth and ID sciences came later and are what’s happening now. If you are going to lampoon your opponent with historical references, the first order of business is to get hold of your chronology.

5:58 pm
How do you figure “Darwinist ideologies” came before creationism?

Edited to add:
It gets better. In another response DaveT loses focus on current thinking of world-shapism:

6:32 pm
Pigliucci said “creationism”. It was the focus, indeed the subject line, of his article “Is Sarah Palin a Creationist?”. Palin, like many conservatives, falls on the side of teaching the controversy over chance and design in the origin and diversity of life and letting people decide for themselves what to believe from there. Atheists are of course frightened spitless by this as even with exclusivity in the classroom to teach only their theory of chance they fail to convince many students. Pigliucci tries to use the tired old argument that presenting evidence of creation in contrast to evolution by chance is like presenting evidence of a flat earth in contrast to a round earth. Pigliucci, like many blind chance worshippers, doesn’t understand the difference. The evidence for a round earth really is overwhelming and easily taught. Nobody insists on presenting the evidence for a flat earth because virtually everyone, even knuckle dragging bible thumping creationists, acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for a flat earth. Pigliucci and scientists like him are frustrated at their own failure to make a convincing-enough case for evolution by chance & necessity that it can’t put down creationism as easily as the evidence for a round earth puts down evidence of a flat earth.

My emphasis. Yes, it is just a typo, but when it is Dave's, it's priceless.
Edited again to add:
Aww, he's gone and fixed it.

Date: 2008/09/06 02:05:57, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Heh - BarryA sends UDers over to the Onion and the first commenter doesn't get it:

IRQ Conflict
9:54 pm

That doesn’t seem like a news site. More like satire., realising that most IDiots have a near-zero rated sense of humour, rushes in to the rescue:

Hey Barry, this should be filed under “humor” or some of us, who are unfamilliar with The Onion, may get the idea that these people are for real.

A little later DaveT makes a quip about Poe's Law and - sure enough - if you check the URL they really have created a PL category. <irony meter joke goes here>.

Date: 2008/09/08 01:52:29, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 07 2008,22:12)
The Allmacht Of The Squid Hordes

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

Do we know who writes the PharyngulaWatch entries? If not what's the money on DaveT or Dr Dr D?

Date: 2008/09/12 06:40:49, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 12 2008,06:13)
The webcam animations... one wouldn't actually see any blackness in the vicinity of a black hole, I wouldn't think. Perhaps the physics folks can correct me, but my understanding was that collisions of matter beyond the event horizon would give off copious amounts of EM radiation, including light. Am I wrong on that?


Date: 2008/09/15 02:26:22, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Q: Imagine your name is DaveScot and you have just had your arguments totally eviscerated on the Internets. Who would you want coming to your rescue?
A: Why, Larry Farfromsane, of course:


Larry Fafarman


1:31 pm
Dave –

I told them off over at the Questionable Authority blog, where as you know they are giving you a hard time about your post here –

It’s comment #21 under the “Cause, Effect, and Cannabis” article.

Larry has made a couple of mistakes:
1. Broken the unwritten rule that the IDiots never link to materialist reality based blogs, such as this one where Dave has been pwned, and
2. Has failed, for the 6,483rd* time, to anticipate that his own comments will be torn to pieces.

* Jokelet stolen from Mike Dunford.

Date: 2008/09/19 23:40:42, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Jkrebs @ Sep. 19 2008,22:11)
Gil Dodgen speaks, wrapping science, politics and religion into one big happy bundle.  For the record:




9:42 pm

(blah blah blah)


I cannot see Gil's comment by following the link there - has it disappeared or have I missed something?

Meanwhile what are the odds on Trimbach avoiding DT's current baninating spree:

11:24 pm

Wow. I don’t get to use the word “jingoistic” very often, but if there was ever a time this is it. I realize this is the season for politics, but sheesh… this is little more than a tortured post hoc justification for war wrapped in a flag.

Date: 2008/09/20 20:50:17, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Another belated* happy birthday.

*I blame my time zone.

Date: 2008/09/20 23:40:57, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (bystander @ Sep. 20 2008,21:30)

<snip>Stuff about Gil Dodgen claiming to have once been a 'militant atheist'</snip>

Is there any evidence for this? Or does this translate to when he was a normal christian and turned kook.

I'm pretty sure the only 'evidence' (a somewhat nebulous term over at UD) you will find is Gil's own word. Here's a sample from a couple of years ago that gave me a good laugh:
26 October 2006
The Root of All Evil?
I am Richard Dawkins’ worst nightmare — a former militant atheist and Darwinist, who finally realized that everything he believed about everything that mattered was wrong. My conversion came from many sources, too numerous to outline in a brief post, but one of them was reason and examination of the evidence.

My emphasis.
Anyway, I think your second scenario is more likely - Gil is talking relatively about going from some form of mainstream Christianity to nutcasery.

Edit: Damn - out reasoned by keiths

Date: 2008/09/26 02:09:09, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Sep. 25 2008,13:27)
A tard called Domoman:

Man, I believe I could, and probably anybody on here, especially those blog on here, could totally defeat Obama in an argumenta about evolution. He probably believes in it based off of what he learned in colleges… which is close to nothing in reality. If you show one side of a story that supports and idea, of course it’s going to support that idea. Evolutionists like to ignore all the experimental data and just say, “Mutations can do this and that and Natural Selection will do this, and then ta-da! Evolution!” Go go education text-books!


With sock-puppetry, Poe's law etc, I've been hesitant to call tard on newcomers over there but I think Domoman is the genuine thing. Witness this in response to DT's latest GW rant:    
lol I don’t know enough
which was apparently sent prematurely, and compare with the follow up full comment:    

My iPod spazzed out and had me post before I was finished. :P Talk about fun.

What I meant to say WAS: I don’t know enough about Global Warming to debate with people about it, but I honestly think it’s a joke. Besides, even if it were to be real, I don’t know that I could do anything… well, I’m sure I could help out the masses who think they can. But who’s to say they can effectively do anything anyway? I figure I’m probably gonna die one way or another, global warming or not.

I’ve heard of a similar statistic from my former co-worker who said his class did a study and found out that what’s going on now on Earth has been happening for millions of years. Life is still on earth too… I’m not sure Global Warming is so deadly even if we grant that it is happening.

Ask yourself: how did the full comment add anything at all to the four words of the first?

Date: 2008/09/29 01:00:11, Link
Author: Ptaylor
DT has sensed the frustration settling in with the lack of action over at UD and has decided to liven things up with a bannination:


I would have thought, that the term “Drama Queen”, and kindred examples of fashionable internet lingo, would never see the light of day here. I am disappointed.

Drama Queen is fashionable internet lingo? Huh. I’m pretty sure I was using the term before Al Gore invented the internet. Be that as it may I didn’t expect to see anyone compare UprightBiped to Stalin or Khomeini. I guess we all have our crosses to bear.

Look, we already knew that ID was ecumenical. That’s why we call it the big tent. It’s not “Anything But Darwinism”. It’s design detection and it’s employed daily by everyone both consciously and unconsciously, formally and informally, to discriminate between the intentional and the unintentional. I think the most insightful thing you said here so far was that you don’t seem to be fitting in. I agree. Goodbye.

By the way, can someone tell me the correct protocol. Do posts like this belong on this thread, or over at the BlogCzar Years thread?

Date: 2008/09/29 01:03:08, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Bannination reported over here.

Date: 2008/10/07 14:28:35, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 07 2008,06:51)
Good stuff, but I don't think BDKnight is long for this world.

As you predicted:
[BDKnight is no longer with this forum. --UD Moderation]

Date: 2008/10/10 18:37:02, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Heh – this comment from Jerry a couple of days ago...      
DaveScot said he came to bury Darwin. I do not want to bury him but only move his grave to a less prestigious burial ground.

…reminded me that it drives the IDiots absolutely crazy that Darwin was interred at Westminster Abbey. Not just a church, which would have been bad enough, but a famous gol-darned cathedral! A couple of times I've seen UDers get whipped up and demand (not that anyone is listening) that Darwin's remains be dug up and be put elsewhere (presumably heaved off a local bridge and into the River Thames). This prompted me to search UD for references and I came upon this classic thread.
It dates from mid 2006 and viewing it from a two year remove reveals what was possibly a golden age of tard for UD. Dr Dr D asks his flock to consider the  Black Knight scene from Python's Holy Grail movie:
Just as Monty Python’s Black Knight was whittled from a full human to a stump, so evolutionary theory is finally being whittled to its proper size. Where, in the whittling of the Black Knight, is evolutionary theory (stage I, II, III, IV, or V?):

Hilariously, many of the responses are for V - a limbless torso and head shouting  impotent defiant challenges. Consider: this was a full six months after the Dover decision and the impact still had not properly sunken in on these people. The roll call is impressive too - crandady, GilDodgen, Joseph, leebowman and others including chunkdz, who has made himself so popular over at PT in the past few days.
Ah, good times.

Disclaimer/excuse for this post: OK, while this is by definition on topic, it is not particularly current. It's just that so many of the posts have been getting downright ugly over there lately.
Later: small edit for clarification.

Date: 2008/10/11 22:30:20, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 11 2008,19:01)
*Drags the Nixplanatory thread out from the garage. Drains and replaces the oil. Puts in a new plug. Taps some dirt out of the air cleaner and puts it back (no spare). Primes it. It starts on the first pull.*

Okay. Ready.

Dave has a special message for you:
Terry Fillups is hasta la bye bye. Please update your bannination lists accordingly.

Date: 2008/10/12 03:02:03, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 12 2008,01:05)
Forget About Global Warming Again?

...We have a keen nose for bogus science here, folks.

Nice catch. It's in the same vein as:
The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site.

seen at the footer of each Evolution News and Views post.

Date: 2008/10/12 16:32:21, Link
Author: Ptaylor
From the October surprise thread:
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Edit: H/T to Reciprocating Bill for my new sig line.

Date: 2008/10/13 03:17:44, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Rare out-of-natural-habitat DaveTard sighting:
303  DaveScot



*If you were born before November 14, 1986, you are a citizen if your U.S. citizen parent lived in the United States for at least 10 years and 5 of those years in the United States were after your citizen parent’s 14th birthday.

Back to the drawing board. Obamama didn’t qualify.

Dave has found a blog where commenters are even dumber than those at UD (don't ask me) and decides to try it on for size.

Date: 2008/10/13 21:04:52, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Probably not remarkable, but sometime between when DT blocked comments then reopened them on the 'October surprise' thread he deleted one of his own comments. It wasn't particularly obtuse, in fact possibly the most lucid comment on the thread, but for the record:
2:21 pm
Berg's Website Traffic Rank Skyrocketing

Anyone know what to make of that?

Date: 2008/10/14 01:27:32, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 14 2008,01:03)
My copy of the 1st 17 comments up is identical to the current one, so what mentok was talking about we're not sure. Perhaps someone saved a more recent copy of the thread.

Saw it, but didn't save it. From memory:
It was as mentok implied. It was a C&P of the text from a pdf doc (linked) ostensibly from the Pennsylvania judge (Hon R B Surrick, I believe) requiring Obama to front up with various documents (e.g. original birth certificate) and answer various questions (were you born in Kenya?) by Oct 15. However it appeared to be what Berg was suggesting the judge present to the defendant (copying and pasting by judges is OK in some cases and not in others it seems).
I have to admit it gave me a wtf moment, quickly dispelled by the fact this received zero coverage anywhere else, and, as mentok mentioned, it was not signed.

Date: 2008/10/14 19:31:41, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Skullboy @ Oct. 14 2008,16:44)
Just to document this before it's gone:

Another doomed UD comment



4:17 pm
Actually, Poe’s Law states that religious fundamentalists just cannot be parodied.

Of course on this site, I can see why you offered a slightly modified version of the true Poe’s Law.

...and now:

Date: 2008/10/16 19:33:34, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (steve_h @ Oct. 16 2008,18:14)
Was there something embarrassing on the Howard Stern Thread

It might have been this:
Check this out too. Evidently I’m more popular than even I thought.

...but I don't know. The link goes to a page headed "2008 Election Coverage - DAVID SCOT SPRINGER FOR PRESIDENT!", but the video component that it features never loaded for me despite various combinations of platforms and browsers. Has anyone here successfully loaded the video?

P.S. What's happened to the comic sans button?

Date: 2008/10/17 01:16:55, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (dvunkannon @ Oct. 16 2008,20:49)
Wow, 7 out of 10 responses to Scooter's post on Joe the Plumber are from... Scooter!

By Nov 4, Scooter will be the only one left on UD, and he won't even notice.

As sparc observed, very John Davisonesque. I like this bit where DT steers back into Obama-is-ineligible-to-be-President
mode and displays his lack of knowledge of recent American political history:


Nobody really needs to talk about the citizenship issue for it to play out. It's in one federal court in PA, one state court in WA, and rest assured courts don't take public opinion polls to decide the law. It isn't going away. It just gets to be a bigger and bigger mess the longer it goes on if it finally turns out Obama isn't qualified under the constituion. Obama's probably going to get disbarred over this as he had to swear under penalty of perjury when getting a license to practice law that he had not used any names other than Barrack Hussein Obama II. Pretty clearly he was also using Barry Soetoro as a minor in Indonesia (the law makes no distinction about your age) and as late as 20 years of age when he allegedly travelled to Pakistan using an Indonesian passport in that name during a time when you couldn't get into Pakistan with a U.S. passport. Perjury is an impeachable crime. Clinton almost got impeached for lying about a perfectly legal bj. Imagine how much worse for lying about the names you've used in the past.

My emphasis. Actually, you're wrong, Dave, he was impeached (try this link if you feel more at home there). But don't be too hard on yourself; it's a common misconception. Wikipedia:    
A typical misconception[citation needed] is to confuse it with direct and involuntary removal from office

Also, I like the little grammatical twist in calling the blowjob "perfectly legal". It seems to shift the emphasis away from the lying bit, which I find odd. Just saying.

Date: 2008/10/17 20:51:50, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I think someone's been visiting here. Dave on the 16th:
Perjury is an impeachable crime. Clinton almost got impeached for lying about a perfectly legal bj.

(Ahem) yours truly:
Actually, you're wrong

Dave on the 17th:
Perjury is an impeachable offense for a sitting president. Clinton got impeached, but wasn’t convicted, for lying about his sex life.

Date: 2008/10/17 21:13:52, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 17 2008,15:32)
DaveScot: A guy can’t be installed as POTUS that fails the background check for the highest level of security clearance in the United States of America.

Of course he can. A security statute or order can't override the Constitution. It's a decision for the electorate, not officials of the security apparatus of the previous administration.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

The President has executive powers and acts as commander in chief of the armed forces.

Dave now:
After some further reading it appears there’s no law or constitutional requirement that POTUS get a security clearance of any kind. Amazing.

Emphasis mine.

Date: 2008/10/23 01:55:40, Link
Author: Ptaylor
The comments on the Joe Biden, update 2 thread were a rich mine of tard, but nasty ole Allen_MacNeill spoils it by forcing the regulars to think a little before posting:
So, what exactly do any of the recent series of posts and threads have to do with the mission statement quoted above? In particular, what does ID as science have to do with being Republican, Christian, and anti-post-graduate education?

William Wallace, however, is not playing that particular game, here:
McCain is just a little less of a tragedy than Obama.

I’m hoping for a McCain/Palin victory, and that McCain promptly resigns.

Palin is the closet thing to Ronald Reagan we have right now.

and here:
No, but evolutionism is clearly a socialist/communist/democratic movement, juding by ERV and PZ scumbut.

P.S. This is my 100th post - do I get to know the secret handshake or anything?

Date: 2008/10/25 18:35:40, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (dmso74 @ Oct. 25 2008,17:36)
ps this post also gets bonus points for reference to phantom "ID researchers."

Phantom ID researchers? Jerry can identify them for you:
As the evidence pours in, it will continue to strengthen the ID hypothesis or weaken it. And the funny thing is that all this ID research is being done by those who support the Darwinian paradigm for all of evolution. So they are doing ID research and do not know it.

Jerry, you're a tard.

Date: 2008/10/27 22:58:47, Link
Author: Ptaylor
The first new thread in three days is up on UD. It announces the release of another gawd-awful sounding book.

I know I'm being very picky, but I would hope that a blurb writer would have a better command of grammar than to allow a mistake like this:
[Expelled is described as] one of the top twelve highest grossing documentary’s of all time.

My emphasis.
Edited to water down the blasphemy.

Date: 2008/10/29 02:21:15, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthday.

Date: 2008/10/30 02:16:21, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (olegt @ Oct. 29 2008,21:24)
Dave enlivens the stale board with a post Lest we forget Global “Warming”.  When some poor soul tries to inject a dose of reality, the comment is promptly expunged and a warning is sounded:
Put a sock in repeating any of the mainstream delusions in this thread. That view gets more than enough coverage elsewhere.

Sig worthy.

Why say this when it seems no different for every other thread you've ever moderated?

Thanks to Recip. Bill for making the links easy to find.

Date: 2008/10/31 22:19:40, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Heh, Frost122585 (is that a reference to Christmas Jesus's birthday 1985?) gets booted from DT's global warming thread, so he wanders over to Denyse's Liberal facism one, forgetting Dr Dr D's moratorium on discussing politics. Sample comment:
Finding some guy underneath a tree and giving him a ballot to fill out of who he thinks should be president is not a functional way for any nation much less the worlds most powerful nation, to operate.

Man, there is syrupy tard there. My shorter interpretation: Allowing people to vote is no way to run a democracy.

Date: 2008/11/01 03:23:46, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 31 2008,23:25)
What? It sounded like you said there's a thread on "Liberal fascism", on a forum on which political discussions aren't allowed?

When did "liberal" and "fascism" cease to be political terms?


A fair cop (as they say in old blighty) - my excuse: I was blinded by the tard.

Date: 2008/11/04 17:10:27, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Now on at UD - a video (YouTube link) of Richard Dawkins making perfectly reasonable comments spreading evil atheist lies.

I have a suspicion that you'd better be quick to catch it.
Any thoughts on why they are doing this?

Date: 2008/11/06 18:31:34, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 06 2008,16:45)
So not only do individual embarrassing comments disapparate, but entire threads get 404'd?  Just wow.
I guess I'm still learning about the UD way, as the rest of you don't seem surprised at all, and accept this as Situation Normal.

I don't speak for others, but the history revisionism is just one of the things that contributes towards the endless fascinations of UD. The frequent banninations, both announced and silent, provide amusement, as well as DaveScot's clueless macho posturings. As I've said before, I think the golden age for them is over (we haven't seen many Friday meltdowns lately), but the one thing that has given me the greatest pleasure there has been the simple gift of tard. One of my all time favorites:      

I am Richard Dawkins’ worst nightmare

P.S. What Advocatus Diaboli just said, too.

Date: 2008/11/06 21:42:20, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 06 2008,20:37)
I put on my Spike trenchcoat and went around to the usual tard haunts...OE, Telic Thoughts, Brainstorms, sign of him.

I went out and had a brief look for him too. FTK's blog, and, in what I thought might be a flash of inspiration, the discussion boards over at Conservapedia, and specifically the one on Barack Obama. It was not to be. The levels of wingnuttery and stupidity are about right for Dave, but if he were to open his mouth there he'd get into an almost instant ego clash with owner Schlafly and find himself on the other end of a bannination stick than the end he is used to.
It's hard to think of any other place than UD that has the perfect ecological factors for Dave.
Dave - please make an appearance - if only for the peanut gallery - we're worried about you.

Date: 2008/11/07 22:39:57, Link
Author: Ptaylor
The Dawkins video is back. As before it is on the sidebar where the "Intelligent Design holds that..." statement usually appears.

Date: 2008/11/11 13:52:14, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Jkrebs @ Nov. 11 2008,12:36)
Things are picking up - Dave seems determined to rock the boat, posting on "Would you want your daughter to marry a Branch Davidian."


I think we better be saving these threads before they disappear.

And the Branch Davidian thread has gone! (looks like I saved the wrong thread - who got it?)

Date: 2008/11/12 22:26:03, Link
Author: Ptaylor
A positive review seen over here.
I was a little annoyed to see the average rating for the article was 5 out of 5, but amused to see my one vote bring the average down to 1.

Date: 2008/11/13 17:08:55, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I don't haz any lolcats but have a belated happy belated birthday.

Date: 2008/11/14 00:03:25, Link
Author: Ptaylor
This could put the mention and pic of Dr Dr D currently on Conservapedia's main page in a new light. Caption:
Intelligent design leader William Dembski recommends reading Conservapedia's atheism and evolution articles.[13] Major developments are expected soon in relation to Conservapedia's evolution article! According to the journal Science, the evolutionary position is slowly losing support in the United States. [14] Watch this trend continue or perhaps accelerate! Stay tuned for further details!

My bolding.

Edited because I always spot a small mistake after posting.

Date: 2008/11/19 21:30:59, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 19 2008,13:59)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 12 2008,23:26)
A positive review seen over here.
I was a little annoyed to see the average rating for the article was 5 out of 5, but amused to see my one vote bring the average down to 1.

That shouldn't be mathematically possible...

Yeah, that's what I thought. My take on it is that possibly it had a default (zero votes) setting of five stars and that I was first to vote, making a 100% 1 star rating for a while. (Or evidence of a The Designer, as J-Dog suggests)

Speaking of ratings, I've noticed the vote count on customer reviews for Expelled at Amazon increasing by 3 or 4 each day lately, the majority of them being 5 stars. It's pushed the average up from 3 to 3.5 lately. I was going to say something wise-assy like anyone know a way of fixing that?, but phh - anyone reading a small sampling of the reviews will know pretty much straightaway what camp they're in.

Date: 2008/11/21 03:49:41, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthdays.

Date: 2008/11/23 02:02:56, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I was about to add a comment about Paul Giem's  response to the post comparing the historical importance of Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin (same birthdate, dontcha know):

I notice that Newsweek’s answer is Lincoln. I agree.

There always seems to be this urge to compare two people. But the contrasts can also be instructive. Rich educated kid versus poor kid, one who hung in the shadows versus one who was constantly involved in public life, and if some posts here are correct, a fundamentally dishonest man versus one who has become proverbial for honesty.

...when something far more entertaining came along from Feebish:
I’m not sure what you mean about Lincoln being fundamentally dishonest. It is true that it was not initially his intention to free all slaves in the US, but eventually he realized that he could and should do just that. I don’t think that makes him dishonest, and of course we all agree that he was one of this country’s greatest presidents.

Date: 2008/11/24 03:29:23, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthday.

Date: 2008/11/24 03:31:07, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy very belated birthdays.

Date: 2008/11/24 23:36:36, Link
Author: Ptaylor
An hour ago on the Chortle thread:
4 Responses

2 Responses

Missing in action:    
8:43 pm

IMO, this post serves only to scorn the anti-ID crowd and is unbecoming of us on the ID side. I find this embarrassing.

9:12 pm

It's funny because they're going to kill him for his beliefs.

Edit: Oops - my mistake - cache reading error (=user error)  as I've been switching between two computers. Please disregard this comment & thanks, utidjian.

Date: 2008/11/26 19:21:39, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Jehu has a little trouble delivering his koo da grah:

Sorry, I got so giddy trying to deliver a clever coup de gra to your unbelievably stupid post I forgot to check my formatting.

I won't bother quoting the rest of the post because the tard in it doesn't help my head cold.

Date: 2008/11/27 00:22:26, Link
Author: Ptaylor
The predictable has happened to JackInhofe:

Barry Arrington
12:21 am

JackInhofe, it does not matter. I gave two chances (you know what I mean) and you did not explain yourself. You are banned.

Maybe Ivana Tinkle will come along to fill his place.

Date: 2008/11/27 15:37:25, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 27 2008,14:54)
So, Barry Arrington is claiming that Coyne supports the position that the peppered moth myth has been completely exploded. But that is clearly not true! And Barry Arrington knows it.

To his credit, I think Barry Arrington has a slightly more developed sense of fair play than most UDers (which is not saying a lot). DT or Dembski would no doubt have simply disappeared Croizat and Bueller's comments. However I don't think this relative enlightenment bodes well for UD, as the main reason for its continued existence has been its very lack of tolerance of criticism from outsiders.

Just my 2c worth, and a happy Thanksgiving Day to all the USAmericans here.

Date: 2008/11/27 16:54:17, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 27 2008,16:14)
Barry and Dave are both douchebags. Barry's just less aggressive, more pretentious, and less funny.

I'm certainly not trying to deny that. I meant that Barry's apparent tolerance of critical comments cannot last. If it does UD will become a free-for-all and collapse. I think the UDers' refusal to look outward, and their sheltering of themselves from criticism are the main reasons they are still around.

Date: 2008/11/28 03:28:48, Link
Author: Ptaylor
It had to happen:  
Barry Arrington
3:51 am

Bueller_007 and MaxEntropy are no longer with us.

Date: 2008/11/28 16:24:10, Link
Author: Ptaylor
(Sigh) I make typos all the time, but I always proofread, and if I described myself as a journalist I'd try especially hard to keep them out of headlines:
Anthrop[ology: It’s now down to Darwinism vs. humanism - does mind matter?

Date: 2008/11/28 18:58:52, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Patrick has cut out all but the last sentence of colin_evans101's comment:

  Are you going to simply zap everybody who politely and respectfully disagrees with you.

I won’t, but since you decided to throw insults in your last couple comments out you go. Instead of zapping your offending comment I left the insult intact since it’s relatively mild.

For the record, here is the comment as it was before it was censored:
6:26 pm

I have to say I agree with MaxEntropy - I’ve read the article and I do not see any example of cognitive dissonance whatsoever. If anything I think the cognitive dissonance resides in BarryA in reading into this a conclusion he wants to be true. I also think MaxEntropy is a well-written rebuttal. It is YOU who need to read the article properly!

Are you going to simply zap everybody who politely and respectfully disagrees with you.

Does this mean I am also “no longer with us”????

Sigh…after reading this blog for two years I still have to learn anything convincing about ID. No wonder they call you IDiots…it’s well-deserved

Date: 2008/12/07 17:04:22, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Hmmm - problems persist:
This Domain ( Has Been Disabled

Date: 2008/12/08 02:43:55, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Anyone else notice that a certain spelling mistake was briefly corrected during the recent problems over there but has now returned?

You'll have to go back several pages here to find mention of it, Clive.

Date: 2008/12/08 16:20:55, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Erm - anyone seen Dave lately?

Date: 2008/12/10 19:50:47, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Atom is especially pleased with himself - he gets a joke made by a previous commenter:        

   Cornelius and Zira are going to be pleased with our progress.

I see what you did there. Good one. :)

Atom: "Wha??? Oh I get it - you made a funny."

Date: 2008/12/14 17:21:15, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 14 2008,16:13)
The liars at UD are at it again.

Pretty egregious, and relying on the fact that most regulars would be too incurious to check (let alone pay for access to) the article.

This needs wider coverage.

Date: 2008/12/15 17:18:26, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 15 2008,17:12)
Doering asks too many questions.

Barry Arrington: Norman Doering is no longer with us.

I wonder. If the bannings are not on the same post, but on consecutive posts, does that count as a double bannination?

...followed by:    
Barry Arrington
5:41 pm

As these two persons have just learned, the fastest way to get yourself booted off this site is to make personal attacks against the moderators.

For Barry, asking difficult questions=personal attack. Boo hoo hoo.

Date: 2008/12/17 16:58:05, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Venus Mousetrap @ Dec. 17 2008,16:27)
Have you noticed the 'Put a sock in it' page of stuff UD doesn't want to answer questions on has been updated with recent events, like Dembski's Eggplantery Filter?

Good lord, that page runs to over 14,000 words. They may as well shorten it to "We will not tolerate any dissent".
I did like this heading though:    
Lenski’s Research on Citrate-Eating E. Coli Refututes Behe’s Edge of Evolution Hypothesis

Edited to add emphasis.

Date: 2008/12/19 18:26:37, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I'm quite sure that [Darwin] would have laughed at the theory if he'd been around today.

And both she and Barry are on to the cells-are-full-of-miniature-machines schlock now.

Date: 2008/12/19 20:43:12, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (keiths @ Dec. 19 2008,20:21)
Thanks, Bill.  I was 'Keith'.  Still am, actually.

Bravo keiths - well done. You were the very voice of reason countering O'Leary's wild assertions. Pity that she made so many given the limited air time you were given to respond.

Date: 2008/12/23 03:52:00, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 22 2008,23:27)
Denyse bumps the shark <snip>

Well spotted. Quoting O'Leary:
Recently, I got mail. Some U dullard thought I had bumped the shark,

Gawd that is dim. I has no photoshop skillz but maybe someone can improve on this:

How does one 'bump' a/the shark?

Date: 2008/12/23 15:31:36, Link
Author: Ptaylor
DonaldM's latest post tells me there are a number of things I (presumably I am part of his target audience) need to consider:    

Erm - not a good start, Donald: ALL CAPS and a glaring typo smack in the middle (yes, I am the grammar police, and yes, it is a copy and paste job, no excuse).
But let's see. Point 1:
1. Evolution by natural selection is more plausible in a theistic world than an atheistic world.

Evolution in a theistic world is possible if God pre-programmed the universe and infused Nature with information (the ultimate fine-tuning argument).

Evolution in an atheistic world is absurd. <snip the rest>

Um, no, Donald. I see no need to read any further into this religiously motivated creationist crap.

Date: 2009/01/08 23:14:05, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 08 2009,22:55)
I am trapped:        
You are attempting to log out of Uncommon Descent

Please try again.

Oh no - you could be trapped in there all night. Think what damage this could do to your IQ! My advice - concentrate, concentrate; keep pushing against the tardflow. Whatever you do don't stop thinking.

Good luck sparc, we're thinking of you.

Date: 2009/01/10 20:48:35, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Er - I hate to break this to everybody, but tribune7 has a message for us:
I just posted a list of quotes by great scientists ridiculing atheism.

We have won this debate — their is a designer — on he grounds of reason, rationalism and logic.

Where we hit barriers is when we accept their unsupported premises (methodological naturalism is the arbiter of truth) and their double-standards i.e. “You have to prove this to the nth degree but we don’t have to even try to prove this” or “this is acceptable to teach while this is unconstitutional”.

We have to recognize that we have won the science debate and start preparing for political battles.
(My emphasis)
So that's it then - we (and the mainstream scientific community) have lost in the argument regarding design. Well, I'd best be moving along then. So long, everyone - it's been good knowing you.

Date: 2009/01/13 02:55:53, Link
Author: Ptaylor
The page on Richard Dawkins is especially good (they don't seem to like him very much), first header:    
Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped*

...although it's not as funny as it was until early November last year, when they had a photo of Adolf Hitler (not RD) as the main image at the top of the page. The talk page comments regarding this are especially hilarious.

*ETA - I assume everyone here knows what this refers to - ask if necessary.

Date: 2009/01/18 00:05:02, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthday.

Date: 2009/01/18 13:26:42, Link
Author: Ptaylor
(Trying to get thread back on-topic,) in his latest post Dave has invented a new word:  
<snip> Well, I for one would like to know exactly what flaws in Origin of Species Fuller thinks are acknowledged. Furthermore, I know plenty of Christians who believe much of the bible is methaphoric. <snip>

Anyone know what to make of that?
I also want to preserve this:      
They don’t think the earth and life was created in 6 days. They don’t think Lot was literally turned into a pillar of salt. They don’t think the entire earth was flooded and all the animals were saved in pairs on a wooden ark. it may change. The first comment points out that it was Lot's wife, of course.

Date: 2009/01/19 19:24:07, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 19 2009,18:45)
This is from the blog Uncommon Descent. For those that don't know, DaveScot is the most feared Darwin skeptic on the net as he has routinely used his superior scientific knowledge to put Darwinists in their place.

Wow - I thought that comment was made with sarcasm until I followed the link. The lackwit actually means it.

Date: 2009/01/20 17:39:19, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 20 2009,13:31)
@olegt: I just want Darwinists to acknowledge that ID has peer-revied papers published with positive ID evidence (of course technically the articles are not published yet).
If you think those papers contain errors, it's up to you to prove it.

I realise it's just a typo, but just for clarity - you meant reviled, right?

Date: 2009/01/22 14:33:49, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Jerry is a tard:
Will Obama celebrate February 12th as Lincoln’s birthday, the first president from Illinois? Of course he will but will he also mention Darwin.

If he does the latter which I doubt he will do, he will be inviting unnecessary criticism which I am sure he doesn’t want.

What on earth are you trying to say, Jerry?

Date: 2009/01/24 04:46:49, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy (belated) birthday to both of you.

Date: 2009/01/27 03:23:02, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (nuytsia @ Jan. 27 2009,02:27)
Quote (keiths @ Jan. 26 2009,15:47)
In its first 30 seconds, the video du jour on the UD homepage manages to misattribute a famous Richard Dawkins quote to Charles Darwin.


Jeebus. What a crock.

I notice one of the commenters declaring "Darwinism" dead is quoting Davison.
Nice touch!  :D

...and the final* speaker is Lee Strobel saying "[b]ecause today science is pointing more directly and more powerfully toward a creator than any other time in the history of the world". The product endorsed is a trio of DVDs: 'Unlocking the Mysteries of Life', 'Privileged Planet', and 'The Case for a Creator'.
No religion there, folks.
*I went there so you don't have to.

Date: 2009/01/27 20:34:29, Link
Author: Ptaylor
This gave me a chuckle. Over on the Is Evolution Biased? thread BA77 decides to derail it in the first comment, linking to a godtube video of a creationist using mathematics to show that evilution is impossible. (BTW, Larry Moran has a good takedown of the guy.)
The maths is all over BA's head and new (I think) commenter B L Harville decides he also needs advice on the English language:

[quoting a previous comment]“Do you know if he applied natural selection to the algorithm? I wasn’t sure after I watched it the first time.”

He is assuming no selection. The speaker is assuming that genes are put together at random and then calculates the odds against that happening. The odds of course turn out to be astronomical so he concludes that evolution is impossible. When your conclusion is the same as your assumption you are committing a logical fallacy known as a “tautology.”

(My emph.)

Date: 2009/01/30 23:59:36, Link
Author: Ptaylor
[quote=JLT,Jan. 30 2009,16:36]          
# 3
Summary: Someone gave an oral presentation about ID as a PhD student and still got his PhD. That just goes to show how science is suppressed and hindered.
Gonzales didn't get tenure.
A professor wrote an article saying that "Yes, creationism is discriminated against, but this is precisely as it should be. It is the responsibility of teachers and school officials to discriminate against incompetently conceived subject matter and also to discriminate against anyone who advocates that such materials be given positive cover in science classes." This is obviously unfair suppression of ID because if we had found a computer on Mars before we invented computers ourselves we would have had concluded that it must have had a designer.***
*** Or something like that. In the likely case that I mangled every grammar rule in existence in that one sentence: I did that on purpose, to underline the absurdity of his argument. Naturally.

No, you got it right the first time; that's pretty much what he said. I especially liked the last bit. It used to be a watch in a field, but now it's a computer - on Mars - in the past! That fails on so many levels I don't know where to start (so I won't).
I also noted the throw-away line in the non story about the friend who got his PhD: "he later went on to become a pastor", which of course does nothing for his argument and can only raise doubt about his friend's possible anti-science bias in skeptical sane people.
By the way, the narrator's voice and breathless delivery reminded me of none other than Casey Luskin - he may well have a bright future in creationism, creation science, ID, critical analysis, the academic freedom movement.
Edited to add a bit of bolding.

Date: 2009/02/01 15:39:38, Link
Author: Ptaylor
The UVM commencement thing is all over. Stein has backed out.

What's the bet that this gets spun as yet more persecution?

(Edited to clarify)

Date: 2009/02/02 13:32:01, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Heh: William Wallace:
Wow, thanks for posting this video. Outstanding. And it has PZ running scared. Great stuff.

Yes. PZ Myers is running scared in the same way that Richard Dawkins is having nightmares about Gil Dodgen.

Date: 2009/02/02 19:39:41, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 02 2009,14:33)
I love Teh Classics!  

But please explain your filing system to us!

Do you have this filed under Crap, total Crap, GilDodgem Craptacular, ID Crap, Stupid, Stupid Clueless... The possibilities are as endless as Gil's beautiful little ruffles on Gil's beautiful endlessly frilly shirt...

Easy - I have three levels: Tard, Deep Tard, and Gil. It's a sad reflection on my life that I really do have a selection of text files C&Ped from UD sitting on my hard drive (although most of them are of comments that I thought were likely to be disappeared when Dave was waving his bannination stick around).
Anyway, while I have searched for that link before, this time 'round I cheated and swiped it from a comment from oldmanintheskydidntdoit, who was responding to carlsonjok's hilarious list matches from a few days ago (h/t to you both).
Anyway, speaking of Dave, he appears to have reverted to his speaker in the ceiling approach in this comment by Mark Frank:
Dave Scot [217]

If you want to continue participating in this thread I suggest you drop the pedantics.

I apologise. I will refrain from pointing out any minor or careless errors that you make in the future.

If the odds of something happening are given as 9:1 by definition the reciprocal, the odds of not happening, are 1:9. That is no error. I don’t mind when real errors are pointed out. -ds

Presumably Dave is no longer scared of a reprimand from Dr Dr D.

Date: 2009/02/03 00:00:30, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 02 2009,20:54)
Borne waxed philosophical about the fate of ID:            
ID (or some other form of it) cannot fail.

The truth always comes out in the end.

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

-Arthur Schopenhauer

We’re still in phase 2.

ID started at phase 3 (way back in the beginning), then men invented materialism.

Like antimatter, creationism moves backwards in time.  And your watch is late, Borne.  ID is already well into phase 1.

Great, they're back on the "first they ignore you,...then you win" theme. Poe or not, when someone like alaninnont says        
"Greater than the tread of mighty armies is an idea whose time is come."

Victor Hugo

...I have to marvel at the irony and the lack of self awareness these bozos have. They think ID is the struggling hero in the equation, when the whole of the rational world sees that it is not; it is one of the last dying remnants of a worldview that the theory of evolution has overturned. (Yes, it is taking a mighty long time, but I stand by this.) The ToE is perhaps the best example of the Hugo quote. If it wasn't Darwin, Wallace would have presented it. If not Wallace, history shows us that that any number of other individuals (or teams) would have led us to the modern evolutionary synthesis of today.
They are on the exact opposite side that they think they are on.

Date: 2009/02/03 03:35:31, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Wow - bitter?

Date: 2009/02/03 14:24:37, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Kairosfocus on the FAQ 1 thread:  
A short remark:<snip>

566 words follow.

Date: 2009/02/04 23:51:48, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (JLT @ Feb. 04 2009,07:27)
Surprise: Casey Luskin thinks Ben Stein was EXPELLED by the University of Vermont.
Again, Fogel’s denial that this bears upon academic freedom has a huge credibility gap: Fogel claims this isn’t about freedom of expression, but it seems clear that scholars aren’t free to express support for intelligent design or they are charged with “ignor[ing] the basics of scientific inquiry.”

Obviously, my academic freedom is restricted by my university (and every other university). Never got a honorary degree. QED.

(ahem) Me, the other day:  
The UVM commencement thing is all over. Stein has backed out.

What's the bet that this gets spun as yet more persecution?

For my next trick I predict the sun will rise tomorrow in the east!

Date: 2009/02/06 23:06:14, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Sorry, I made a comment here about non existent links, but it turned out to be a user (cache) problem.

I'll get me coat.

Date: 2009/02/07 21:10:18, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Jerry suggests a game:
This continues my theme that investigating edge of evolution ideas is ID research.


Make believe I am a scientist. <snip the rest>

(My bolding)
A strange choice of wording - are we dealing with children here?

The rest of the post is just bizarre. Jerry asks us to 'make believe' he is a professor of biology involved in a project studying the genome of a group of animals. His work makes him a "hero" in the scientific community but his colleagues don't realise that he's been secretly doing ID research all along! (In his work he has found out that only microevolution has happened to his study group over 10-15 million years; something his colleagues have somehow overlooked). Of course, Professor Jerry cannot tell anyone about this for fear of being expelled. He can, however, rely on a latter day Michael Behe to come along, publish and interpret his data, and thus deliver the final death blow to Darwinism.

And that's why ID is science.

(Well, that was my take on it; I am sure Jerry would be welcomed here if he feels I have misrepresented his post.)

Date: 2009/02/08 22:18:23, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Good old Gil never lets us down:
Since you are a Catholic Christian (please know that I have tremendous respect for Catholic Christians – and I would put Denyse at the head of that list), I have a question. Within Catholicism, as far as you can discern, how widespread is the soul-selling, split-the-difference, have-it-both-ways phenomenon? I see this within the evangelical church in some instances as well, and it depresses me, because legitimate science is overwhelmingly on the side of design.

Date: 2009/02/08 23:26:20, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 08 2009,23:02)
Author?  Linky please?

That was Gil, again, same link as in my post above.

Date: 2009/02/09 14:09:09, Link
Author: Ptaylor
News just in! G K Chesterton alligns himself with Intelligent Design movement. Dateline, er, 1920.

Date: 2009/02/11 14:23:59, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 11 2009,13:18)
The objectives of the designer may be much more insightful than anything we could come up with
which of course doesn't hinder jerry to believe his insight being sufficient to explain what Godthe designer wanted.

Yes, Jerry is churning out the tard in prodigious amounts these days. I especially liked this part in that comment:
There is a theory that earth worms were needed in the pre Cambrian to churn up the rocks so that the rocks would behave differently to tectonic pressures.

Date: 2009/02/11 14:51:54, Link
Author: Ptaylor
It's well into the 12th February where I live, so I'd like to be the first here to honour the memory of Charles Darwin and the fantastic contribution to modern science that he made on this, the 200th anniversary of his birth.
(And not forgetting you, too, Mr Lincoln).

Date: 2009/02/11 16:23:40, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 11 2009,15:19)
added in edit - Ptaylor - You're New Zealand right?  Say hi to k.e. if he's out on bail mate...

Yep, I'm in NZ, but I think k.e. is a Kiwi living in Australia. If he is out on bail I sure hope those bush fires aren't the result of his church burnin' gone wrong. </tastelessness>

Date: 2009/02/12 17:41:37, Link
Author: Ptaylor
These guys don't do well when they leave the shelter of their comment free zones. Casey Luskin indulges in a 6,750+ word whinefest here. Don't bother reading any more than the first few paragraphs - they set the tone for the rest of the piece. The comments, however, are worthwhile.
(Sorry if this is off topic - it's not about the DI, but it is Casey.)

Date: 2009/02/12 22:23:56, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Our old friend Joseph, over on the Casey Luskin thread:

Casey just needs a little “seasoning”.

And most Darwinists’ websites don’t deserve a response.

However if you think ID needs someone to “mix it up, don’t back down, stick the evidence in your face and make you eat it”, so to speak, I know the perfect guy.

And he just happens to be recently retired so he has the time.

WTF? Could Joseph actually be referring to himself? If he is then that has got to be the stupidest idea I've seen over there ever in about a week.

Still, the idea is intriguing - would Joseph/Joe G/etc make a better or worse spokesman for the DI than Casey? It really does make my head hurt. More entertaining, I suppose; Casey seems to shrug off all criticism (no matter how valid and rational), but Joe resorts pretty quickly to thugishness. I can see the headline now: "DI spokesman held on charge of assault."

The more I think about it the more I think we should get behind Joseph in his bid. Go Joe!

Date: 2009/02/13 00:29:49, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (afarensis @ Feb. 12 2009,22:59)
That went in a completely different direction than I thought it would. When I read the bolded part I immediately thought of Davidson ???

Well, the idea of Joe referring to himself is just a hunch on my part, but it seems to fit.

Still, I like the idea of Davison. I can imagine him at a press conference: "GOT THAT? WRITE THAT DOWN!"

Another candidate could of course be DaveScot hisself:
Journalist: Mr Springer, how do you respond to critics of the DI who point out that...

I think any one of the three of them would do an excellent job as spokesperson for the Discovery Institute.

Date: 2009/02/13 22:18:17, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 13 2009,12:58)

Your stunning scientific hypothesis is proven out and validated.

Joe Volunteers

Thank you for this honour.

I noticed quite a long time ago that Joe has - might I say - an elevated estimation of his abilities. This little comment two and a half years ago was telling:
To this day I kick myself for not going to the “Kitzmiller” fiasco…

Date: 2009/02/15 21:02:46, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Wow, Allen MacNeill is really going to town over there - 15 out of 45 comments so far on the Darwin's racism (I can barely bring myself to type that) thread are his. The latest is a good one:
In #41 tribune7 asks:

   “And from this eukaryote created by serial endosymbiosis, how many advantageous mutations would it take for it to develop lungs, limbs and a spine?”

We don’t know yet, but people working in the field of evo-devo are closing in on the answer to this and many other questions. What empirical research are you and the other ID supporters doing to validate your hypotheses?

MacNeill is one of the few anti-IDrational and educated people they have tolerated but this may have a few of them hoping someone will step in with the bannination stick.
Whether this happens or not my prediction is that he will not be allowed the last word on the thread.

Date: 2009/02/16 13:19:19, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Reciprocating Bill, get ready:
Clive Hayden
1:18 pm


“No, it’s the folks who regularly post at this website who “worship” certain human beings. The fact that they do so without showing any critical faculties whatsoever (indeed, they believe that doing so would be blasphemy)…”

I was dead serious when I warned you against this sort of incendiary language. Stop, or I will stop you.

Date: 2009/02/18 12:59:33, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Kia ora, mate.

Date: 2009/02/20 01:07:40, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Dear Dr Klinghoffer,

I read and enjoyed your article "What Is Hypocrisy, After All?" at Evolution News & Views. I followed your links to Pharyngula and to Prof Gotelli's web page (and from there to his Burlington Post op-ed piece). Both pieces were of course outrageous and both (i.e. Pharyngula and the BP article) had comments sections where readers could voice their disapproval or otherwise.

Where can I provide feedback like this on EN&V?


Paul Taylor

Date: 2009/02/20 15:13:27, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Barry A has had enough JackInHofe:
JackInhofe is no longer with us.

- From the very tasteless Is this Darwin's legacy thread. Jack's comment is nowhere to be seen - if it did appear did anyone catch it?

Date: 2009/02/21 22:03:06, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I'd just like to register my personal offence at the title of this thread.

Date: 2009/02/22 21:49:40, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 23 2009,16:43)
Meanwhile, UD remains a good source.  Gil provides a killer argument regarding design:
Type or copy e^(i*pi)+1 = 0 into Google, and click on the first link.

This is Euler’s famous identity. e is an irrational number generated by (1/0! + 1/1! + 1/2! + 1/3!…) and is the famous Euler number that appears everywhere in mathematics. i is the square root of -1 (the imaginary number). pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter and is also an irrational number. This identity combines all of the most essential numbers in mathematics into a beautiful identity.

What do i, pi, e, 1 and 0 have to do with each other? i is a totally abstract concept, pi has to do with geometry, e is the basis of the natural logarithm, and e^x is its own derivative. 1 and 0 represent the basis of Boolean logic.

Those who deny that there is intelligence and design behind all of this do so at their own peril, in my opinion, and without excuse.

I [heart] Euler's formula as much as the next guy, but the last paragraph is a complete non sequitur.

Heh, carlsonjok's D1!

Date: 2009/02/23 20:28:27, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Feb. 24 2009,14:32)
Save me I'm posting over there

Do my arguments make sense to you guys? It's hard when you go through the looking glass

Amanda, your posts are rays of coherence in a quagmire of tard. I especially like #43:
The same morals. You have got to be kidding me. What are these standards. Is it moral for Phelp’s to picket soldier’s funerals? Other Christians welcome homosexuals into the congregations. Some Christians think that it is immoral for a wife to disagree with her husband. Unless you want to play the no true scotsman fallacy, Christian’s have a wide range of moral views. <snip the rest>

However, you can't expect to win when you get responses like StephenB's
—–Mandy: My point is that using the morals argument against atheists is a weak argument and is based around a strawman.”

Your point happens to be wrong. The Natural moral law is universal, objective, and binding.

[A] If it isn’t binding, then it isn’t morality. It may be a norm, a fad, or a value, but it is not a moral code.

[B] Atheists have no universal, objective, binding standard for morals. If you think that they do, you have the floor. Please provide that standard.

[C] While you are at it, tell me how you build a well-ordered society around the one you provide.

You can respond to such boneheadedness (which will provide entertainment for us here and other visitors to UD), but they'll just come back at you with more of it. It reminds me of the quote: "Never argue with a stupid person.First they'll drag you down to their level, then they will beat you with experience."* Not that I suggest you stop; I'm enjoying that thread immensely.

*Sorry, I cannot find the source for this.

Date: 2009/02/24 16:46:57, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthday.

Date: 2009/02/25 03:08:47, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Feb. 25 2009,20:14)
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 25 2009,16:37)
Is there some hidden code CSI in Dembski's tie?

ETA: replaced cody by CSI

Make a good caption contest.

"I'm ready to overthrow the whole science of Biology, but could somebody tell what this staircase thing behind me is?"

You've nailed it. Not just Dembski, but the whole ID/anti evolution movement.

Date: 2009/02/26 01:21:10, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 26 2009,19:48)
Because even 150 years ago, bronze-age religions were starting to run out of steam?  Because all of the "evidence" for the existence of God turned out to have natural explanations?  Because of the obvious immorality of much of Christianity?  Because the foundational beliefs of Christianity (Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, The Fall, The Flood, The Exodus) turned out to be false? Because there were about a hundred different versions of Christianity in existance by then and all of them were absolutely positive that the other 99 were 100% wrong?  Because the IQ of humanity has been gradually rising and the more intelligent people were starting to see through religion?  Because Christianity is full of idiots?  Because Darwin was given a vision of the future and when he read some of the tracts from a Prominent Toronto Based Journalist, he said, "To hell with it, if there were a God, IDiots like her would not exist"?

Off topic (sorta), but BBC Radio recently put out a very good drama on middle and later life of Darwin from a domestic point of view, using the writings of Charles and wife Emma as source material. If you have a spare hour you can listen to it here (that link won't last for long, but you should be able to search for it by title: LIKE CONFESSING A MURDER). Be prepared for a weepy bit, you hard hearted AtBCers.
While the UDers will find the title good for quotemining, the content will disappoint them - the BBC has completely ignored (censored?) all instances of puppy beating, racism and sexism, and Darwin's plans to inspire Adolf Hitler.

Date: 2009/02/26 18:40:07, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Pfff, six thousand, six million - surely either is close enough for Dave.

Date: 2009/02/26 23:42:22, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Kia ora.

Date: 2009/03/01 15:53:02, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Mar. 02 2009,09:59)
I try to repeat the mantra "These people are LOSERS, These people are LOSERS" and just laugh at them.

You don't have to repeat it to yourself; they will remind you themselves on a regular basis. For instance, look at O'Leary's latest post:  
Johnson: refers to the owner of the news aggregating, formally conservative, anti jihad site and now anti-creationism pro Darwin website Little Green Footballs.

Link, emphasis mine.
'Formally', Denyse? I don't think so. And what do you do for a living again? Oh yes, you're a journalist and writer.

Date: 2009/03/05 18:33:34, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthday.

Date: 2009/03/05 19:07:04, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 06 2009,13:16)
Fine, argue away Joseph, internet kook harms nobody really. Yet on another level you can just imagine somebody like Joseph running for election for a position where they can set school lesson plans using those exact arguments.

Joseph, November 2007:
All I can say about this fiasco is I cannot wait until I get elected to a school board.


Date: 2009/03/09 15:51:39, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Ray Martinez drops by on the cannot-live-by-scepticism thread and takes issue with Jerry. Sample:
Jerry (#182): “Nearly every paper of the several hundred thousand if not all papers in evolutionary biology are either neutral on design or support design.”

Egregious and inexcusable ignorance.

Date: 2009/03/10 16:05:44, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (JLT @ Mar. 11 2009,10:50)
A new all-time low: All atheists are racists.
The really interesting question for me is, why don’t the atheist materialists I have met just admit and repudiate Darwin’s racism, instead of telling me how much they admire him and what a great hero he was?

They never do. Is that because they secretly believe it and hope for the day when they can admit it openly?

That whole post is nauseatingly vitriolic against Darwin and his 'followers'. I'm pasting the complete post here because an optimistic part of me thinks that they will do the decent thing and pull it:
10 March 2009
Gotta hand it to the ol’ boy …

Darwin has master publicists. He really does.

Coming home on the bus today, I suddenly realized how odd it is that the ol’ Brit toff racist - whose The Descent of Man is an open running sore of racism - is being celebrated everywhere as some kind of liberator.

Well, I guess he is - if you are a racist, and are looking for a “scientific” cover.

Look, this is a guy who thought black people were closer to gorillas than white people are. The idea is not only wrong and offensive, it is completely ridiculous.

He travelled all around the world and he didn’t realize that?*

A physicist friend actually spent some time getting through the book, and was astonished at the racism.

I knew about it, of course, but didn’t know how to tell him.

In the current era of worship of St. Darwin, you can’t tell people these things. You must just hope that they will somehow find out or figure it out for themselves. After all, there is an Internet ….

The really interesting question for me is, why don’t the atheist materialists I have met just admit and repudiate Darwin’s racism, instead of telling me how much they admire him and what a great hero he was?

They never do. Is that because they secretly believe it and hope for the day when they can admit it openly?

After all, their theory does leave open the idea that different races could be more or less “evolutionarily”** developed, doesn’t it?

I would be happy to learn that, as a group, they have openly and publicly denounced and backed away from Darwin’s views instead of just covering them up and making coy excuses like “he was against slavery.”***

(*Note: I live in a city that hosts people from all over the world, and have seen just about everything you can imagine. Please don’t write to tell me what I supposedly don’t know. Human culture is everywhere different but human nature is everywhere the same.)

** “evolutionarily” - it grates on the ear as one of the ugliest adverbs in English. Only a Darwinist could have invented it.

***Lots of racists in good standing have been against slavery. There are perfectly good reasons for opposing slavery that are entirely consistent with racism - and that was true in Darwin’s case.

Date: 2009/03/11 23:30:58, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Densye isn't really getting much help over there. On the latest Darwinism=racism thread at the moment I count 11 commenters and only 2 seem to be backing her up - DonaldM and Ray Martinez (who would want him on your side?). (Regular Timaeus is probably behind her in spirit, but seems happy having a little monologue about whether Noah's flood could be labelled genocide).
Other UD regulars DT, noted already, and now bFast have come down against her, calling her argument 'silly and childish'.

Date: 2009/03/12 01:09:38, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 12 2009,19:50)
Clive divorces logic and grammar (the polygamist!):


Clive Hayden


12:38 am
I going to disapprove your 1st comment Seversky, I cannot allow such language about God being worse than Hitler or Stalin.

ID, not about God at all.

Clive's next move:

“A student of history you are not Madam.”

Apologize to Denyse.

I think we can look forward to more disappearing comments, and eventually - banninations!

Date: 2009/03/12 02:38:54, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Yes Chayanov, Clive has now completely lost it:      

The difference, that is being overlooked, is that Darwinian evolution is inherently a system that determines evolution only against others. It’s a comparative endeavor. If there were nothing to compare, there would be no ability to show any differences, and thus no evolution or progression from one thing to another. Applied to human races, it stands to reason that some are more evolved than others. However, the same cannot be said about the very system of Christianity, for there are only two races, the race of the first Adam, (those who are not regenerate) and the race of the second Adam (those who are washed by the Blood). And we are in the New Testament now, in which there is no such things as even the Jew or Gentile, male or female in Christ. The point is that any Christian who regarded racism as true did it IN SPITE of Christianity–not in accord with it. According to scripture, everyone can from Adam and Eve. However, Those who see differences between races have acted in accordance with Darwinian evolution, which is inherently a comparative endeavor to even discern evolution in action. We should also remember the killing of Australian aboriginals during the early part of the 20th century by Darwinian scientists  who believed that they were missing links between apes and humans, and less than human and more than ape.

There is just so much wrong with that screed I don't know where to start. The bold parts are mine - I attempted to emphasise the especially stupid bits, but soon realised they all ran into each other. I'll just comment on the two especially double stupid points I've highlighted.
1. Clive, no races, no animal species, no organisms today are "more evolved" than any others. All life forms here today are the offspring of a long long line of ancestors that survived long enough to reproduce, and have adapted, so far, to their particular environment.
2. So Charles Darwin is now responsible for atrocities committed by Australian settlers. Clive, you are a fuckhead.

Date: 2009/03/12 14:46:53, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 13 2009,03:26)
Heeee's back...




6:58 am


“Evolved” is synonymous with “changed”. If we begin with the standard assumption that all life diversified from one or a few cell lines beginning billions of years ago then quite obviously some cell lines changed more than others. Thus some cell lines are move evolved than others.

You’re a troll but even worse you’re a moron. Take a hint and take a hike numbnuts.

Dave's comment appears to have been deleted.

Date: 2009/03/15 18:24:06, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Meanwhile, Barry has put up another Darwin-was-a-racist thread:
Some Darwinists will say anything to try to draw attention away from the obvious.  The point of my “Scientific Certitude” post was to show that evolutionary theory has been used to support racist views.  Darwin was a firmly committed racist, and he was not shy about expressing his racist views: <snip>

What a wanker.

Date: 2009/03/16 21:00:55, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (JLT @ Mar. 17 2009,15:41)

I propose we refer to Ray as Ray Tardinez from now on. He clearly deserves it.
And UD deserves Ray Tardinez. A guy who constantly equates IDists with Christians and design with creation, denies evolution and common descent, and denounces Behe as a heretic. Probably the most honest person at UD. They should give him posting rights.

Ha - or maybe just RayTard. However, Atom's next comment is confusing...
Ray Martinez wrote:

   I am sorry to have to tell you that DaveScot was a double agent who forgot his mission (misrepresent ID). His intellectual inferiority caused him…

Why hasn’t this guy been bannedgiven posting rights  yet? All he does it insult people.

Atom I've fixed it for him.

Date: 2009/03/18 14:24:31, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 19 2009,08:34)
LOL @ "HughJass"

Here as well, missing DT:
...Will he be back in a couple more days? Maybe after Easter Break?

Date: 2009/03/18 15:17:03, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 19 2009,10:03)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2009,13:34)
LOL @ "HughJass"

Rich - the post has been Banninated!

Time to start archiving. Hugh's latest:
tragic mishap said: “I feel naked”.

Hey I do too - and my post to get Gil’s Frilly Show Shirt to overcome it has been erased!


What’s going on?

Arthur Smith's comment immediately above Hugh's is also worth preserving:  
Hey Mr Jass, Gil may not be the brightest bulb when it comes to ID theory, but he is a polymath. He’s a great musician, adventurous hang glider and Harley biker. Don’t mess with him, Dude!

Date: 2009/03/18 15:56:58, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 19 2009,10:48)
Springer went through a whole set of sock puppets when he was first barred from PT. I think my favorite would have been "Sad Covet"... unfortunately for Springer, recognizing anagrams isn't that tough.

Speaking of anagrams, it's been a full two years since Dr. Atevad put in an appearance over at UD, so I guess it's OK to mention him now.

Date: 2009/03/18 22:08:18, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 19 2009,16:51)
Quick, before it's gone:

Kellogg clarifies hamlet:    
Sal Gal’s point, I believe, is that Hamlet and Polonius are engaging in a bit of design detection. They are imaginatively supplying designs that are not there — like, Sal Gal suggests, IDers in general.

See the text here and search for “weasel.”

Gil responds:

Gal and Kellogg,

Pardon my French, but you guys are just pissing in the wind.

Send me some code. I’ve sent you mine.

We’ll compare notes.

Finally, Kellogg:



“pissing” followed by “Send me some code. I’ve sent you mine”?

Really? Are we dropping trou here? Or do such double entendres arrive naturally?

No need to compare code. I’m pretty sure yours is shorter.

Links here for now

Poor Gil doesn't get it:
What is trou? I’m not familiar with this word.


Date: 2009/03/18 23:42:47, Link
Author: Ptaylor
The latest post at UD is a long one by Robert Deyes and John Calvert (whothey again?). I really can't be arsed reading the whole thing (I gather it's the old story - mathematics shows the probability of life forming without a giant fairy to do it is impossibly small).
It involves a 'game' in which letters in lower case and caps are drawn from a box randomly and placed on a board. Perhaps it's just me, but I had a good larf when the first two letters picked, and discussed at length, were D and T.

Date: 2009/03/22 16:41:03, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Meanwhile, Jerry is crowing on another thread:      
[Addressing Richard Simons]And you will also find out what evolution is about too because there is no aspect of it that is not up for consideration by ID. Reciprocating Bill was chastising us on our knowledge of evolution and our inability to form propositions but it was he who was deficient. However, if you wish to go elsewhere on this topic, then I will not expect you to make any comments on it while you are here.

Big guy.

Date: 2009/03/22 17:40:17, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I'm late to the party (which I trust was good). A belated happy birthday.

Date: 2009/03/24 01:12:43, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 24 2009,19:37)
BTW, could somebody please program a UD viewer that allows to exclude posts comments of scordova from being displayed?
I will not be able to stand Sal attitude of blowing his own horn, his slimy homophobic misogynic tirades and his lack of self-awreness.
And especially not his hypocrisy <snip>

I'm only surprised he didn't show up there a week or so ago, when the Darwin-was-a-racist meme was in full cry. He would have fitted right in with some of those threads.

Date: 2009/03/24 18:13:37, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (khan @ Mar. 25 2009,12:59)
Ignorant, demented, fuckwitted liars for jebus.

I don't recall any of this crap from Sunday school.

Now you've gone and pre-banned, ah, re-pre-banned, um, pre-re-banned yourself er, Clive won't like that.

Date: 2009/03/25 22:20:35, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 26 2009,16:57)
Agreed.  That should win an award or something.

TOTW? Anyone have Photoshop skilz for a trophy?

Date: 2009/03/27 01:37:20, Link
Author: Ptaylor
“I want what is false OUT of the textbooks.”

Denyse, if they did that about Darwin, we could close down the site. But we all know they won’t so UD lives on.

Darwin wrong = ID true: no further questions needed.

Date: 2009/03/29 16:07:36, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Allanus offers an interesting insight into his (I am quite sure he's male) mindset. All of the following are examples of 'authorities' getting it wrong:
Climatologists say that anthropogenic global warming is fact, not theory.

Paleontologists say that Lucy is the missing link.

Theologians say that the Resurrection never occurred.

Teachers say that testing harms students’ self-esteem.

Journalists say that George Bush is like Hitler.

Critics say that “The Piano” is great cinematic art.

Professors claim that Marx’s economic theories are true.

Make what you want of the list. I liked the seemingly arbitrary mention of The Piano - I thought the movie was overrated myself, but was this a case of critics getting it completely wrong, as Allie implies?

Date: 2009/03/29 23:43:42, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Give me an example of a publicly funded, state university college professor who has been denied tenure, ridiculed, tormented, vilified, or ostracized for advocating atheism or that Darwinism explains all of life’s complexity and information content.

You won’t find any, but you’ll find plenty of examples of the reverse.

OK Gil, how about Jerry Coyne or Eric Pianka? I think both of those cases check the boxes for ridicule, torment and vilification. Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers aren't too popular at UD either. Hypocrite.

Date: 2009/03/30 14:09:35, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I see Prof Myers has taken an interest in Gil's current thread.

Date: 2009/03/30 14:38:22, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Kia ora.

Date: 2009/03/30 17:15:02, Link
Author: Ptaylor
DonJavison announces his departure:
Clive Hayden

I have called no one any names because I don’t have any idea who they are. Phantoms have chosen to be insulted. I have only commented on the names they chose for themselves. If you are going to warn me, at least explain why in rational terms.

Don’t bother banishing me either as I am content to abandon this weblog confident that it will never produce anything of significance as long as it allows unknown sources to present whatever they want knowing they are immune from any ethical standard whatsoever.

Somehow I don't think we've seen the last of him.

I like his illogic: I can say whatever I like to anyone - it is only an insult if I know their name.

Date: 2009/03/30 17:44:40, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Sig worthy?:  
bfast (#48):

Thank you for mentioning those interesting news. Obviously, I have never believed in all those goofy attempts of the official academy to cover the embarassing truth of the Ediacara and Cambrian explosions with all kinds of unlikely theories. That is only evidence of how uncomfortable they are with those realities.

And if, in the opinion of JayM, I am “misrepresenting the mainstream view”, I am very happy and proud of that.

And yes, this (like many other things) is MAJOR evidenciary support for ID!

-from gpuccio

Date: 2009/04/01 20:29:48, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Heh - tragic mishap:    
<snip>Also, I’ve been to China. I happened to meet a woman involved in education administration there. Obviously to get anywhere in China you must be a member of the Party. But she asked me why I was interested in biochemistry and I told her because of evolution, and that I didn’t believe it. She asked me, “Where did God come from?”
I replied, “Where did matter come from?”

She got up immediately without answering and went to the other side of the room and began a conversation with someone else.

An entirely appropriate reaction, in my opinion.

Date: 2009/04/02 18:26:43, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Edited: In this post I accused Gil of possible copyright infringement, something I am probably guilty of every time I post here (my avatar).
I apologise to Gil (Clive, pass it on).

Date: 2009/04/07 17:56:19, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 08 2009,11:42)
SteviewonBer needs to re-read Aquina's Treatise on General Relativity. He's really not keeping up his end of the conversation.

Meanwhile Jerry has lowered his sights somewhat:  
You may say that the origin of the university has not been discussed but any discussion of atheism here at UD always involves that implicit assumption in the discussion.
(My bolding)

Date: 2009/04/07 18:11:23, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 08 2009,13:00)
little things like that keep me wondering about jerry.

jerry pm me you magnificent fool

Me too. Things like his follow on sentence which I didn't include above:  
Maybe you will be able to latch on to that.

Date: 2009/04/07 20:02:07, Link
Author: Ptaylor
The headline for journalist Denyse's latest post...    
Italian scientist who accurately predicted Italian earthquake had been reported to police
...has a certain redundancy going on. Or maybe not - maybe it isn't redundant enough; perhaps it would be better written as    
Italian scientist who accurately predicted Italian earthquake had been reported to Italian police
to make it less ambiguous.

Date: 2009/04/10 17:29:34, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Late again. Kia ora, mate.

Date: 2009/04/15 15:23:28, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Good grief - they have changed to main picture on the evolution article to one of Columbine killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Classy.
Catch it, if you want, while you can. (H/t to anonymous commenter at RationalWiki.)

Date: 2009/04/15 19:33:59, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Tardfight! Sal appears to have disemvowelled two comments by JAD. Davison's latest is as-yet untouched:

You are committing professional suicide with your degenerate tactics. You will never again be respected and it won’t be just by me.

Enjoy your moment in the sun.

Edited to remove two links to the disemvowelled comments  They are just above the one link I have left. It's a long thread and it takes a long time to load. No point in expecting people to load it three times.

Date: 2009/04/15 22:42:01, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Well you have your answer, or at least as much of an answer Gil will likely ever give, David Kellogg:
David Kellogg:

   Gil, I’ve been trying to ask you a question for a while, but I think it keeps getting lost in the shuffle. If you have time, I’d love a response.

To the best of my knowledge, my father is completely unaware of ID theory. He is 87 and this is a subject that would not be of interest to him, so we have never discussed it.

But what's with this?:
By the way, so far no one has guessed the acronym.

Who gets the prize?

Is Gill really talking about his silly (and bordering on offensive) “Republic of Altruistic Personal Enhancement” example?

Edited: Oops - I see you have already responded over there.

Date: 2009/04/19 19:10:56, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Huh? An hour or so ago David Kellogg had a response to Gerry's question:    
I have a question. If we quote an idea by Caton does that make us AID’s deniers too?

...but it's gone now. The response, from memory, said that Caton's AIDS denial had no influence on Gerry's position although it made Caton a crank.
Does David Kellogg have a copy of the reply that can be posted here?

Edited to correct the misspelling of David's surname.

Date: 2009/04/21 18:37:07, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthday, kia ora.

Date: 2009/04/21 19:58:36, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Barry has just about had enough with Hazel:
In [223] Hazel finally admits that she does not “believe in the world of objective truths.” Hazel, you are a deeply irrational person. This site is devoted to the search for truth through argumentation. Argumentation depends upon the application of reason to evidence. The process absolutely depends upon the existence of objective truth. You have stated that you do not believe in objective truth. All you want to do is make assertions, which you then refuse to defend on logical or evidential grounds. Thus, arguing with you is utterly pointless. Move along to another site.

My emphasis. Is this bannination, a threat thereof, or just 'stop making sense and go away'?

Date: 2009/04/24 00:04:10, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 24 2009,16:55)
From UD:

and a babe, too!

Heh. Nice one Nakashima:  

Sorry for the off topic comment, but I just wanted to bring your attention to this site about the new fossil seal. It looks like Rybczynski is either a more common name than I thought it was, or being banned from UD leaves you copious free time to roam the high arctic in search of fossils.

Congratulations Natalia!

Date: 2009/04/25 00:46:04, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (dvunkannon @ April 25 2009,16:19)
Am I wrong, or did Gil Dodgen's latest piece on AI, LS-DYNA, cartoons, and simulation just vaporize after about 3 hours? It's not on the top of the UD home page, and the Google link to it goes somewhere broken.

It's gone, all right. If you didn't see it you didn't miss much; it was basically carlsonjok's calculation: (b+c) & 1.
The comments were mostly critical, including one from mauka who is trying to take Gil to task over it:  
Gil, what happened to your LS-DYNA thread? There were already five or so comments. Now the post and the comments are both gone.

Edit: Craps - sparc beat me to it with a much more comprehensive response. You mention OE - does that site have some sort of mirror function for UD?

Date: 2009/04/26 02:54:54, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (keiths @ April 26 2009,15:49)
If Gil was hoping for a "But Gil, we love your posts!" reaction, he must be pretty disappointed.  The most he's gotten is a tepid: "I like your writing style, Gil, and you’ve always taken the higher ground."

Haha -    
Dear Gil,

You are a great and valuable mind in the ID debate. By all means take a holiday but please reconsider returning.

My emphasis. Shorter idnet: Gil, if you are considering returning, don't.

Date: 2009/04/28 18:46:37, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Dave Wisker responds to an implied assertion by StuartHarris:  
Hi Stuart,

Can you name one evolutionary psychologist who says genes control all of our behavior? I honestly cannot think of even one.

SH's reply:  

If I researched it I probably could, but I won’t. Just cross out the two “alls” in the dialogue and the satirical point I was making still stands.

With Evo-psych one can conjure up an explaination for any behavior “A” or for the opposite behavior “not-A” and claim either speculation to be valid. Can you do that in a real science like physics? No (at least not yet), because evidence and mathematical/logical rigor are required.

My emphasis, and Stuart does soften his opening sentence, but shows a telling mindset if you ask me.

Date: 2009/04/28 21:20:55, Link
Author: Ptaylor
A little more information on AKKK:  
I’m a vegetarian. So I guess I must be an idiot then.

Seriously. Anybody can tell a just-so story like this fat->memory is an adaptation BS. Get some frickin’ data first.

Attitude is definitely DT-ish. Do we know anything about Dave's dietary habits apart from cheesy poofs and provocatively shaped mushrooms?

Date: 2009/05/01 17:43:07, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Late as always (I blame time zones). Kia ora, happy birthday.

Date: 2009/05/03 01:12:51, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Lowell @ May 03 2009,17:24)
Obviously, the problem is that O'Bleary is working from some other source:



12:04 am
Thanks for your informed response, Allen. It appears that Denyse’s characterization of Pascal Boyer’s views is not supported by Religion Explained

Of course, it’s possible that Denyse has some source from Boyer other than Religion Explained where he asserts that (1) there is some unitary “agent detection device” that (2) “disproves God’s existence beyond any reasonable doubt” and (3) is “completely unreliable” due to its hyperactivity.

Maybe it’s available only to subscribers to Respectable Grandmothers Monthly.

(My emphasis.)

Gone. Thread now ends at Allen_MacNeill's comment #8.

Added in edit: Lowell reported this over on the BlogCzar thread before me.

Date: 2009/05/04 19:50:18, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 05 2009,12:08)
I was thinking about posting a new topic about Melanie Phillips, a UK journalist who has recently written a few articles on her Spectator blog is support of Intelligent Design, when Denyse O'Leary beats me to the punch. Phillips and O'Leary seem to share a love of hyperbole, disregard for inconvenient facts, and loathing for Richard Dawkins.

Denyse's post

Phillips' spectator article

Spectator Blog intro page (Note how Phillips blog traffic figures compare to her colleagues. Teach the controversy!)

Yes, Denyse has found a soul sister. However while Melanie Phillips is just as wrong headed as Denyse at least MP knows how to format text properly. Denyse starts by quoting two paragraphs from Phillips but only indents one, giving the impression that these are O'Deary's words:
I hold no particular brief for ID, but am intrigued by the ideas it raises and want it to be given a fair crack of the whip to see where the argument will lead..
...which gave me a real WTF moment.

Date: 2009/05/06 05:05:58, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Fantastic! Denyse is holding a competition:  
Earn free stuff!: The Uncommon Descent Contest

Why just be a commenter when you can also earn free stuff?

Recently, I asked for and received 25 prizes, as follows:

10 DVDs of Expelled,courtesy the producers.

10 DVDs of Privileged Planet, courtesy the producers.

5 subscriptions, including back issues, to the excellent Christian/theistic science and culture mag, Salvo, complete with recent back issues, courtesy the editor-in-chief.

I will pose a question based on a recent news story, and ask for responses within two weeks. I will publish the winning response in a subsequent post.


1. No more than 400 words in response. I will select the response I find most interesting and print it as a post. Be succinct.

2. New ideas impress me, even if I disagree. Rants and myths don’t. Re abuse: Uncommon Descent is not competing for Troll Hole of the Year, so …

3. I will not correspond with anyone about the award. My In Tray is already a natural disaster. If you don’t win, try again. And who knows, if this contest takes off, I may be offered more prizes.

The first question will come shortly.

I can hardly wait (really).

Date: 2009/05/06 21:21:08, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 07 2009,13:29)
Luskin Lies for Jesus... again. On Faux News.

What a wanker. The only encouraging thing there is the low star ratings and the bulk of the comments - most are not buying Casey's bullshit.

Date: 2009/05/08 00:08:47, Link
Author: Ptaylor
DonaldM helpfully adds parenthetical remarks to his transcript of the recent Chris Matthews-Mike Pence interview in his latest post:  
PENCE: Do I believe in evolution? I embrace the view that God created the heavens and the earth, the seas and all that’s in them, and –
MATTHEWS: (interrupting) Right, but you believe in evolution from the beginning.
PENCE: The means, Chris, that He used to do that, I can’t say, but I do believe –
MATTHEWS: (interrupting) You can’t what?
PENCE: — in that fundamental truth.
MATTHEWS: Well — well did you take biology? (screaming) Did you take biology in school? Did you take science, which is all based on evolutionary belief and assumption?
PENCE: Well, I’ve always wanted to –
MATTHEWS: (screaming) If your party is to be credible on science, you’ve gotta accept science. Do you?
PENCE: Yeah, I want to –
MATTHEWS: Accept science?

My bolding. How frequently we see this sort of mindset - these people so quickly interpret questioning and argument as hostility.

Date: 2009/05/11 01:45:49, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Wow, Bruce David thinks we are in the Matrix:    
to rvb8:

“Are you not SECURE in your own beliefs?”

I won’t claim that I am not susceptible to the seduction of wanting to be right. But I will say this for myself: I have changed my most basic paradigms at least twice in my life. By the time I reached college, I was a confirmed atheist and materialist who firmly believed that science was the only method of discovering the true nature of reality. (The description in my original post was a description of ME at that time.) In my twenties, based on reading various spiritual books, I completely revamped my position, which eventually evolved into my present belief, which is that physical reality doesn’t actually exist as such. All that we experience and much more besides is but a vast play in the mind of God, of which each of us is an intimate (and thoroughly loved) part. Nonetheless, I still believed in the fundamental truth of the neo-Darwinian synthesis (NDS), although I thought that God’s hand might be directing many of the “random” changes to the genome. Then about 10 years ago I read Denton, and then Behe, and came to the conclusion that the NDS simply doesn’t cut it.
<snip the rest>

Date: 2009/05/13 01:48:48, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (k.e.. @ May 13 2009,15:54)
Your safe you'll be relieved to know StephenB is is not not Oarstrayien

Pronounced that way if you are particularly articulate. Otherwise its just Strine, isn't it?

Date: 2009/05/19 02:26:49, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (dmso74 @ May 19 2009,09:39)
It seems that a common quality of ID people is to think they're clever when they're really stupid.

This brings back memories of a comment (off site) of UD (now ir)regular Lee Bowman. Lee had learned that a podcast re-enactment of the Dover trial was in the offing. Lee reported on it, getting facts badly wrong, but the real gem was in this comment in the follow on:
Don’t believe everything you read Andy, but thanx anyway for taking me literally! And good luck with you podcast. I really think a four act play would be better, tho. Here’s a scenario.

Act (1), Gathering facts, and maybe letting everyone take a taste of primordial soup to really help set the mood. Act (2), Watching the facts evolve, for the amusement of the audience, and of course the genetic mutant on the bench. And don’t forget the stack of peer review books and papers, since watching the witness have to peek around it will always get a laugh. Act (3) For the finale, have the Marine Band waiting in the wings to play patriotic music as Eric Rothschild tells his epic saga of the plight for deliverance from theocratic oppression (but for g** sake, don’t have them play ‘Battle Hymn of the Republic!) Stay silent for the defense, however. Then have the audience stand up and salute as the band plays Stars and Stripes Forever as Judge gives the final accolades, and exits the room.

After a brief intermission for refreshments and to stretch a bit, Act (4) could start off with a narrative read by an announcer offstage, while gradualistic phyletic images are projected onto the curtain. Some sound effects would be cool! When the hominid lineage arrives, have the curtain open half way, and as a spotlight falls on the judge, have him read his ’scathing decision’, and have him do it with passion, but with pauses to half smile and make audience eye contact (ala GW style). After the show, sign autographs in the lobby, while serving little Trilobite cookies and little demitasse cups of primordial soup.

Just kidding. The Podcast will be fine.
Lee is so pleased with this bit of wit he ends with a flourish:    
Also, you can file this under touché.

In the words of PZ Myers:    
Those people are so stupid it hurts.

Date: 2009/05/21 17:00:22, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 17 2009,02:09)
I've been searching for any reviews of the play (which opened the other night) but can't find anything in the Houston media.  If anybody sees one PM me or post a link please.

This may be old news but there is a review of Thomas Vaughan's The Third Side here. Sounds like the ID component is fairly minor in an otherwise forgettable production. Summary:    
Actually, in The Third Side, it isn’t cute or sad. It’s just dull.

Date: 2009/05/24 23:22:36, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (keiths @ May 25 2009,09:25)
Diffaxial lampoons jerry's extended fantasy involving stealth ID research on bovid evolution:

1:30 pm

Jerry @ 142:


Huh? Comment #144 is now Jerry's response and the original comment is nowhere to be seen. What gives?

Date: 2009/05/27 02:28:09, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Frost122585 goes to some length to explain the recent and not-so-recent history of the news media in the US. Samples:    
The formula of the press is to appeal to the poor and uneducated by supporting governemnt actions which claim to “make things better or more equal”- like raising taxes on the rich- and run stupid unimportant stories about people who have tragic lives- like the killing of a young female etc.

To keep the educated interested the News pretends to be covering important stories - like political stories and trumped up stories about flues and diseases (everything is a pandemic).

There's more (including some appalling misspellings). How has Frostyboy gathered these insights?
The best thing we can do is not watch the news- or read news papers etc- I have been doing it for years and haven’t noticed any impact to my life except less stress and more happiness.

Not by reading or watching any news it seems. Shorter Frost: "Learning? Not for me, thanks".

Date: 2009/05/28 16:52:16, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Tard alert!
DonaldM finds a highly reputable news source to show that (1) aliens not only exist, but they so love the world they will give their lives for it, and (2) this is further evidence for ID:
SETI with a Twist — The Search for Intelligence Continues

Normally one would expect a story such as this one to be in the National Enquirer. However, in this case, the story presents some interesting features which may have ramifications for the scientific application of ID.
In this case, the Russian scientist is claiming that back in 1908 an ET deliberately flew their spacecraft into a large meteorite to protect our planet.


Date: 2009/06/14 15:50:16, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthday all - kia ora.

Date: 2009/06/14 19:37:55, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Temper, temper, Joseph - four quick-fire comments on the Epigenetic Inheritance thread:
David Kellogg,

Your just plain ole ignorant.

And the way the theory of evolution is being peddled and defended alternates between childish and thuggish.

Alan Fox,

If you don’t think that what I posted is evidence for ID then please by all means demonstrate how it arose via unguided processes.

That you refuse to do so just proves my point that you are FoS.


If you don’t like the design inference then please provide the evidence that unguided processes can account for it.

Failure to do so will just further expose you as an ignorant person on an agenda.


Can you give me a quantitative way to calculate the effects of unguided processes?

How many genetic accidents does it take to go from single-cell to metazoan?

What’s the calculation?

Instead of griping about ID all YOU have to do is to actually support YOUR position.

It is very telling that you choose not to.

Link to 1st comment.

Date: 2009/06/21 22:20:40, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Heh, Tajimas D has a suggestion for DO'L, but it really applies to UDthe ID movement as a whole:

   …subtle attempts to change just what Darwinian evolution means…group selection is allowed, then Lamarckism (inheritance of acquired characteristics), then gene swapping…

Darwin accepted and promoted the first two in this list. He of course had no way of knowing about the third.

May I humbly suggest that you acquaint yourself with what “Darwinian evolution” means before you attempt to criticize it?

Date: 2009/06/23 21:22:15, Link
Author: Ptaylor
T M (Tom?) English schools Upright BP:
Upright BiPed,

   TM, please do tell us why the physically inert nature of nucleic sequencing should only be taught in a comparitive religion class.

Please do tell us why it should be taught anywhere. How do you think the corresponding chromosomes pair off in sexual reproduction by diploid organisms? Does an unseen intelligent agent guide the process? Last I read, the electrostatic properties of the chromosomes were crucial. DNA sequences are not physically inert.
<snip the rest, which is just as good>

My bolding.

Date: 2009/06/29 02:50:07, Link
Author: Ptaylor
This*, on the Answers for Judge Jones thread:      
11:46 pm
However when it comes to Behe his books, his essays, his politics ( whatever they are) are not considered by David [Kellogg]. Furthermore I just went line by line through each sentence of the part of the testimony where he claims , in so many words, that Behe contradicts himself. Note nowhere does he do so. A contradiction cannot be divined from a line by line reading of what he said , I can only attribute his conclusions to some sort of projection on his part. It is a bit disturbing that David cannot see that he applies two different standards, one standard for those he agrees with and another for those he does not.

I've given up on irony meter jokes - is vividbleau deep cover?.

*ETA: warning - long load time for some on this 600+ comment thread.

Date: 2009/06/29 17:21:38, Link
Author: Ptaylor
StephenB gives us a sig-worthy line:  
—-“Creationism is plausible to uneducated people. As soon as they reach a particular level of education they stop beliving in such rot.

Hey, plausibility is your gig, not mine. If you don’t think plausibility is a good measure for assessing the validity of ID, tell you Darwinist colleagues to stop their motive mongering and start talking about methodology.

Date: 2009/06/29 19:36:15, Link
Author: Ptaylor
StephenB is banging on about the old 90.9%-copy-and-paste issue over on the Answers for Judge Jones thread. He doesn't mention that the DI themselves state that this figure relates to only one section (16 percent of its total length according to a source quoted by Ed Brayton). The methodology they used was also questionable; from the DI paper:    
This percentage was calculated by using MS Word’s “Word Count” function to determine the word count for
all of the sections of the Kitzmiller decision that were taken verbatim or nearly verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed
“Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.” The resulting number (5,458) was then divided by the total number of
words in the section on “Whether ID is science” (6,004; this number was also determined by MS Word’s “Word
Count” function).
. "[V]erbatim or nearly verbatim" is close to meaningless. Brayton, again, tears this apart here.

Date: 2009/07/01 19:19:05, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ July 02 2009,10:50)
David Kellogg
5:25 pm

Claim: The Psalms are sadistic and advocate child murder.


   Happy shall they be who take your little ones
   and dash them against the rock!

Need I say more?

Another candidate for deletion perhaps?

Of course it was a trap...and Clive jumped right in:      
Umm, yeah, kinda, how about a little context?

SingBlueSilver follows up:

You realize that was a trap, right?

DON’T TAKE PEOPLE’S WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT is the lesson, and this applies equally to the Bible as well as Darwin, Lewontin, etc.

DK then twists the knife:    

   Umm, yeah, kinda, how about a little context?

Sauce for the goose, Clive. That’s what I was asking for. I agree that context is important for Psalm 137; you seem to think it doesn’t matter a whit for Lewontin. There is nothing in the Lewontin essay that can justify your reading of it as racist. That a particular population group happens to have relatively stable characteristics due to its isolation from other populations, and that chose characteristics fit the superficiail differences some assign to “race,” is all.

...followed up by some whimpering from Clive and a coup de grâce (or is that a coo de grah?) from DK. (Go check it out, I'm getting all linky-quotey-outed).

Edited to correct the case of SBS's name

Date: 2009/07/03 01:40:45, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthday, kia ora.

Date: 2009/07/03 02:26:12, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I confess to knowing little about Lewontin, so I gave myself a quick up-to-date at Wikipedia. Imagine my surprise when I found I was able to quotemine this:    
Lewontin has long been a critic of traditional neo-Darwinian approaches...[he] accused Darwinists of telling “Just So” stories.

Don't tell Clive for fear of head asplodiness.

Date: 2009/07/04 19:25:39, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Someone whose real name appears to be Baylor Bear:  
My Mommy taught me the difference between the appropriateness of healthy debate and the stench of personal attacks.

I remain surprised at the bitterness of the opposition - but suppose I should wise up.

Anonymous blogging breeds vileness because there is no accountability. It is indisputable evidence of man’s fallen nature.

Also, this from ShawnBoy:  
I’d like to request that the obvious troll Alan Fox be I.P. banned if possible.

Thank you.

Date: 2009/07/08 17:57:14, Link
Author: Ptaylor
BillB (first timer, I think) rips into PaulN:  

   If you acknowledge the theory of evolution to be true, then you also believe that blacks are closer to their ape-like ancestors, making them less “evolved” than say white Europeans who are further developed.

I don’t believe that having darker skin makes you less evolved, and there is nothing in the MET to suggest this either, not even remotely. Remember Paul,those assertions about black people you just made are yours, not mine.

   This is the logical objective conclusion one comes to when adopting the theory of evolution to be true, regardless of one’s own opinion on racial equality.

…? Why? Why black people and not people with ginger hair? Remember paul it is you who are making these claims that black people are ‘less evolved’, not me, or anyone I have ever met in the scientific community.

   The theory of evolution entails that blacks are more primitive than whites,

Please explain…where does it say this?
Making an assertion is not a fact, repeating again and again that black people are inferior will not make it so, trying to blame your own prejudices on others is shameful.

Saved here just in case...well, you know.

Date: 2009/07/09 18:03:59, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (didymos @ July 10 2009,10:37)
OK, herb can't be real

I agree, Herb's a parodist, and a good one at that. He is echoing the tardery of tribby7, further upthread, and the general tone of the pro-ID* comments there:    
If the ToE is right — man is not a special creation, existence can be explained without recourse to the supernatural hence no eternal judgment — why is what Hitler did wrong?

If what Hitler did was wrong, the ToE (man descending from less complex life solely via natural processes) is also wrong.

And what Hitler did was very, very, very wrong.

*Of course none of the comments are actually pro-ID (plus ça change).

Date: 2009/07/09 19:44:53, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (didymos @ July 10 2009,11:53)
Trib obliges...sort of:



6:09 pm

db, savage in that quote means other human beings.

And they complain about poor definitions?

Trib tightens up his definition:    
All of them? Even the Aryans?

No, just some human beings.

That's much more precise, thanks, Tribby

Date: 2009/07/12 02:42:39, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Hawks @ July 12 2009,09:32)
Just thought you might like this one:

Joseph:I also claim that all evidence for UCD needs to first assume UCD.

Me(i.e. Hoki):Without providing any evidence that this is so. Wonderful.

Jospeh:One doesn’t need to provide evidence for the obvious

Hi Hawkes/Hoki,
Thanks for this and your many contributions over at UD. BTW your moniker (over there) possibly refers to a type of fish found in waters around my neck of the woods - are you another antipodean?

Date: 2009/07/12 17:04:39, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Awww - Gil goes all E1 on us:
Lock: I had believed a lie for so long, as taught in basic high school science classes and the popular media.

I was once in exactly your situation. I took it on unquestioning faith that what I was taught in school and told by academic intellectual types was true, and that there was no point in even considering challenges to Darwinian orthodoxy, because the only people who do so are mindless, uneducated, low-IQ religious fanatics.

A friend, whom I respected because of his transparent wisdom and exemplary ethical lifestyle (despite the fact that he was a Christian and I thought belief in God was a destructive delusion), suggested that I read Michael Denton’s Evolution, A Theory in Crisis.

Blah blah blah...


Date: 2009/07/13 01:28:19, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 13 2009,16:48)
She'd like some things only explainable by magic.

Ditto for the whole of the ID movement.

Date: 2009/07/14 16:36:41, Link
Author: Ptaylor

“Theological then implies an existence of some kind of deity (God) - when people here say evolutionists are practicing theology, what exactly does that mean then?”

A religion doesn’t need a god. The oxford dictionary I’m sure has a definition which broadens religion more than that, and I’m sure there’s one in there that could include atheism or naturalism. I could look if anyone wants but do I really need to? Maybe atheists would be more comfortable with calling themselves a “fold”.

Facts? We don't need no stinking facts.

Date: 2009/07/14 23:34:47, Link
Author: Ptaylor

lamarck @ 19:

   What do you think I meant by attacking falsification? Or did you have no idea and you were swinging blindly? I want to get to the bottom of this.

Here’s the bottom: ID asserts nothing falsifiable, yet maintains that it is making scientific claims. Therefore you are motivated to dismiss falsification as a an element of the game of science.


Date: 2009/07/15 23:19:43, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (sparc @ July 16 2009,16:10)
I 've just received this wordpress error message from UD:  
Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you've already said that!
Obviously, a useful tool. I only wonder how KF, Jerry, JoeG et al. can circumvent it.

Don't forget Gil!

Date: 2009/07/16 17:52:03, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (didymos @ July 17 2009,10:20)
Learned Hand spotted the obvious:

This is an astute criticism of Mapou’s comments. It’s an equally astute criticism of Denyse’s posts, and of ID generally, for exactly the same reasons.

...and Jehu responds with the I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I movement:  
Learned Hand:

   This is an astute criticism of Mapou’s comments. It’s an equally astute criticism of Denyse’s posts, and of ID generally, for exactly the same reasons.

No, it does not apply to ID generally but it does apply to you.

Take that, Learned Hand!

Date: 2009/07/20 21:01:14, Link
Author: Ptaylor
News - someone other than DO'L posts at UD - it's Dembski hisself!

He copies a letter to the Boston Globe from Steven Pinker criticising publication of the recent infamous Jefferson-would agree-with-ID piece by Stephen Meyer.

DrDr's only comment:  
Is this vapid appeal to authority all the Darwinians have left?

Erm, yes, I suppose that's all they have left. That and the full support of mainstream science. And 150+ years of evidence. And...


Date: 2009/07/20 21:24:06, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Heh, prhean quoting from the Pinker letter:  
“Darwin demolished this argument 150 years ago.”

Apparently Meyer and Dembski didn’t get the memo.

Date: 2009/07/20 22:37:17, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Diffaxial points out the irony of WAD's comment:


   Is this vapid appeal to authority all the Darwinians have left?

It strikes me that Meyer’s citation of Jefferson’s purported embrace of ID is also an appeal to authority.

(Goose, gander, sauce, etc.)

(I missed it too, first time 'round)

Date: 2009/07/21 21:54:41, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Gil toughens up:

I have a suggestion: Make a 180 and get a life.

Date: 2009/07/23 15:19:39, Link
Author: Ptaylor
It's a little late now, but I caught these in yesterday's hubbub where Jehu got caught making shit up re W F Doolittle's stand on common descent:
Mr Charrington
6:29 pm


Mr Charrington
6:30 pm

pants on fire.

Somehow they got disappeared, right before Clive made his appearance.

Date: 2009/07/26 23:34:20, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (didymos @ July 27 2009,15:33)

——”That interview is on the Christian Broadcasting Network. So “Signature,” published by a religious publishing house and carried in the Religious Books section of Amazon, is now getting public relations time on a religious broadcasting network. Doesn’t this make it look like “Signature” is more about religion than science?”

And here we are discussing it on a science blog. So by your criterion, it is must be scientific.
Someone call the Seed Media Group. It's time UD was given its due place, alongside PZ Myers, Ed Brayton, Abbie Smith...

Date: 2009/07/26 23:52:50, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Kia ora, happy birthday.

Date: 2009/07/27 02:12:18, Link
Author: Ptaylor
While the phrase 'dumb as a sack of hammers' has been around for a while, I believe it has been lying dormant recently waiting for this comment by Oramus on the cruelty in nature thread:
IMO it is a mistake to view the activity of the ‘lower’ animals in anthropomorphic terms i.e the wasp is being ‘cruel’ to the catepillar or the lion is being ‘cruel’ to the young antelope.

If you haven’t noticed, each and every animal except Man provides a portion of its population to feed another member of the animal kingdom.

The rabbit produces several to keep a few and ‘donates’ the rest to other members of the animal kingdom. Snakes produce hundreds to keep several. Insects produces thousands to keep hundreds.

However, humans being the ‘master link’ (we are the only animals that are not predator AND prey), having dominion over the rest of the animal kingdom, and having rational souls (see vjtorley above) we are not subject to this requirement.

Our rational souls provide us the capability to exert self-control over our reproductive behavior. I.e. only humans can regulate population by ‘choice’. Whether we exercise that choice is another matter. But the fact remains.

There is great irony in that Man, not being subject to the natural ’sword’, would forego prudent voluntary reproductive restraint, but rather reproduce with abandon, then slashes the fruit of its own loins with equal abandon.

Truly, there is no cruelty in nature except in Man.

I emphasised just the bit that appealed to me; if I wanted to highlight just the stupid bits I would have had a problem. (And in a way I agree with him/her, different species need varying numbers of offspring to maximise the prospect of ongoing survival over generations; this is just the dimmest way I have ever seen this idea expressed).

Date: 2009/07/27 17:26:23, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Joseph has a point to make:
The main problem with “global warming” is that no one even knows what the temperature should be.

No one knows how many glaciers should exist.

No one knows if ice caps should exist.

No one knows…

The point being, erm, err...

Date: 2009/07/28 15:39:39, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Joseph explains his position:

   I’ve read many of your comments, which are generally challenges and questions of generally accepted positions.

I don’t care what is accepted.

I care what can be demonstrated or has positive evidence.

   May I ask you to briefly outline your view of the history of the world?

You can ask but I haven’t given it much thought, although colonization from some ancient “alien” civilization seems to be more likley than UCD.

Link. My emphasis.

Date: 2009/07/28 19:14:48, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 29 2009,09:54)
if joe starts yammering about inuits it is going to clear quite a few things up.

And BTW how often do African tribes interbreed with Inuits?

IOW is that is a criteria it applies to humans as well.

Date: 2009/07/29 19:39:25, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Joseph brings on the stupid:

What is the data which demonstrates completely separate pathways is a better idea?

Also if people are stupid enough to choke on their food I say it is time to remove them from the gene-pool.

As for the nervous system going way back in evolution, well there isn’t any data to support that premise.

It is very counter-intuitive that an accumulation of genetic accidents can put together a nervous system.

Date: 2009/07/29 23:14:28, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Gil is back to posting again (I thought he had retreated to commenting only, or have I got that wrong?). He continues on the counter-intuity theme, really adding nothing new to the discussion. (Although did you know that Darwin simply thought up the most counter-intuitive, illogical reason he could think of for the existence of all life forms, ignoring all evidence? That's how he did it.)

To his credit, though, he keeps to a rather tidy 256 words, unlike the first commenter, batshitinsane77, who unsurprisingly vomits out three times that number.

Date: 2009/08/02 01:08:28, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I've signed on (on RTH's account) and for as much a trial as much as anything put in the Dover predictions entry.

Do you think we should be more co-ordinated, or post pretty much as the whim takes us? (I'm mainly thinking of the problem of doubled up work, and that some items will be quite trivial compared to others.)

Also, can anyone pinpoint for me the date that DT first left, in a huff, apparently, with D0'L getting promoted above him?

Date: 2009/08/03 03:00:36, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (CeilingCat @ Aug. 03 2009,17:34)
P.S. Click on the "Dover Predictions Made" entry and read the Magic 8 Ball.  Classic!

I agree - classic - and should quickly acknowledge that while I wrote the entry the image was added by persons unknown afterward. (Text formatting was also tidied up, with thanks).

Date: 2009/08/03 20:51:21, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Can anyone suggest/provide a better timeline graphic for the Dust-up at UD corral item?

Date: 2009/08/04 05:33:51, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (carlsonjok @ Aug. 04 2009,14:43)
My work schedule is such that I am not going to be more than an intermittent contributor, but I am finding some good little nuggets just haphazardly looking through the UD archives. Remember this?


I am starting to think it might be a better idea to go through the archives methodically.  They have links to each month's posts going back to the beginning.  If folks signed up to do one or two or more months, we would be sure to capture the Tao of Dembski in it's entirety. We could also identify noteworthy comments that way, since not all the glory that is WmAD is captured in the OP.

I had been thinking this too, but the idea of allocating specific timeframes/subjects/whatever doesn't appeal personally (reminds me of school homework).

The site allows for 5 'zoom levels', indicating that lower level items are not displayed in the default view. The site suggests that everything be given the same level until things start getting crowded then levels can be allocated. It seems to me that if everyone contributes what they want and someone takes on editorship (RTH?) I think this is could be the way to start.

Date: 2009/08/04 19:30:49, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Amadan @ Aug. 05 2009,11:28)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 03 2009,20:51)
Can anyone suggest/provide a better timeline graphic for the Dust-up at UD corral item?

Can you be a bit more specific?

I was looking for some sort of graphic to imply disemvowelation, & that was the best I could find, having few Photoshop skilz. On 2nd thoughts, maybe it's not so bad; it is the undue vertical space it is taking up that is driving me mad - I have cropped and re-cropped the image and checked the canvas size. I'll try removing and re-posting the whole thing. (Text formatting there is a bitch, too).

Love your examples - laughed out loud when I spotted DT.

Date: 2009/08/04 22:53:22, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 05 2009,15:42)
DId KF leave UD again? I haven't seen him for days.

Ever notice how you rarely see KF and BA77 together over there? (OK, maybe sometimes, such as when Nakashima made that great tag-team jibe, but maybe that was a bit of street theatre).

Whichever one it is, my index finger goes straight to my scroll wheel whenever I see their name at the head of a comment now.

Date: 2009/08/09 01:56:48, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Clive uses argumentum ad IKYABWAI:
Barrett Brown

——“The advocates of intelligent design cannot refute what I’ve written about their movement because there is nothing to refute.”

That is because you have written nothing, and nothing cannot be refuted.

Linky. Clever clever, Clive!

Date: 2009/08/09 16:32:46, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthday, kia ora.

Date: 2009/08/09 18:50:16, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 10 2009,11:20)
Please tell us how “talking donkeys are not part of a rational universe.” I agree that a talking donkey is an unusual event. Though we probably agree that such a phenomenon may violate certain physical laws, I fail to see how it violates logical laws.

Typing donkeys seem common enough.

Clive goes one dumber:
And it’s somehow normal that you should talk? I don’t think you understand the gravity of the peculiarity of existence itself. It’s no stranger that a donkey should talk than a parrot, or us for that matter.<snip the rest>

Edited as a follow-up: Hedge, err, hedges:
I, for one, remain agnostic regarding whether or not donkeys can talk. But if in fact they can, I’m confident that their speech abilities are a product of design.

Heh heh.

Date: 2009/08/09 19:53:49, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 10 2009,02:34)
Okay, I have made my first contribution to the time line...

A couple more from me, too. BTW I am happy for anyone (who has been granted the secret RTH password) to edit or add content to my entries.

Date: 2009/08/09 22:32:21, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 10 2009,15:24)
He's definitely not coming out to play...

It's not going to stop him declaring victory, though.

Date: 2009/08/10 19:16:50, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (lkeithlu @ Aug. 11 2009,12:01)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 10 2009,18:57)
6:22 pm
Dr. Dembski, you are the example to us all of patience, slowness to anger, professionalism, and working unashamedly for one’s convictions.

Yeah, I am inspired to produce farty animations in the same patient, mature, professional way. My hero!

...and publish personal details of those whose help I am seeking, compare scientists to Herman Munster, call Homeland Security on...

Meanwhile Herb doesn't disappoint:
   It seems that sending my students to post on “hostile” websites, however, sticks especially in their craw. Slashdot has since picked up on it (go here — the keyword tags are precious).

PZ also has a thread up on this, and it looks like he’s almost developed a bunker mentality after hearing about Dr Dembski’s assignment. I think he’s afraid of getting shown up on his own blog by an undergraduate, just like the storyline of that classic Chick tract, Big Daddy. Expect PZ to wield the banhammer much more liberally from now on.

Date: 2009/08/10 19:38:58, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (lkeithlu @ Aug. 11 2009,12:22)
I'm sure PZ is cowering in his bunker; scanning the radar for the squadron of flying monkeys from this course.

Yes, he is.

Date: 2009/08/11 01:54:52, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (didymos @ Aug. 11 2009,18:49)
Oh, goodie.  "New" cell video from the DI over at UD.  In fact, it's just a palette-swapped rehash of a segment from Unlocking the Mystery of Life.  Even the narration is largely the same.

MeganC is underwhelmed:
Is the actual evidence for design in part 2?


Date: 2009/08/11 05:11:34, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Edited once: Darn - beaten to it by carlsonjok.

Edited again: T M English's response:

In 143-44, I was satirizing Dembski’s report of Eric Pianka to Homeland Security, which Barrett Brown covers in his article.

Pianka no more advocated bringing about the death of 90% of the human population than you advocated violence against jeering evolutionists. Both of you merely stated that dire events could be coming our way. Only a propagandist and/or drama queen would represent either of you as a menace to homeland security.

It’s sad when a bit of obvious humor elicits 908 words of irrelevant response. Will you return now with a doubly-agitated post of 1816 words and four postscripts?

Date: 2009/08/12 16:17:20, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Wow, Clivebaby is upset. Barret Brown has added an epilogue to his Huffington Post article in which he says
Clive Hayden, meanwhile, asks that I engage him in a discussion on the subject of evolution and how it relates to each person's efforts to verify his worldview. I am disinclined to do so insomuch as that Hayden appears to have difficulty with his memory to such an extent that to debate him further would be much akin to arguing with a persistent amnesiac;<snip>

   Hayden denounces me as “a comedian;” I would note that we’re now represented in the Senate, as we should be. Comedians are the greatest people in the world.

   He also asks an astonishing question:

       He must really dislike certain outcomes of evolution. Whence comes the discernment between competing worldviews that are all outcomes of evolution? If evolution, to Barrett, admittedly produces false worldviews, such as religion, then why trust it in any other regard?

   I don’t trust evolution any more than I trust gravity or attractive women. I don’t make any claims to the effect that evolution only produces swell things and makes everyone smart and honest. I’m not all totally in love with evolution; I just think it’s the case. And I’m amazed that Hayden would ask me to account for the results of the process to which I ascribe when it is he and his fellow intelligent design advocates who attribute divine purpose to nature, not I. And what’s up with those airline peanuts, amirite?
That is a complete non-answer. I’ve asked you to give a real response again, your update on HuffPost doesn’t cut it for it doesn’t even address my questions. I answered your questions, now you answer mine, and don’t weasel out of it by talking about my memory. Can you not answer my questions? Can you not? It certainly appears that you cannot. If you can, do it here and now. Evasion won’t work Barrett.

Fightin' talk!

Date: 2009/08/12 16:43:14, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Unpleasant Blowhard follows up:
Barret faces the same ignigma [sic] that anyone else suffers when they try to ignore the observed facts.

Material things cannot form the representative symbol system found in living tissue.

Discreet physical objects that are caused to act based on an input symbol that has no physical or chemical connection to the output function cannot be formed by physical or chemical means.

We don’t find such things anywhere, because they don’t exist anywhere.

All that can be done by the materialists is to assume their conclusions, ask for special pleading, attack their opponents personally, misrepresent the argument, obfuscate the evidence, stick together in numbers, and try ignore it all.

Materialism has been falsified by its own evidence. Period.

Does anyone have a fucking clue what he is on about?

Edited: 1st bolding is BP's; second is mine.

Date: 2009/08/12 17:13:46, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Uh-oh, could be trouble ahead for herb:



4:54 pm


   But now Tiktaalik is a second missing link between humans and the ancestral pond scum! So the notion of a unique “missing link” refutes itself! Common descent is therefore falsified, QED.

It’s obvious to me that every post you make is sarcastic. Are you doing this for the benefit of anyone or any group in particular? Will you start actually contributing thoughtful comments or will you continue your campaign of sarcasm?

Date: 2009/08/12 18:01:15, Link
Author: Ptaylor
The Barrett Brown affair continues. Brown has added "Yet Another Damned Update" to his article in answer to Clive,baby:
Mr. Hayden is not satisfied with my responses thus far.

   I answered your questions, now you answer mine, and don't weasel out of it by talking about my memory. Can you not answer my questions? Can you not? It certainly appears that you cannot. If you can, do it here and now. Evasion won't work Barrett.

I have responded to this particular question several times both here and on the Uncommon Descent blog, just not to Mr. Hayden's satisfaction. I would remind him again that, contrary to his claim that he has answered my questions, I have just explained yet again that he has not. I asked him if Mr. Dembski's behavior with regards to Judge Jones and his decision to report a fellow professor to the Department of Homeland Security as a potential terrorist constitute "mudslinging." He originally claimed not to know of these incidents, and though I've since held his hand through this twice now, he has still failed to answer the question. Hayden does not want to discuss any of the matters that I discuss in the actual article; he is quite willing to write a lengthy post attacking the article, but he knows perfectly well that it is not to his advantage to respond to any of the charges within, as they are all valid and, taken together, they demonstrate that William Dembski is a degenerate hypocrite who reported an enemy to the government and alleged improper conduct on the part of a judge without first checking to see if the judge had actually done anything improper. Hayden makes for a fitting representative.

Edited - Four comments in one morning - must...hold...back.

Date: 2009/08/12 23:19:57, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Good old Gil:  
A few million years, a few million individuals, and a few million nucleotides being zapped by cosmic rays to produce errors in the genetic code, and voilà: a hippo turns into a whale.

How could any rational person take this transparent fantasy seriously?

But Gil, you used to - remember?
I am Richard Dawkins’ worst nightmare — a former militant atheist and Darwinist

Date: 2009/08/18 18:26:09, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I notice that Lamarck, moon landing denier, has come out as a 9/11 troofer...
9/11 without question had US involvement.

(Whatever next - evolution denial?)
...and the regulars are stepping slowly away. tragic mishap:  
lol @ lamarck

Go away, you’re embarrassing yourself.

Date: 2009/08/20 01:41:46, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I notice the number of comments on the Dembski Pro-ID Article post has slipped from 10 to 9. Anyone know which comment was the offender?

(FWIW current comments are from: Indium, David v Squatney, Sal Gal x 2, Dembski, Learned Hand, Dembski, ppb, Dembski)

Date: 2009/08/20 23:39:11, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Clive hits back at PZ Myers in defence of Dr^2 Dembski and the other guy. Sample:
A bit of advice PZ, the argument presented by Dr. Dembski and Dr. Marks is very sophisticated PZ, your mud slinging isn’t PZ, you need to step it up PZ. I know this new stuff isn’t ez, but you may want to consider a response that has actual content PZ. Your argument against this peer-reviewed paper is still in its infancy, or, more accurately, still in the pharyngula stage, embryonic in its development.

Is that meant to be rap?

Date: 2009/08/21 02:21:20, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 21 2009,17:58)
Before they go:

...add to that BillB's comment:        
PZ’s critisism concerns the representation of Dawkins WEASEL algorithm in Dembski and Marks paper. Dembski and Marks represent the algorithm incorrectly.

If D and M want to claim that WEASEL actually includes extra components that Dawkins never included in his description, then they need to make these claims clear in their paper, and provide some argument or evidence to support them.

As it stands the description of WEASEL in their paper misrepresents Dawkins algorithm. A reader who is familiar with Dawkins book, or who follows up the reference, will also see that is is misrepresented, and that can cast doubt on the validity of D and M’s conclusions. A bit more checking and it would become clear that D and M have had this pointed out to them prior to publication, and yet they never corrected the mistake, or acknowledged that their representation was unorthodox.

The bottom line is that it is wrong to misrepresent other peoples work. Dembski and Marks are providing a very good reason for readers doubt or dismiss their papers conclusions so they really haven’t done themselves any favours.

Clive (hi Clive!) has essentially reopened comments for Dr Dembski's closed thread, in a well thought out plan.

Date: 2009/08/23 02:02:45, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (RDK @ Aug. 23 2009,17:24)
Anyone else under the impression that Dembski and CliveBaby are one and the same?

I've never seen them post in the same thread, and after comparing their writing styles I've come to the inference that CliveBaby is just Dembski, pounding away at his keyboard, giggling like a Catholic schoolgirl, trying to give his blog credibility by making it seem like more people than just the journalist nanny with sand in her vag and Gil the elementary school math teacher actually care about his nonsense.

Which would make the idea of 'Clive' opening the 'PZ Myers Does It Again' thread, only to have it serve as a continuation of comments from the Dr's closed comment 'Peer Reviewed Article' post even funnier.

However, I have my doubts. Dr Dembski has a flair for expressing bitterness that I haven't seen in Clive, baby's comments. I'll go try to find an example - oh, here we go in the current top post:
Janna Levin, Columbia astrophysicist, gives us the cutting-edge science on the origin of the universe: there was nothing, really nothing, nothing at all … but the potential to exist. Was it Aristotle who said that nothing admits no predicates? So where did nothing get the potential to exist and then bring the universe into existence? Not to worry. Janna does give us this assurance: “We know that something happened.” Yes, this is science at its best. Let’s not bring God or design into this discussion — we wouldn’t want to be accused of “acting stupidly.” Oh, one more thing, she’s an assistant professor (go here). Want to bet that she doesn’t have problems getting tenure? Compare this to Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State.

My emphy.

Date: 2009/08/24 17:13:59, Link
Author: Ptaylor
A somewhat mundane addition to the knowledgebase - BSInsane77:        
...Over a half century ago, while I was still a child...
He would appear to be in his mid to late 50s, or early 60s.
Which I guess means he's not going to grow out of whatever he has. Which I find a bit sad as there is a small part of me that thinks each UDer will somehow eventually be able to step back and see how wrongheaded the whole ID thing is (even you, Gil, but, well, maybe not KF). Oh well- for me, it's another day older, another day cynical-er.

Date: 2009/08/27 19:14:36, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Dembski's latest response to yakky d:  

Give it a rest. You started the wild speculation. I made it more realistic. Yes, it’s still speculation, but the scenario I sketched certainly has precedent.

And we all know how that particular precedent ended.

Date: 2009/08/30 16:58:16, Link
Author: Ptaylor
IRQ Conflict,
Mario, some people simply have a bone to pick with science (ID specifically) they see it as a threat to their worldview and stop just short of trolling in order to appear honest.

   While still trying to chip away at the proponents character. Sad, but true.

I see it all the time. It’s a thin appearance of honesty, veiling their contempt. Many times you can just head on over to those uncommonly dense people’s thread (and I mean that literally), and see the contempt in plain daylight from these same commentors. It is sad, indeed.

Hi Clive! (and I mean that quite literally)

Date: 2009/08/30 19:30:28, Link
Author: Ptaylor
It all sounds a bit hysterical to me, and well below Dawkins’s usual standard of writing.

Words (almost) fail me.

Date: 2009/08/30 23:22:14, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Heh, IRQ Conflict has been in full cry lately. I found this little nugget in one of his tardalogues:
What the author has done here is mix up facts with stories of how they see things working. It is a myth. Just like Santa Clause. Both myths have historical facts from which it was derived. But from observable evidences coupled with known historical facts we can safely conclude that Santa Clause is a myth, in it’s modern form is nothing short of a story. And generally we frown upon adults who still believe it.

So there are adults in IRQ's circle who still believe in Santa. It's OK, though, he generally frowns on them. Usually.

Date: 2009/09/08 15:43:21, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Delurker not only gets a thread about him*, but apparently gets banninated in it as well:
DeLurker used to go by the name JayM, who claimed to be, if you remember, an ID supporter, even though everything he wrote was against ID. He justified this by saying that he was just trying to help ID to gain credibility. This was, of course, not true. It was, in reality, an underhanded way to critique ID. These folks, they’ll go to any length to argue against ID, even by being disingenuous. So, no, JayM, I’m not going to re-instate you under a sock-puppet name, so stop emailing Denyse about it. Your insincerity is, quite honestly, bothersome.

Link.*Assuming the masculine here, I may be wrong.

Date: 2009/09/15 18:16:06, Link
Author: Ptaylor
In the thread about the study showing reptiles' transition from straddled to upright gait PaV once again reminds us that it is not ID's place to match science's pathetic level of detail:
Mark Frank:

You’re interested in what I think happened?

I think some act of intelligent design occurred. What do you think happened? You’re the evolutionist, after all. This finding conforms to ID, and refutes Darwinism. Sorry, Mark, but the “ball is in “your side of the court.” You tell me what happened, and how Darwin’s theory explains it.


Date: 2009/09/15 19:58:56, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Speaking of Behe, he has a new post, in which he complains that his feedback letter on an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences was rejected.
The kicker?:  
Comments are closed.

Date: 2009/09/16 21:43:17, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 17 2009,08:23)

You'll also see very fast gentlemen of many ethnic backgrounds.

Indeed. My country gets the benefit of the fact that various Polynesian countries do not have a combined rugby squad. It helps us win pretty much all the time.

Erm - except for the past few weeks or whenever it's World Cup time.

Date: 2009/09/20 18:11:12, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I see that Joseph has been working overtime on Barry's Evolution is a Fact! thread, forcefully driving home the point that

Date: 2009/09/23 20:44:56, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 24 2009,13:01)
I addedd a SideWiki comment pointing out that Mullings was wrong about "latching" in "weasel" and hasn't had the guts to admit it.

It's on 'The Original WEASEL(s)' thread here, and I notice there is a 'usefulness' voting function.
Edited: added an earle

Date: 2009/09/23 23:30:09, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 24 2009,15:57)
So,  which was the original Weasel thread? Link please, I want to leave my vote there.

Sorry, got lazy - here it is.

Date: 2009/10/06 01:37:29, Link
Author: Ptaylor
StephenB tries on a kinder, gentler persona on Barry's willful-misconstrual-of-Seversky thread:
Moving away from the criticism of one person, who I think has been hit hard enough,

...but soon finds it a little uncomfortable...
there is a broader point to be made. If a man does not change his behavior to harmonize with a philosophy of life, he will change his philosophy of life to harmonize with his behavior.

...and finds that his good old arseholism is a much better fit:
Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled lecher

Date: 2009/10/08 00:45:58, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Heh - someone by the name of osteonectin on the Dawkins-is-a-coward-for-not-debating-Meyers thread:
But he didn’t get 20,000 bucks for not showing up.

Linky (at least for while it lasts).

Which one of you is osteonectin?

Date: 2009/10/15 15:36:13, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 16 2009,08:10)
I read through the thread you guys are talking about and the saddest thing jumped out at me:

"tragic mishap
5:34 pm
Of course, I’m willing to accept an old age and common descent and all that for purposes of conversation, but when it comes down to what I actually believe, I’m betting on Genesis."

The Bible thumpers have people so scared of going to hell that they disbelieve what they know is correct in the hopes that they will go to heaven.

At least that's what I get out of this guys post.

Yes, don't they just love a chance to exit from reality and bathe in bibleness? I liked tm's contribution where he jumps in abandoning all reason:
As a YEC, I never really believed the only reason or even the biggest reason for that view is to preserve this classical theology. In fact, I can’t really recall that ever entering my thinking. Others might think that way, but I assure you I do not. My own reason is quite simply that when asking a historical question, the oldest accounts are quite literally the closest to the truth. It seems rather arrogant to me to trust the modern interpretations of the evidence rather than to trust the accounts of people who were much closer to the actual events than we were. Especially considering the ridiculous level of error in modern science in relation to truth in the absolute sense.

I'm having a bit of trouble here - on one level tragey is right - the value of eyewitness accounts and all that, but is he really telling us that the further in time we move from an event, the wronger about it we become?

Date: 2009/10/18 21:55:37, Link
Author: Ptaylor
<snip>Now, I’m not sure exactly how Mr. MacNeill will respond, but I suspect he’ll side with the very humble opinion(!) of Mr. Nakashima.
Besides, I miss Allen.<snip>

Careful what you wish for, DATCG, as you might just get it, and it might include something like this:

<snip nice guy opening bit>

One of the truly fascinating aspects of following most of the discussions on this website is the general lack of understanding of even the most basic concepts of modern evolutionary theory and its history, much less a nuanced understanding of its fine points. For example, I find it quite telling that virtually none of the discussions I have read here have mentioned (much less discussed) Sergei Chetverikov, Ivan Pavlov, R. A. Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, E. B. Ford, Theodosious Dobzhansky, G. Evelyn Hutchinson, George Gaylord Simpson, G. Ledyard Stebbins, Ernst Mayr, William D. Hamilton, Robert L. Trivers, George R. Price, Robert MacArthur, Edward O. Wilson, Lynn Margulis, Robert H. Whitaker, Carl Woese, Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen, Karl von Frisch, Erenhaus Eibl-Eibesfeld, or the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Law, much less Otto Schindewolf, Richard Goldschmidt, or C. H. Waddington. Anyone familiar with the general outlines of evolutionary biology would instantly recognize most or all of these names, and would associate them with various important aspects of evolutionary biology as it has evolved over the past century. Not recognizing them or discussing their contributions to modern evolutionary biology is equivalent to not recognizing or discussing the contributions of Rutherford, Bohr, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Michaelson & Morley, Einstein, Feinman, Gell-Mann, Weinberg, or Guth to modern physics.

In other words, with the very rare exception of discussion threads like this one, most of what passes for “discussion” of evolutionary biology on this website is the pummeling of pitiful and ridiculous straw dogs and disputations over the fine points of Christian fundamentalist dogma, sometimes disguised (badly) as “science”.

But such an assessment on my part might be somewhat uncharitable. Go ahead, prove me wrong: start a rational and nuanced discussion of the relevance of Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection to current ideas of microevolution, or the relevance of Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monster” hypothesis to modern theories of evo-devo. This website might actually become interesting for a change, not as the intellectual equivalent of rubbernecking at a motor vehicle accident, but as a forum for intelligent discussion.


Date: 2009/10/20 18:20:50, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Love this bit:
All I need do is create the impression that I am a genius, and get people to believe it?

Yes, Denyse, that's it! Just start convincing us you're a genius, and riches and fame will be yours!

Date: 2009/10/21 21:57:36, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Wow - Gil's man crush gets even stronger:  
David Berlinski is a rare treasure, a true Homme de la Renaissance (French for a man of the rebirth – how interesting) in an age when very few such people exist. He speaks multiple languages; knows classical music, history, theology, mathematics; and can think and analyze on many levels. This combination of talents is extremely rare, and his willingness defy the powers that be is even more rare.

David knows which questions to ask (questions never asked or even considered by Darwinists), such as, “What would it take to re-engineer a car into a submarine?” This concerns the evolution of a land mammal into a sea-dwelling mammal. A few purported transitional fossils provide no insight into the efficacy of the Darwinian mechanism to account for the relevant engineering requirements.

Last, but not least, David is as eloquent, incisive, clever, iconoclastic, and humorous in person as he is in print.

My (snicker, giggle) bolding.

Date: 2009/10/22 15:23:04, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Fross @ Oct. 23 2009,03:06)

OMG.  How does a car become a submarine?

For those that missed it first time around, oleaginous narcissist Homme de la Renaissance Berlinski gives his car-to-submarine analogy here.
In a twofer, he includes the now classic "I stopped at 50,000 changes" line.

Date: 2009/10/23 02:05:13, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I may be late to the party on this one, but I have noticed there is no mention of Expelled on Stein's site's filmography page any more, and no direct mention anywhere else on the site that I can find. Has Ben expelled Expelled?
(Or is this old news?)
Edited: Dang - see J-Dog's comment below. Looks like I had fooled myself into thinking that Stein had developed - if not remorse, or conscience -  maybe shame or some sort of guilt about the travesty that is Expelled. No such luck, I guess.

Date: 2009/10/23 16:52:44, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (RDK @ Oct. 24 2009,03:08)
Does anybody know what the dominant religion of the Caribbean is?

I had the pleasure of spending two weeks on Gordon's very own Montserrat around 15 years ago (just a matter of weeks before the volcano there started erupting - it went on to destroy the most populous area of the island). I remember being genuinely surprised at how completely religion - various Christian denominations - had saturated society there. It seemed to me that everyone was at church on Sunday mornings.

Date: 2009/10/27 13:52:02, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthday, kia ora.

Date: 2009/10/30 00:49:05, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 30 2009,17:18)
I always thought he was hang gliding which of course wouldn't work without gravity.

Fixed it for you, Gil.

Date: 2009/11/02 16:52:56, Link
Author: Ptaylor
A little exchange that brought a smile to my face.
(BA dribbles 6.3 billion words)


Those were two very good posts, but the two longest posts I have seen.

Frost, sorry about the length, but the evidence against human evolution is so voluminous it is hard to get it condensed,,, The funny thing is I could have gone much further.

Somehow I picture this as a conversation between two little boys - so cute.

Date: 2009/11/02 20:45:18, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Bornagain is the gift that keeps giving. He visits Oh Deary's Darwinism and Popular Culture thread:
Seversky, So now we get to the meat of the matter. It is not about, nor was it ever about the science, upon which this site is ultimately based in the first place, it is about your deep seeded fear that your loved ones may be in hell. And that is what is too much for you to bear. It doesn’t matter to you if all the scientific evidence in the world echos the glory of God, which it does,, all that matters to you is that you are not in control of this situation and you have a deep seeded anger about that,,, How in the world do you expect us here on UD to deal with that? Do we somehow possess the knowledge to tell you exactly what awaits each person on the other side? Do we know the fate of each of your relatives? I know I don’t know,,, If I told you to go in prayer to God about this matter to find peace you would not listen anyway,,,so what is the point??? Why do you visit a science site when you clearly need spiritual healing?

What a pity irony meter jokes have had their day.

Date: 2009/11/04 13:21:14, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Jerry's back:
Science and religion should not be in conflict and in fact I believe they are not since there is one truth. I have not found any science that interferes with my own personal religious beliefs.

However, some on both sides of the argument seem to be driven by religious beliefs that presuppose the science they must believe in. These are atheists, YEC’s and TE’s. Each group is ideological driven in what can be good science.

ID does not suffer this impediment.
(My emphasis)
I forget - is Jerry deep cover or the real deal?

Date: 2009/11/05 20:29:07, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Andy comes up with another gem:
James, your own postings are extremely verbose with little on topic and yet ... you accuse Karajou of a "rant"???  This talk page is your criticism of the biblical explanation of survival by mammals of a massive flood.  Do you think evolution has a better explanation of how mammals could survive a massive flood?  I'd love to hear it if you have one.  I don't think anyone denies that all of the inhabitable earth has been flooded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Once again, via RationalWiki

Date: 2009/11/08 14:51:41, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Meanwhile, Clive is still struggling with sentences:

You know very well why some of your comments are admitted and some not, as evidenced by the fact that you know how to edit the ones I haven’t allowed to make them less offensive and less of an ad hominem and more of an argument. If you didn’t know, what to edit, and you’re editing is by chance, then I might believe in evolution and not make a design inference. ;)

Date: 2009/11/09 14:33:04, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 10 2009,06:29)
Tomorrow's UD headlines today - the Times* prints a lament about how Darwin's turned our children into nihilistic killers. None other than Barry Arrington is quoted:

A sub-par effort for the Times, IMO. There are a few nutcase commenters, including one D Groothuis, who summarises his position:      
1. If Darwinism is true, objectively morality is unreal.
2. Objective morality is real
3. Therefore, Darwinism is false. By modus tolens.

Surely our friend from UD?

Date: 2009/11/10 04:08:28, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Like Clive,baby Upright Biped appears to have difficulties with the English language:

Thanks for your input. I’ll keep it in mind.

I would say though, being ignored by Allen prior to my comments, is not altogether that much different that being ignored by him prior to my comments.

Date: 2009/11/11 17:45:26, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (REC @ Nov. 12 2009,10:25)
Wow, Clive took the bait (and I'm unbanned??? WTF???)

So Clive would eliminate Newton's Principia if it didn't agree with his moral views.....interesting admission.....

My reply:

1) You willingly accept “views” as trumping truth. I wonder how you feel about the views of the inventors of al-jabr? Perhaps I better like Darwin’s view that “a scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections — a mere heart of stone.”
2) Newton was essentially a radical heretic. His anti-trinitarian and Rosicrucian mystic views would lose a lot of friends on this site. His fervor influenced him, and he mentions religion much more openly than Darwin.
3) Show me where in the Origin of Species Darwin espouses atheism.

Clive's post:  

   If Newton was a satanic child-murdering fiend, should we toss the Principia?

If his views were latent and blatant in the Principia, yes, we should.

I think Erasmus summed it up a few days back:    
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 08 2009,01:29)
i swear these people are waaaaay stupider than we give them credit for being.

Date: 2009/11/12 03:44:06, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthdays, kia ora.

Date: 2009/11/15 14:13:56, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 16 2009,08:26)
Well, I registered and asked a polite and harmless-bordering-on-naive question. That was two hours ago. Is this normal treatment for newbies at UD?

Hard to say. They do state this on their comment policy:        
2) Potential Trouble – newly registered users go on this list at least for their first comment and if you are an ID-critic you’ll probably stay on it. Anyone from the trusted list who has gone astray also ends up here. People on this list must have all their comments approved by an editor before they show up on the blog.

...but as I recall Clivebaby has said he keeps an eye on this sight (hi Clive!) and any regular commenter here qualifies for permanent moderation; pre-banned, if you like. So if you used the same moniker as here your comments might not see the light of day (although I doubt Clive comes here often). Personally I think the most parsimonious reason your comment is in moderation is that it is still Sunday in most parts of the world, a day most ID researchers spend in ch their labs.

Date: 2009/11/15 20:22:31, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Uh-oh - who knows where this will lead?
RationalWiki copyright infringement
William Dembski

RationalWiki is reprinting large portions of an article I did with Robert Marks that far exceeds anything permissible under “fair use” copyright protections. I was getting ready to contact my attorney about having them remove our article from their website (go here — I’ve saved this page in case it changes as a consequence of this post), but couldn’t find any contact information on the site.

Question: Who is running this site and how to contact them?

Edit - this is the link that was provided.

Date: 2009/11/15 20:47:26, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 16 2009,15:32)
What is really sad about this is that the main contact for Rationalwiki is publicly available and accessible within 10 seconds for anyone with a white belt in Google-fu.  Which apparently WmAD does not have.

And nor, so far, have any of the UDenizens been able to help.

Date: 2009/11/16 20:36:32, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 17 2009,14:37)
I suggest that everyone who's interested should go to UD and start making weird socks, with barely coherent viewpoints, except posing as supporters of ID.  Someone can be "the journalist", another can be "the lawyer", and another "the mathematician", and then just start throwing around random criticisms at the various Powers That Be.

Other suggestions: "the pianist", "the appliance repair man", "the CS Lewis expert".

Date: 2009/11/17 17:22:12, Link
Author: Ptaylor
There's something distinctly unnerving about a discussion going on about IQ when the main participants are O'Leary and Frosty. However, I spotted this by Denyse:  
A woman I know had one of her kids diagnosed as low IQ when the kid was three months old – and simply walked out of the office, carrying the kid, and never bothered with those people again. A similar thing happened when that kid was about eleven. The same kid went on to have a great career. Go figure.

What's the bet the woman is Denyse's mother? [/cheap shot]

Date: 2009/11/17 22:34:49, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Mung, commenting in one of Densey's Coffee! posts:
Nakashima @63

Welcome to the world of TE and Alfred Russel Wallace.

Sorry, but any reading of Alfred Wallace clearly removes him from the TE “camp” and places him square on the side of ID.

1. Natural selection is insufficient.

2. Nature is directed.

TE affirms the direct opposite of Wallace.

These dolts really think that the co-presenter of the theory of evolution would have been an ID supporter, and that if only his views had prevailed the world now would be a much kinder, gentler place for ID. I can imagine a world where Wallace had gone public before Darwin (it nearly happened). It would look pretty much the same as today, except we'd have people like Densey railing against 'Wallacism'* and Wallace himself:

"He believed in some nutty ideas, you know, such as canals on Mars and spiritualism, i.e. ghosts (not the Jesus kind)" [Clive would be conflicted here]. "He was a socialist (that's communist in today's language), and as everyone knows, was responsible for the holocaust. He also stole and distorted the works of that lovely Mr Darwin. As for Darwin, he was a kind and loving husband and grandfather, and came from a respectable family. He was a good church going man, he even had training in theology! Buy my book. Yes if only Darwin had been given prominence we would have ID-friendly "Darwinism" now and the world would be a much kinder, gentler place."

*And no, I don't really believe we'd have "Wallacism", but you can see where I'm going, I hope.

Date: 2009/11/18 01:11:21, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Comments on the Neuroscience: “The Young and the Bureau” post have gone beyond bizarre. Frostyboy has outed himself as having an IQ of 138. He's a jenius! Since his admission he has been quite happy to pontificate to his mental underlings on the pros and cons of being a brainiac. Sample slice:    
But I should add that having a high IQ is not necessarily beneficial in all ways as Scott correctly noted. For example you are generally less social because you tend lack interest in common simple things. You are also more troubled with the big questions and just questions in general.

Date: 2009/11/18 17:27:27, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (BillB @ Nov. 19 2009,11:53)
When I force my browser to go to the .com site I found it at 95 in the top 100 books in the science category - Dawkins 'greatest show on earth' is at 6 so Meyers is lagging behind a bit, it is also quite a bit behind 'Home Cheese Making: Recipes for 75 Delicious Cheeses' by Ricki Carroll at No 77 in science best sellers!

Facts, schmacts. Clive posted the thread comprising a press release by Anika Smith, about how fantastically well the new book by Stephen Meyer is doing. Robert Crowther confirms it. The superbright UD crowd don't need any more evidence than that.

Date: 2009/11/21 04:07:58, Link
Author: Ptaylor
My - who could this comment be aimed at?



12:15 am

Do you often post private email conversation without consent? Strange behavior. At least spell my name right.

Date: 2009/11/22 14:18:47, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (bfish @ Nov. 23 2009,05:00)
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 22 2009,00:04)
I remember that once, after his usual spiel about how Darwinists are idiots, someone asked Gil if his father was a Darwinist.  There was no reply.

I believe that was Hermagoras who asked the question. He never got an answer at UD, but may have received personal correspondence.

To be fair to Gill there was a reply of sorts, although I think the question may have been worded a little differently:
David Kellogg:

   Gil, I’ve been trying to ask you a question for a while, but I think it keeps getting lost in the shuffle. If you have time, I’d love a response.

To the best of my knowledge, my father is completely unaware of ID theory. He is 87 and this is a subject that would not be of interest to him, so we have never discussed it.


Date: 2009/11/29 19:15:56, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (dvunkannon @ Nov. 30 2009,13:58)
Nakashima checked his mail today and guess what? His copy of "Signature in the Cell" had arrived, courtesy of Denyse O'Leary!

Including congratulatory card signed by Denyse!!!

If it gets donated to the NCSE, can I get a tax deduction, or is that money laundering?

Please pass my congratulations on to Nakashima.
And speaking of whom, has anyone noticed that his recent sparring partner, BatshitInsane77, has been eerily silent lately? Did 'Nak' eventually push him over the edge?

Date: 2009/11/29 23:46:46, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Ow, ow, ow! The stupid is hurting! Clivebaby on the Ed Begley/Fox News thread:
Ed Begley Jr. remarks “I don’t think geologists should write papers about being an actor or newscaster…nor should uh…Don’t get your information from me folks or any newscaster, get it from people with PhD after their name.”

So, if geologists cannot discuss acting, why should we listen to an actor discussing PhD scientists? Wouldn’t we have to listen to Ed Begley Jr. in order to know that we should only listen to PhD scientists? By his own admission we shouldn’t listen to him about who we should listen to because he is not a PhD scientist.
<more snip>

(My emphasis. For clarification, by "people with PhD after their name" Begley is referring to climate scientists.)

On a related note, have others noted that UD is always a little slow to bring items like this? I saw this clip two or so days ago via onegoodmove.

Date: 2009/11/30 14:02:51, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Wow - Gil has effectively doubled his potential contribution to UD. Simply take the Dodgenator 3000TM and swap 'Darwinism' or Richard 'Dawkins' for 'climate change' or 'Al Gore' etc.
Information-processing systems are not outside the area of expertise of a software engineer, and living systems are based on such systems
...blah blah blah...
The bottom line is that there is no way computer models of the earth’s climate can be trusted.

Date: 2009/12/01 16:33:07, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I think (hope, really) that computerist is having a larf:
Water only makes the situation worse since magnification is a function of the bend or angle in light which is dependent upon the change in refractive index of the medium while light enters and leaves it.<snip>

That must be why it's so fucking bright at the bottom of the ocean.

Date: 2009/12/05 00:05:20, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Seizure Salad @ Dec. 05 2009,18:26)
Just started lurking again after a long absence. Questions:

WTF happened to DaveTard and why does O'Leary hate the LHC so much?

You've missed some great tard-times. As the account over at TimeRime says, Dave was taking a stand against one of the regular Darwinism-caused-the-Holocaust themed threads and took a swipe at Barry Arrington.    
"Hey Barry,
 The Klan just called. They want to know if you’re interested in writing for them."

As I recall it, Barry had recently been given carte blanche authority by Dembski over UD and was in a position to give Dave the boot:    
Note to UD Contributors
Barry Arrington

The moderation policy does not apply to you; you are held to a higher standard. I expect your posts to have at least some tangential relationship to Darwinism, ID, or the metaphysical or moral implications of each. The purpose of this site is not to provide a place for you to jump up and rant on one of your pet peeves.  DaveScot will no longer be posting at UD.
(my bolding)

As for O'Really and the LHC, I don't really know - her entries seem to have become inceasingly incoherent and generally anti-science over the past year or so.

Date: 2009/12/05 23:00:21, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Tribune7 has a gotcha! moment:      
Here is question to puzzle: How can one believe in an old earth and still accept that global warming is caused by man?

Take that, Darwinists!

Date: 2009/12/07 19:15:31, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 08 2009,12:59)
Thanks, Zachriel, I think I am beginning to understand.

And now for something completely different:
We still don’t even know if Obama is a United States Citizen

StephenB is a birfer!!!111

And now Frost138IQ has joined in:
Obama was never able to present a legit proof of his US birth because one does not exist. Almost any person born in the US could present proof of their birth if they were being sworn in as president. So the bottom line is Obama was not born in the US and he is a fraud.<it goes on...>

...and on:  
And everyone should be concerned and outraged by what his administration wants to do to the model responsible in large part for the most successful county in history of the world.

Which county would that be, Frosty?...
...and on:
And as they meet now to discuss the political “consensus” that greenhouse gasses need to be regulated– we need to call out these politicians and special interests as the LIARS that they are; the DISCUSTING liars that they are.

You've got quite the trifecta going on there, Einstein - a birfer and climate change denier on an evolution denial blog!

Date: 2009/12/09 00:08:47, Link
Author: Ptaylor
These guys seem to have the proverbial goldfish bowl mentality. Thought processes seem to go something like:
UDer (let's call him Flannery this time)  "Say, has anyone here ever pointed out that Darwinism was obviously the driving force behind Hitler?"
If it has been 5 or more days since last time this has been subject of a post then collective UD mentality:
"No - don't think so".
"Right - here you go".

Date: 2009/12/09 14:56:21, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I know it's a little gratuitous, but I couldn't let this pass:  
I am proud to be a (very minor) free speech journalist! We must sometimes defend foolish or unattractive people, but being foolish or unattractive has never been a crime here, and if I have anything to do with the matter, it never will be.

Edited to add: Yes, what oldman just said about jokes.

Date: 2009/12/09 17:12:15, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Gil waves goodbye to Richard Dawkins...
Richard Dawkins is still wallowing around in the dust bin of out-of-date and discredited “science,” and he has no clue about the fact that the real scientific world has left him behind.

This is a sad legacy of irrelevance for someone who desperately sought to be relevant. he rides the ID short bus into the scientific future.

Date: 2009/12/10 15:35:03, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Everyone is free to comment here, but if snarky putdowns are all you have to offer, don’t be surprised if you find yourself in the same category as olin, i.e., “no longer with us.”

Olin's comment, immediately above Barry's:

Anyone catch it while it had any content?

Date: 2009/12/13 01:07:45, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthday, kia ora.

Date: 2009/12/15 17:12:25, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (socle @ Dec. 16 2009,11:45)
Why do I get the impression that Clive got a C- in his freshman writing class?   :D

Good lord, he is continuing:

Mustela Nivalis,

I said:

[A whole pile of incoherent nonsense.]

And you responded with:

[Some quite reasonable comments showing why your loathing of atheism is unfounded.]

Why in the world are you talking about your friends? I was pointing out that empirical evidence isn’t necessary for answers to certain questions which have no empirical evidence themselves, and that to demand it is to be self-referentially incoherent. How your friends act is irrelevant in this discussion. Demanding that Mung provide objective empirical evidence as to atheism being bad because it is against reality, in response to your question of why atheism is bad, when the question you asked has no empirical evidence as to why it is a valid question to begin with, is wrong headed. That’s all I was pointing out. Any discussion of your friends is just avoiding my point and changing the subject. Mung doesn’t have to provide empirical evidence as to why atheism is bad, for atheism doesn’t have any empirical evidence itself. By its own criterion of empiricism, which is a philosophy that can never have any empirical evidence, it would cease to exist. This is one of the reasons that atheism as an endeavor is flawed, it requires a presupposition of materialism what it cannot produce for itself.

Edited to fix the inevitable typo, and for aesthetics.

Date: 2009/12/15 21:28:40, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Great - in this week's half circle around the UD goldfish bowl O'Really's Coffee!! call blames Darwinism for Marx and communism. Whatever group could it be next week?

Date: 2009/12/20 02:28:03, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I see Jerry's been attending the David Berlinski school of pulling large numbers out your ass:
This also does not make sense. Are there not cleanly delineated barriers between many species. I can name a million or two that have clear delineated barriers. For example, take a fish and a fruit fly. I can name a million or two where they are not. For example, beetles. I have no idea why you brought in the concept of a designer. ID does not rule out that a large percentage of species arrived by naturalistic means. It just is not 100%

Link, my emphasis.

Date: 2009/12/25 20:57:48, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I'm a bit late to this one (it's Boxing Day and nice and warm here in my part of the world) so I'm wishing a somewhat tardy best wishes for the holiday season to all at UD.
Edited: fricken typos

Date: 2010/01/11 23:20:56, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quick wishes for a best recovery.

Date: 2010/01/17 14:48:36, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthday, kia ora.

Date: 2010/01/17 14:53:42, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 17 2010,15:48)
Alas, Voice Coil is no more.

Always remember, Clive: Banninnation is yet another time-worn form of creationist obscurantism. But I do accept the compliment.

Clivebaby (hi Clive!) announces a (not-so-rare-now) double bannination:

h.pesoj is the same sock puppet as George L. Farquar. He’s no longer with us. I had previously banned him under George, and now he’s gone under his backwards “josep.h” name. Also, to whomever is interested, Voice Coil is no longer with us, because that was a sock puppet for Diffaxial, who I had previously banned. In short, they were both old sock puppets from the past, previously banned, and now banned again, nothing new to see here. :)


Date: 2010/01/18 17:26:56, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 19 2010,11:43)
Jerry gets it right, for once

Just in case anyone is interested there is no evidence for evolution by accumulation of small changes. That is why this site remains a thorn in the side of the know nothings. We keep repeating the obvious.

Shorter VizziniJerry:
Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Darwin, Haldane, Gould?


Date: 2010/01/20 17:35:04, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 21 2010,12:28)
If you're really Jerry, say something about No Free Lunch in your next comment over there.

Well I'll be...

Date: 2010/01/20 20:45:42, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 21 2010,15:33)
caek has more FSCI than cake, and it is easily calculated. Trivial, even. I'm not doing it, though.

You can add a 'Fantastic job' from me. Do all these accolades mean your sig line is going to become insufferably long?

Date: 2010/01/20 23:38:02, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 21 2010,18:22)
GrannyTARD claims to have uttered this at some time in the past...

Unlike Gil:  
Dear Billy,

As a youth, and into my middle years, I was a militant, materialist atheist. But the more I learned about science, the more I began to question my faith.

I no longer have enough faith to be an atheist, because of the evidence...

E1, Gil!

Date: 2010/01/21 22:04:15, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Heh - REC:

I’m fairly new here, but is bornagain77 a troll? His/her arguments seem like an atheist’s parody of what is trying to be accomplished here…..

Date: 2010/01/23 02:04:42, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthday to you both, kia ora.

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

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

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

I wonder what they make of Avatar?

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

Date: 2010/01/26 18:58:25, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Ouch - the stupid hurts! O'Leary:
What I don’t understand is, if ecology is that fragile, how come life has existed continuously on Earth for about four billion years?

Date: 2010/01/26 20:57:12, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Densey's latest bit of idiocy seems to have provoked some sort of tard chain reaction over at UD. The ineducable Borne offers this:
Code Sample
Under Darwinism there is no reason for anything except survival for survival’s sake. How boring.
Why should anything survive?
Why should packs of neurons survive?
Materialism utterly fails to provide any viable reasons or answers.
Darwinism sucks.

And elsewhere Clivebaby provides:  

   For creationists there is a very big problem. Think about it. If we find one other planet with life, especially if that life has reached a similar stage of development, then we are no longer unique. If we find many other life -bearing planets then we are not even special. It then becomes a lot harder to justify the claim that we are God’s chosen people or special favorite.

Quantity doesn’t negate quality. You cannot assume as fact a notion of quality by virtue of a quantity.

Pure tard's breaking out all over.

Date: 2010/01/28 19:52:10, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Just. Wow. From the guy that brought the world
“Overwhelming Scientific Evidence” yet again
William Dembski
Whenever I hear the phrase “overwhelming evidence” or “overwhelming scientific evidence,” my antennae go up and I know that someone is trying to sell me something. Last night, if you were watching the networks, you heard the following remark:

   I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future — because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.

I’d like to encourage people to post in the comments to this thread other examples where the phrase “overwhelming [scientific] evidence” is used to sell a bogus idea.

(my emphasis) Link
Edited: I emboldenated a second bit.

Date: 2010/02/02 18:53:28, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 03 2010,09:32)
Making StephenB a poster at UD is the best thing they've done for TARD production in a long time!

Leave it to Frostyboy to bring his own special level of dumb to the METHODOLOGICAL...thread. Sample tidbit:
ANd in your buglar anology it is important to note that only the burgalr has the ability to produce vast amounts of specified complxity. The tornado would have a lot fo touble putting together useful purposeful tools by chance while moving through a junk yard- but the man has the potential to make many specified combinations. And the division of mathematics which is called combinatorics sheds a light on the magnitude of how improbable the effects of true SC intelligence are- hence the complexity of the human brain is alone extremely complex- but what it can actually do makes it even more so. Hence the notion that an ape and a man can both swing a golf club sharing man of the same genes and complexity from the physical standpoint- but only the man has a chance of making a hole in one- say every 50 thousand shots while the ape may never make one. Ever.

Heh - I've just noticed that after two attempts to spell burglar Frosty's given up and opted for the easier-to-spell man and ape.

Date: 2010/02/03 22:34:44, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 04 2010,13:25)
Casey does the Time Warp again!

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

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

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

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

Edited to add a figure.

Date: 2010/02/05 22:30:09, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 06 2010,16:36)
Stanek touts Dr. Philip G. Ney extensively and approvingly.
The most popular hypothesis to explain ROD [Rapid Orbital Decay of the earth's orbit] is that there are too many tall buildings, which increase drag on the globe circling winds. If this were the case then all we must do is stop building such tall structures and take down some of those we now have. Again the temptation is too ascribe uncomfortable changes to human stupidity so that to fix the problem, we just have to get smarter.

Well, he got that last bit right.

Date: 2010/02/10 03:11:04, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (bfish @ Feb. 10 2010,19:26)
One line jumped out at me:
...but I also receive an email now and again from someone who was an atheist and found God because ID shook them out of their dogmatic slumber.

That'd be Gil, then, about once a week.

Joking aside, I am not capable to judge - is this a serious blow to ID/UD or not?

Date: 2010/02/12 03:46:52, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Denyse O'Leary, ace journalist:
The United States is cancelling its space programs, or so I hear.

Allen_MacNeill, real world:

Date: 2010/02/16 13:12:04, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I see Sal's been Pharyngulated:  
Without hesitation, I can tell you who the most contemptible, repulsive creationist I know is: he tops even Ray Comfort and Ken Ham in the pantheon of creationist liars for Jesus. It's the otherwise negligible Sal Cordova, a whiny little nobody with no talent and no reputation other than his ability to cobble up some of the most disgusting innuendo....

Date: 2010/02/18 15:03:11, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthday, kia ora.

Date: 2010/02/23 17:18:43, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Clive (hi!)- Incoherence - ur doing it right:    

Nonsense is not a limit, God can do anything, nonsense is not a thing.

Date: 2010/02/23 23:51:19, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 24 2010,04:34)
Somebody missed the whole Dover thing, apparently. Oh, wait, that's right, Judge Jones was an Atheist Baby-Eating Darwinist Mole.

Oh, Joe knows all about Dover. He coulda changed the result if only he'd turned up, doncha know. He had this to say about it over at UD:
To this day I kick myself for not going to the “Kitzmiller” fiasco…

Sure, I can just picture how it would have been - Day one, around 90 minutes in:
Judge J Jones: "Officer, please have this man removed and charged with contempt of court"

Date: 2010/02/24 12:57:50, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthday, kia ora.

Date: 2010/02/24 15:02:49, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 25 2010,09:50)
Tardenafil citrate overdose you suspect, Doctor?

Either that or Tardalafil.

ETA - erm, sorry, medicines info is what I do for a day job

Date: 2010/02/24 19:07:56, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (olegt @ Feb. 25 2010,13:21)
Bill Dembski sums up the creation-evolution wars of the last 20 years:
When I got into this business 20 years ago, I thought that any Christian (and indeed theist), given good evidence against evolution (again, a materialistic understanding of it) would be happy to trash it and move to some form of intelligent design (whether special creation or intelligent evolution). But that’s not happened. Theistic evolutionists now make common cause with atheistic evolutionists — specifically against ID. ID has become public enemy number one for both atheistic and theistic evolutionists (the recent spate of books by both sides confirms this point).

The practical effect of this is that not just the mainstream academy but the mainstream Christian academy (Wheaton College, Calvin College, Seattle Pacific University, etc. — most of the schools in the CCCU) have now closed their doors to ID and to hiring faculty that explicitly support it. We’re therefore on our own. This may seem like a bad thing (it sure would be nice to be invited to those wine-and-cheese parties at the Templeton Foundation), but I submit it is a good thing. It keeps us honest. We don’t have to play nice with Darwin because our livelihoods are at stake. Moreover, it will make the ultimate victory of ID all that much sweeter.

I quite sincerely pity him.  20 years down the drain.

You missed the last part - he'll be doing the pitying eventually - it'll be a real Waterloo.

Date: 2010/02/25 19:37:52, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (REC @ Feb. 26 2010,13:57)
Second post has a climate-denier I've never even heard of.

DLH is a long time denizen - he's actually got posting privileges. He's been denying evolution and climate change reality since at least 2007:    
> 400 Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming: US Senate Report

While I'm here, does anyone know who clivecopus is? Whoever they are they don't know how to write a headline without a glaring typo in the middle* (hi Denyse!) or provide a functioning hyperlink.

*Just what is a Pius X11?

Edited - stupid typo

Date: 2010/03/01 13:10:39, Link
Author: Ptaylor
A sample from a comment from rockyr on the PiusXII (they've corrected the title) thread:
If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything.

It goes on (and on).
Does anyone here know what he's on about?
Does anyone over at UD?
Does rockyr?

Date: 2010/03/02 22:19:22, Link
Author: Ptaylor
And a tardy happy birthday and kia ora to you both from me.
fnxtr asked me a question the other day on the Joe G Tardgasm thread which I have failed to have the courtesy to answer (mainly because I haven't thought of any witty way to reply):  
Really? Can you explain pharmaceutical nomenclature? Or do they just make up cool sounding names? I mean the generic names, not brand names.

I'm afraid I'm a couple of steps removed from the naming process, although we do see some real tongue-twisters. It's sorta fun talking straight faced about hydrochlorothiazide, cholecalciferol and sulfamethoxazole etc.

Date: 2010/03/04 17:45:35, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Wagenweg admits to being no expert on SETI, but he has given it some deep thought:
If sound/message came from our universe, then they would have to accomidate for the change in the massege as it travels through atmospheres of planets either slowing it down, speeding it up or changing the messages direction which again may change it into something unrecognizable as we do not fully understand what may or may not happen on the outer edges within our universe.

He should pass that on to Seth Shostak.

Date: 2010/03/04 20:52:11, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (someotherguy @ Mar. 05 2010,15:33)
Sweet Jesus, that is deeply, deeply stupid.

Heh. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, I try not to think with my toes.

Date: 2010/03/07 17:23:24, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 07 2010,18:01)
Because, you see, the argument regarding design is resilient.

'The argument regarding design is extra resilient' provides a better acronym.

Date: 2010/03/07 18:06:07, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 08 2010,12:49)
Cause it's later than we think? Or something?

Erm - I'll just get me coat.

Date: 2010/03/09 17:52:53, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Why hasn't Harry Barrington turned up in the comments at the Dawkins Down Under thread? It's full of his stock in trade, wilful misconstual. Un petit sample:
Dawkins :”Nobody would ever say, “Because I’m an atheist I’m going to kill somebody.”
Has he never studied history? What about Pol Pot? Was he not an atheist that killed people for opposing his views? If Dawkin was american, I could forgive him for not knowing France history and the massacre done by the Jacobins (the reign of terror) in the name of Atheism.
Atheism as an ideology is responsible for the death of more people in the 20th century that all religions all together.
Dawkin is in complete denial.

There's also a perfect opening for him to sermonise about Columbine.
Oh, yes, and it is extra tardy - even Joseph has turned up.
Where are you Barry?

Date: 2010/03/13 00:20:32, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Clive argues, quite convincingly in my opinion...    

<snip quote about the works of the Grants work on Galapagos finches>

If that Darwinian evolution then it certainly isn’t Darwinian common descent. I liked David Berlinski’s response to this when he said, I’m paraphrasing, that the beaks change with the wet and dry season and regress back to the mean. Maybe one day we’ll have Galapagos elephants evolved from the finches, maybe, but we need a lot more evidence than beak variation. To me, this strikes as saying that since your children’s hair is usually a different color they’ll eventually evolve into a new creature. Do you believe that Allen? Do you believe that your children’s offspring, way down the lineage, will be entirely new creatures? Do you think they will be better or worse than humans?

...that he doesn't have a fucking clue of what he's talking about, or of elementary scientific concepts.

(Link is from Corny's bizarre thread in which he argues that global warming (which you guys deny, Cornelius) is evidence against evolution.)

Date: 2010/03/16 13:57:57, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Heh heh, well spotted hrun0815.
I’m going to be Frank, are you being a troll on purpose?

Hi Frank.(...)

Date: 2010/03/16 14:54:33, Link
Author: Ptaylor
A late happy birthday from me - kia ora translated into French.

Date: 2010/03/17 21:22:40, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Learned Hand @ Mar. 18 2010,07:45)
Perhaps someone with posting privileges could add a message to Dr. Hunter's latest complaint, linking to a random assortment of Joe G's vileness.  It's beyond hypocritical for the UD crowd to pretend to civility or standards of rational discourse.

I tried something like that a while ago. It had a desirable short term effect, but don't forget these are people with a weird form of criticism deficit disorder - they will criticise mainstream science all day long, but almost never each other. The other problem is that Joe enjoys the attention. I came away recalling the GBS adage about wrestling with pigs.

P.S. Anyone else slightly amused that DO'L's #2 book to read on the ID controversy is actually a DVD?

Date: 2010/03/22 20:28:33, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthday, kia ora.

Date: 2010/03/25 01:20:49, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Tom Ames @ Mar. 25 2010,20:08)
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 24 2010,17:47)
Kew Gardens

Wow, I wouldn't have pegged you as a Fifth Quadrantist. But it's hard to interpret your move in any other light.

Nah - I think that's just a modified version of Wilson's gambit.

Date: 2010/03/27 19:04:08, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 28 2010,13:21)
Was it Behe or Dembski who was pushing the "bible code" numerology BS?  Maybe BA is just taking after his idols?

It was Dembski. Wikipedia quotes him:    
At the same time that research in the Bible Code has taken off, research in a seemingly unrelated field has taken off as well, namely, biological design. These two fields are in fact closely related. Indeed, the same highly improbable, independently given patterns that appear as the equidistant letter sequences in the Bible Code appear in biology as functionally integrated ("irreducibly complex") biological systems, of the sort Michael Behe discussed in Darwin’s Black Box.

Unfortunately the citation link leads to a 404 page.
He's displayed gullibility in other areas as well. There was that incident with that faith healer a couple of years back. Oh - and he's an evolution denier too!

Date: 2010/03/28 14:53:04, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthday, kia ora.

Date: 2010/03/29 14:58:26, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Just to mark a minor milestone here, I believe that BA77 has just announced the Biggest Number Ever Used at UD*:
Blah blah blah blah indicates the concentration of a protein containing just 100 peptide bonds (101 amino acids) at equilibrium would be 10-338 molar. Just to make this number meaningful, our universe may have a volume somewhere in the neighborhood of 1085 liters. At 10-338 molar, we would need an ocean with a volume equal to 10229 universes (100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000) just to find a single molecule of any protein with 100 peptide bonds. So we must look elsewhere for a mechanism to produce polymers. It will not happen in the ocean.

Take that materialists!

Edited to add: *So far, that is. God forbid (please) that they ever learn about Skewes' numbers.

Date: 2010/03/31 18:41:11, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 01 2010,05:00)
Moral Law is Teh_giggles. tgpeeler has his own blag:


There's something I find a little sad about that. I've been following tgp's comments for a while now and had come to the conclusion that his hopeless naivety was probably partly due to his youth. However the profile on his blog (and in his LinkedIn page) would put him in his mid fifties at the youngest.

But maybe that's how UD really is - the typical demographic being middle aged men so soaked in religious doublethink that they've lost whatever capacity they might have once had for logical, rational argument. We know that Barry, Gil and Granny fit the bill, and I suspect Clive (hi Clive!) does too. Dr2 D doesn't quite make it; he's quite the whippersnapper at 49. Does anyone have details on StephenB(ussell) and Jerry?

However, perhaps it's good news; maybe the future of ID is not 'with the kids' as I recall Dembski saying a few years back. Maybe they're just not buying it, Bill.

Eta: Granny being Granville, not the other one.

Date: 2010/04/07 03:04:10, Link
Author: Ptaylor
StephenB argues against appealing to a consensus view...
—Aleta: “Back to the main point: why should I, or anyone, believe the pronouncements of Stephen or Jerry over the consensus view of mainstream science.”

Which “consensus” are you talking about? Is it the consensus that once preferred Aristotle’s outdated cosmology over Galileo’s observations, or the consensus that defended Paley’s design arguments against Darwin’s naturalism, or the consensus that defended Newton’s traditions over Einstein’s innovations, or the consensus that now seeks to protect Darwinism from intelligent design? Here is a clue: All true progress in science comes from the original thinkers, better known as the minority, and not from the uncreative, dutiful little worker bees, better known as the majority. using appeal to a - erm - different consensus view:

With respect to the former, almost a thousand prominent scientists now question the Darwinistic formula. I, for one, am not asking anyone to believe me; I simply point them to the scientists in question.

There are a couple of laughs in the remainder of his comment, too.

Date: 2010/04/09 02:46:03, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 09 2010,17:46)
Can we measure how many mutations it takes to evolve a whale from a land animal? I do not know, do you?

We can do quite a bit better than guess. We can calculate upper and lower bounds.

I've tried to do some of these calculations. The calculations are certainly, certainly not hard, but they're interesting. I stopped at 50,000.</twiddles pen pompously>

Date: 2010/04/11 21:43:50, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Clivebaby bans for the crime of having been banned before:

Mustela Nivalis was a sock puppet that I have banned twice before, so this makes a third time.

Date: 2010/04/12 17:51:21, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 13 2010,11:42)
...Joel was Dembski's first research assistant ca 2006.  He started hot, but then he seemed to get overly interested in teen girl's sex lives, then he accidentally spilled the beans and admitted that ID was religious in nature (on UD!)...

I think this was the incident. For context, Dembski announced a new radio advertising campaign promoting the teaching of the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories such as evolution. Joel expressed a wish that this would lead to ID being taught in his home state and commenter DaveW (!) asked what such an innocuous sounding promotion had to do with ID. Joel's response:
It really is ID in disguise. The entire purpose behind all of this is to shift it into schools…at least that is the hope/fear among some science teachers in the area. The problem is, if you are not going to be dogmatic in Darwinism that means you inevitably have to point out a fault or at least an alternative to Darwinism. So far, the only plausible theory is ID.

If one is to challenge Darwin, then one must use ID. To challenge Darwin is to challenge natural selection/spontaneous first cause…which is what the Kansas board is attempting to do. When you do that, you have to invoke the idea of ID.

My embolderation. As somebody here once said: ID - ready - fire - aim!

Date: 2010/04/13 18:02:52, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Heh - I just noticed that BA77 has ended one of his 900+ words, multi linked comments with:
etc.. etc..

How apt.
I can't help thinking that life would be so much easier for everyone concerned if he limited his comments to just that.

Date: 2010/04/14 04:57:52, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Isn't this thread getting a bit tiresome?

Highbury & Islington.

Date: 2010/04/14 20:50:58, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Amadan @ April 15 2010,06:17)
Quote (huwp @ April 14 2010,07:39)
No, I'm sorry, but "Lords" just isn't a valid move.  Possibly "St.John's Wood" or "Westminster" but not "Lords".

I've consulted Stovold's on this and it's just not allowed, not even under the (later) Mortimer Variations or even the Armitage guidelines.

You'll just have to miss a turn or throw a double six.



Of course it's not in Stovold: see Wisden Appendix XXVII Spooning and Spoon. The rule was in abeyance until the Serbian War of 1912.

Lords it is.

Then why did you just miss that turn?

Erm - Hatch End

Date: 2010/04/15 01:36:00, Link
Author: Ptaylor
The phrase "ID is creationism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo" obviously stung the UD crowd. Not to worry, though, Matteo has come up with a counter catch-line:
PZ Myers spends very little time talking about science and almost all of his posts are merely slams against the dumbest religious people he can find, or the Pope, or (recently, and apropos of nothing) Alice von Hildebrand, or the latest survey being run by Christians that he and his suckup fanboys can storm, etc, ad nauseum. Should mainstream evolutionary biology, then, be regarded as the lowest form of know-nothing atheism dressed up in a cheap leotard?

Ouch - that could really catch on.

Date: 2010/04/15 15:54:19, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Off topic, although I don't think it will be for long. I think UD will pick up on this soon:      
Discrimination Lawsuit Filed Against NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab for Harassing and Demoting Supporter of Intelligent Design

Guess who's serving as attack gerbil legal consultant on the case?

Edited: ...or the whole thing could die a death. The complainant turns out to be one David Coppedge. Would that be the David Coppedge behind

Date: 2010/04/26 21:08:21, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (JLT @ April 26 2010,07:55)
PaulBurnett comments on a post, evoking this answer by Merlin

I will confess on my behalf, and for a lot of people I don’t know. Most supporters of ID here are Christians, many are YEC’s. Many would like to convert you to Christianity.

Get over it. Deal with the science.


To which Unpleasant Blowhard responds:

What you might not know about Paul Burnett is that he doesn’t give a damn about the science, and he never has. He wants to prosecute Christians, that’s all that motivates him.

Consequently he envisions himself standing at a waterfall, shouting truth to power. In actuality, he’s a grunt for the orthodoxy. He comes to one of the few intellectual outposts for the minority, only to castigate its members for gathering together.

Pretty much every sentence has a little tard-gem there; I like the bit about UD being "one of the few intellectual outposts for the minority"!

Date: 2010/05/02 18:27:39, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Clivebaby has a one sentence response to pelagius:    



   Why was my last comment deleted? It was on-topic, relevant, and supported by references.

It was accusing Flew of dementia, which is, of course, very rude, considering it was not true, so I won’t allow that sort of mark on a recently deceased man’s intellectual courage and character.

Date: 2010/05/02 19:37:32, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (JLT @ May 03 2010,04:57)
Quote (Bob O'H @ May 02 2010,13:12)
Oops, late. So happy hangover day!


And me. Kia ora to you both.

Date: 2010/05/04 23:08:09, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Gunthernacus @ May 05 2010,17:29)
Quote (didymos @ May 04 2010,19:10)
Dude, this guy is soooo banned...

I think he's running  interference.

Either way, he's pushing it. Time to start recording all comments, I think. Here he gives Unpleasant Blowhard some of his own back:      
ah, Upright BiPed, that hoary old canard.

Defend my position, use empirical observations, shock horror face-palm.

Unlike your perennial attitude, I learn. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that people like you dismiss mountains of factual, empirical, scientific evidence even when its presented six ways of sixpence. Because you have a closed mind, fully focused on fable and a single book.

You know the answer to the ‘manifest question’.

Yeah I can do it, so can many, many others. But what’s the point when the listener sticks their fingers in their ears and goes ‘la la la’.

So how about you show me empirical evidence, maybe even some facts and scientific evidence, peer reviewed by untainted people of the sciences; to prove creation/ID.

Can you do it?

ETA: Gotta love this one on Corny's latest thread (with comments from BA77, johnnyb, and newcomer above):
is this the thread for the ’special’ kids who can’t play on the grown-ups thread?

Date: 2010/05/09 19:22:03, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Turncoat @ May 10 2010,13:37)
Near-death guffaw. KF:
Above: yup. Sadly. DaveScot played a very important role in setting up a forum that was reasonable; loo. . . oong story. G

And that on a thread started by DT's banninator.
Meanwhile we have, at last, someone who can speak with some authority on the differences between ID and creationism - johnnyb:
Tom Sawyer -
There are several differences between ID and creationism. I am both, so I’m in a pretty good place to make distinctions.
<snip the rest>

Date: 2010/05/10 19:30:35, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Clive's doing the rounds

   Why did you delete my last comment?

It was rude.

Anyone catch pelagius's comment?

Date: 2010/05/10 23:52:45, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (sparc @ May 11 2010,18:23)
Off topic: Haven't the previuous casey luskin graduate award winners been announced in May? Some of them have preferred to stay anonymous, though.

I haven't seen any evidence for a follow up award since the original one in 2007. UD commenter Lou Waters asked...          
Who won the Casey Luskin award this year? early 2008 and got this response:

Maybe they're not only keeping the identity of the winner secret, but now also the award itself and any mention of it?

Date: 2010/05/11 23:22:04, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Barry is getting testy with Jerry:  
I am gaveling Jerry’s “define evil” discussion.

Date: 2010/05/12 15:01:16, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (didymos @ May 13 2010,01:51)
Better record this one, 'cause it's almost certainly doomed:

Your link isn't working. Oh - wait...

Date: 2010/05/12 20:47:05, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Wow - Sooner Emeritus smacks Uptight around here. Samples:      
Big, Bad BiPed taunts from the pleats of mama’s skirt:

So yes Sooner, I do intend to keep poking you in the chest.

It will redound upon you, and evidence a double standard in blog moderation.

Now, as for my arrogance, “hyper-baffoonery,” and imperviousness to “the evidence,” I’ll say first that the height of arrogance is to to drag into any thread, irrespective of the topic, the particular evidence you believe must be addressed.

Check the whole thing out. My prediction: UB will show a schlaflyesque unawareness that he's been smacked around so thoroughly.

That said, this part of SE's reply got me:        
One of the “mavericks” — the one who may actually be a genius, but who has never figured out that adorning a preconception with formalism is not mathematics — has gloated that he uses feedback he gains in Internet debate to adapt his arguments. I used to give him feedback, but now I’m just letting him run into the wall you smack into when you’re wrong.

(Emphasis in original)
Is he talking about who I think he is talking about?

ETA: Prediction confirmed!

Date: 2010/05/16 17:38:58, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (didymos @ May 17 2010,11:54)
God, batshit is a dumbass:

On the same thread tgpeeler somewhat tellingly sets himself apart from certain others:
2. So propose to me just one thing about the evolutionary story that even begins to get us from the periodic table to DNA. Rather than endlessly argue with you about why I am not wrong, why don’t you take the stage and tell me/us why you are right?? How do you get from the one to the other?? Inquiring minds want to know. And so do I.

My emphasis.

Date: 2010/05/20 17:52:53, Link
Author: Ptaylor
The pain continues at chez Dodgen. Sooner Emeritus:

Gil Dodgen,

   As someone with a specialty in GN&C (guidance, navigation and control) software for UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) I can attest to the fact that this is an extraordinarily difficult and challenging engineering discipline.

   Flapping-wing aerial vehicles (ornithopters) were long ago abandoned because the control laws are hopelessly complicated and fault-intolerant.

I thought you had two or three years of OJT in simulating the trajectory of a powered parachute drop, with one or two weeks of coursework in use of a simulation package.

People who know ANYTHING about robotics know that many intractable control problems vanished with a switch to biomimetic muscles and joints. The tremendous progress in robotics over the past 15 years is due largely to advances in materials, not control theory.

I had not seen a report of a wing-flapping robotic bird, but knew that researchers had to be developing them, and just spent a minute locating this report from MIT.


Date: 2010/05/20 20:40:48, Link
Author: Ptaylor
It really isn't Gil's day. Lenoxus:
#5 GilDodgen:

   Add to this the fact that the echolocation- and visual-feedback systems of bats and birds must be seamlessly integrated through the central nervous system with the flight-control systems, with fraction-of-a-second precision – or the creature will die an instantaneous and ignominious death, leaving behind no progeny.

Oh, the drama.

When I was very young, I had a classmate who was somewhat nearsighted. Of course, she shortly died an instantaneous and ignominious death. I mean, her optical/neural wiring fell a good bit short of perfect, obviously.

Seriously, what could that “instantaneous” part possibly mean? That if a bat has less-than perfect “neural wiring” for echolocation, it will die at birth? That there can be no such thing as low-level echolocation; it’s all or nothing?

Date: 2010/05/20 21:29:19, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (didymos @ May 21 2010,14:03)
Well, Thornton's done.

Indeed. WAD:  
thornton: You seem to allow that I haven’t lost the last vestige of credibility. Let me help you take the final step by removing you from this forum.

Date: 2010/05/20 21:33:43, Link
Author: Ptaylor
didymos on the UD thread:  
Oops.  Thornton directly dissed the Dr. Dr. on his own thread:
Dr. Dembski, it certainly is a pity you are forced to grab at the coattails of tin-foil-hat wearing AGW deniers in a convoluted attempt to show how ‘Big Science’ is holding back ID. The enemy of your enemy is your friend I suppose. But is it really worth flushing the remaining bit of your scientific integrity down the loo to try and score cheap points for the frankly flat-lining ID hypothesis? Wouldn’t it be better to have ID do some actual research, present some actual positive results to the mainstream scientific community? You can only yell “Conspiracy!! Oppression!!’ without evidence so many times before people stop listening.

Batshit's got Bill's back(side kissed):  

Thorton your a pretty smug guy for a person living his life engulfed in a lie.

Well, Thornton's done.

Indeed. WAD:      
thornton: You seem to allow that I haven’t lost the last vestige of credibility. Let me help you take the final step by removing you from this forum.

Date: 2010/05/20 21:35:01, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthday, kia ora.

Date: 2010/05/21 02:53:19, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Looks like Cabal is about to follow thornton into the UD nether world:

   thornton: You seem to allow that I haven’t lost the last vestige of credibility. Let me help you take the final step by removing you from this forum.

One of Duke Ellington’s many elegant songs goes “The song is ended but the melody lingers on”. thornton may be expelled, but the words are flying in the wind:

   Wouldn’t it be better to have ID do some actual research, present some actual positive results to the mainstream scientific community? You can only yell “Conspiracy!! Oppression!!’ without evidence so many times before people stop listening.


Date: 2010/05/27 19:40:22, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 28 2010,02:36)
What's the deal with Corny Hunter posting so many articles at UD?  Is he the Guest Tard of the Month?  My stars but is he ever a scientifically illiterate nimrod.

(Also responding to RDK's latest)
They all appear to be intended to bring traffic over to his own blog. It's odd behaviour, though: find some science article, decide arbitrarily that it makes unsupported assertions, or that it is simply prima facie laughable, comment at length, then watch as your arguments get torn apart in the responses.

Next day, start over again.

Date: 2010/05/31 19:59:23, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthday, kia ora.

Date: 2010/06/02 18:47:46, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Hunter's blog is currently outrunning UD in the inane comments races. I particularly like this one from natschuster:
I only know of three cases of the Israelites commiting genocide. There's the Canaanites, because they where really bad people. There's the Midianites because they attacked the Israelites first. And only the women who weren't virgins were killed because they seduced the Isralites into sinning. And there's the Amalekites, who started it.

And what exactly is your basis for saying the Bible is immoral beyod your own moral sense?


Date: 2010/06/08 15:41:54, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Toronto tries to point out StephenB's fuckwittery:
StephenB @ 27,

   “At the moment, I am less concerned about the wall between us and more concerned about your aggressive attempts to render my son uneducable.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

All the Evos who come here do so for a very serious reason.

We recognize that our future generations need to be free to explore the world and universe around them without interference from those who would insist that knowledge has an absolute end which can only be reached if you are guided by an absolute truth.

...but Clive's onto him

All the Evos who come here do so for a very serious reason.

No they don’t, I’ve been moderator here long enough to know that this statement, as an absolute truth, is absolutely wrong. Plenty come here to be snide and try to get laughs from their cohorts at the “after the bar closes” asylum.

We recognize that our future generations need to be free to explore the world and universe around them without interference from those who would insist that knowledge has an absolute end which can only be reached if you are guided by an absolute truth.

Good luck exploring when the map changes depending on who you ask, they will never know where they are if there is not really such a thing as “knowing”. And you say this is something that is recognized? “Recognized” as if it were true? and should be a guiding principle in how future generations explore the world? and yet unaided by truth? Are you being serious? Do you sincerely not see all of your intertwined absolute truth statements in your assertions? Do you not see the contradiction?
(My bolding)

Hi Clive!

Date: 2010/06/08 23:03:34, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Damn - sparc beat me to it. Posting anyway:
Clive (hi Clive!) is back on the Darwin-was-Hitler's granddad thing, (no real thanks to Michael Ruse for giving Clive the opportunity). Using his Master's degree in logic he summarises Ruse's argument:
Michael Ruse decides that Darwin had no impact on Hitler in this piece.  He decides that Hitler couldn’t have been influenced by Darwin, because Darwin would have been appalled by Hitler.

(Quotes Ruse out of context)
Of course, Hitler could have been influenced by Darwin, regardless of whether Darwin would have been appalled by Hitler. The question of whether Hitler could have been influenced by Darwin in his thinking about favored races is not answered by Darwin being appalled by how Hitler implemented this idea.

Give that straw man hell, Clive!
Anyway, sez Clive, what would Ruse know? Here's a one hour video clip from an "actual historian" Richard Weikart.
Err - no thanks Clive - I've got these needles here I'd rather push into my eyes for 60 minutes.

Date: 2010/06/14 17:37:54, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Joe has a new tardgasm over at Corny's blog. First appearance is here.

Date: 2010/06/15 02:37:23, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (sparc @ June 15 2010,15:31)
And why did he change the title of his latest post?

My rather mundane take on it is that he realised it was hyperbolic. If getting the California Science Center to release documents and pay some legal fees is a 'huge victory' then how would you describe the accomplishment of the most trivial goal of the Wedge document, were it to eventuate?

Date: 2010/06/16 18:34:16, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 17 2010,07:06)
Sal deletes a comment by veilsofmaya because it      
repeated illogical arguments that had already been taken care of.

If you deleted everything on UD for that, it'd be a 404 page.

I caught this at the top of the Recent Comments section at UD:
veilsofmaya: @scordova(#89) You wrote: Your comment was initially put in the spam buffer by me since they repeated...

But clicking on the link takes me to:

...and now it's no longer in the Recent Comments - what to make of that?

Date: 2010/06/17 02:01:48, Link
Author: Ptaylor
As I write Sal's Seaman and Sanford post has six responses - five from Sal himself, and one from johnnyb kissing Sal's arse. Remind you of anyone?

Date: 2010/06/20 20:38:54, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Clive (hi Clive!) is having a busy day. Ena Sharples correctly predicted she would be removed from the cast, and Clive confirms:
Ena Sharples, also known as George L Farquhar, MikeKratch, PhilipBaxter, Blue Lotus, Mach Six, Mustela Nivalis, h.pesoj, Moseph, and Echidna-Levy,
I’ve only just registered on this site, but I suspect from what I’ve seen here I won’t be around too long.

You say you just registered at this site? Sure thing……You suspect rightly about not being around too long.

Date: 2010/06/21 21:44:49, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (BillB @ June 22 2010,10:35)
Clive Hayden 06/21/2010
4:26 pm                
... I can’t speak for Denyse
Denyse isn't very good at it either

(Also what didymos said just upstream)

Denyse follows on after Clive's nonsense (oh - hi Clive!) to confirm BillB's comment:
gpuccio at 14 writes “If she is simply saying that some of Darwin’s ideas have been refuted by subsequent scientific investigation, that’s trivially true.
[ ... ]

I am interested in hearing a clarification from Ms. O’Leary herself.”

You want a clarification? Well, you will hear one below:

First, I have no idea what the term “trivially true” means. If it is true, it is true, and if it is true, it could certainly be important to someone somewhere.

Also, I do not have a third hand.

I, inconveniently, make do with two hands. But people say I have been a good pair of hands all my life, so will push on regardless.

I tried bolding the especially stupid bits, but, well, you can see the problem with that.
She does, however, have an Important Question:      
Now, to business: Darwinism of any kind is not supported by serious evidence.

It would be better to describe it as supported by philosophy, budgets, endowments, and court decisions, not by evidence.

People need to believe it.

Now here is my question: Is there really any important evidence that one species morphs into another by vast increases in information due to Darwinian survival of the fittest?

Or is this just another theory we need to believe?

I'll answer that for you, Denyse. Leaving aside your "vast increases in information" (whatever that means) the answer is No - there is no evidence at all. There are textbooks and museums full of this lack of evidence. Many scientists have built their careers and even achieved great fame on this non evidence. There is no evidence for Darwin's theory at all. None that you would accept, anyway.

Date: 2010/06/22 00:20:56, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Dr.GH @ June 22 2010,14:50)
Never feed a creationist troll with a fat, juicy quote-mine.

I take your point and am duly contrite. At least it's unlikely they'll ever quote mine me as they hardly ever come over he- oh, hi there Clive!

Date: 2010/06/22 19:32:29, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Is being a slacker an excuse for lateness? Regardless, happy birthday & kia ora.

Date: 2010/06/22 21:46:19, Link
Author: Ptaylor
We have got to the point on this thread where no-one seems to find gibberish in the titles of journalist O'Really's posts to be at all remarkable. Her latest:
Maybe ID’s coffin is empty because no one actually died so no one bought it?

Teh stoopid, it seems, has become the expected.

Edited to correct my own gibberish.

Date: 2010/06/23 02:28:24, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy burfday, kia ora.

Date: 2010/06/23 22:38:08, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (didymos @ June 24 2010,12:41)
Oh, that's amusing.  None of those morons have noticed that the very concept of a pseudogene presumes the operation of the standard evolutionary mechanisms.  Of course,  none of them have gotten around to readingglancing at anything but the abstract anyway, so...

Fixed it for you.

Date: 2010/07/04 04:25:23, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Late again. Happy birthday, kia ora.

Date: 2010/07/05 19:28:41, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 06 2010,08:08)
When you show up tomorrow, you better look like this:

It is tomorrow here, and Mission Accomplished!

Quote (Louis @ July 06 2010,07:43)
Dammit will people please stop having birthdays? Can't we just have one day a year when we all wish each other and get royally drunk? This attention seeking birthday every other five minutes is becoming a nuisance. I am writing to my MP.

Agreed, but I'm happy to make an exception when it's me.

Quote (fnxtr @ July 06 2010,08:32)
Phappy Pbirthday, Ptaylor!


And thanks to all, you've made up for missing my big one last year.

Date: 2010/07/08 00:15:32, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 08 2010,15:34)
Quote (didymos @ July 07 2010,22:39)
What, you didn't notice Cliveykins' massive bolus  of Chesterton?

That would be the open road for my scroll wheel, wild and free.

Ditto for me, although Clive often sneakily tricks me into reading some of his CS Chesterton, or the other guy, by refusing to use quote marks or any other indicator that the text is no longer his. So I end up reading Clive's drivel and at some point my brain goes "hold on, this is slightly better written claptrap" and it's scroll wheel time. Naughty boy, Clive!

Date: 2010/07/13 20:54:39, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2010,12:31)
PaV gets specific:

Petrushka's reply is pushing it.

The reason for ID being superior to Darwinism has to do with its greater explanatory powers.

1. When confronted with an historical mystery or a phenomenon not yet understood, attribute it to an unseen entity having unspecified powers, acting at unspecified times and places, using unspecified methods, for unspecified reasons.
2. See Number one.
3. See number two.

Careful Petrushka, I think this is the sort of stuff Clive (oh, hi Clive!) deems uncivil.

Date: 2010/07/14 18:17:12, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (dvunkannon @ July 15 2010,09:38)
Mr Bussel knows the least science and math of any UD regular. Of that I am certain.

But he does know who to go to for the best scientific advice. Check my sig.
ETA: link.

Date: 2010/07/14 23:03:24, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (madbat.089 @ July 15 2010,13:44)
kairofocus is having an unprecedented revelation:
false assumptions are unreliable and cannot be trusted to always yield true conclusions.

Wow - deep.
Welcome from me too. A question I just have to ask: What's behind your moniker? Is it really a play on the name of one of the UD regulars, or was that a coincidence?

Date: 2010/07/16 05:08:40, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthday and kia ora to you both.

Date: 2010/07/16 22:39:23, Link
Author: Ptaylor
And a late one from me - happy birthdays, kia ora (or cher bros).

Date: 2010/07/20 19:28:55, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (madbat.089 @ July 21 2010,11:41)
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 20 2010,12:52)
Upright Biped (richly does he deserve his alternative soubriquet) writes:

Petrushka at 327, 331, 333 et al,

Quit pandering to yourself. If you think no one notices, you are sadly mistaken.

I guess Petrushka's days are numbered. Any bets? Clive?

I don't know - Petrushka shows amazing skill in dodging the balls of nastiness thrown his/her way and coming back clean and sweet and logical - I give wily Petrushka a few more rounds! huzzah!!!

I agree. Also because Clive needs to have a few 'civil' ID dissenters around to keep up the pretence of a frank and open forum, as he claims here.

Date: 2010/07/20 20:51:36, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthday, cher bro.

Date: 2010/07/25 17:34:54, Link
Author: Ptaylor
From over at the UD thread:
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 26 2010,09:37)
The Explanatory Filter in action, used by Bilbo:
We rule out pseudogenes as designed largely because they don't look designed. So we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.

Troy takes him/her up on this and Bilbo replies, with uncharacteristic candour:
If we define "design" as the purposeful arrangement of parts, there appears to be no purpose to the arrangement of parts in pseudogenes. So they don't look designed. OTOH, there appears to be purpose to the arrangement of parts in flagellum and cilium. So they look designed.

Objective? If we define objective as what most people would perceive if shown the same thing, then I think most people would think flagella and cilia look designed. Therefore it would be objective.

If we define objective as having a quantifiably measurable value, then no, it's not objective.

If we define science as the study of what is quantifiably measurable, then studying intelligent design probably isn't science.

But I would argue that not all empirical knowledge is science.

Date: 2010/07/26 14:51:02, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthday, kia ora bro.

Date: 2010/07/26 18:54:30, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Oh, the poor ill-fated people of Montserrat. In living memory they've had Hurricane Hugo, a volcanic eruption, and now Gordon Mullings:

I am sneaking a few moments from writing comments on a constitution draft, right now dealing with incredibly archaic state of emergency detention provisions that reek of the days of sail and muskets and presses powered by muscle power.

Blah blah blah blah...

Whatever have they done to deserve this?

ETA: Emboldening problem fixed!

Date: 2010/07/27 20:50:05, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Off topic, but Google News has just suggested I go here for an article headed    
The Intelligent Design Facts Institute Launches Top Rated New Website To Defend Intelligent Design Through New Scientific Research

The site itself is here. It's chock full of stuff that I'd never thought of, such as how evolution cannot account for the origin of life and how it's mathematically impossible anyway. Best of all is this:
We look forward to your comments, which will be published in anonymity unless you request your name to be shown. All comments will be published regardless of viewpoint, except for those which contain expletives and flaming.

This could become a lot of fun.

Date: 2010/07/28 00:20:40, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (CeilingCat @ July 28 2010,17:12)
How do you read their comments?

Took me a while, too. Just scroll down on the main page. Looks like each page will have its own comments section.

Date: 2010/07/28 22:23:45, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (MichaelJ @ July 29 2010,14:36)
I bet if you tried to asked Stephen to name 2 textbooks published in the last 20 years that has the drawings you would be instantly banned.

God, what an insufferable, demanding twat. He is now asking Petrushka whether he has stopped beating his wife:
—Petrushka:”There’s nothing of substance on this thread that I haven’t responded to.”

On the contrary. You have been evading my question all afternoon and evening. Here it is again: Are those Darwinists who knowingly publish pictures of Haeckel’s bogus drawings in public school textbooks lying or are they telling the truth?


Date: 2010/07/29 19:58:47, Link
Author: Ptaylor
In which StephenB climbs down and declares victory:
—molch:……. “Or are you claiming that earlier embryos are more dissimilar than the embryo stages depicted in the illustration, and that that’s why the choice of illustration is misleading.”

You are starting to show signs of life. Typically, these writers promote the idea that vertebrate embryos are extremely similar therefore share a common ancestor, using Heackel-like drawings as valid evidence to make their case for common ancestry.

Miller’s book, for example, reads, “However, as you can see in Figure 13-16, [Heackel-like drawings] all of these embryos are similar in appearance during EARLY STAGES [my emphasis] of development.” (pg. 283) The caption reads: “During certain embryological stages, vastly different organisms show similarities. During later stages of development, profound changes occur. Thus the adults bear little resemblance to one-another.”

He exaggerates the similarities in much the same way that Haeckel exaggerated them. He knows that he is not telling the truth, and he is using Heackel’s drawings as evidence to support his lie. Case closed.


Date: 2010/08/03 23:59:50, Link
Author: Ptaylor
In Gil's topsy-turvy land post, Scientific Literacy is the Enemy of Darwinism, scientific literacy is apparently the enemy of Darwinism. I can't think of anyone else whose ideas about science are so completely arse backwards (as we say here). Oh, wait - Gil, let me introduce you to Cornelius...

Date: 2010/08/04 20:36:37, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Unpleasant Blowhard is living up to his name on Gil's latest whaa-stop-calling-me-a-moron thread. His comment begins:
Petrushka at 14,

Are you still having fun playing the part you’ve given to the opposition?

I’ve asked this before; what is it like to have to swallow your intellectual pride as you defend a failed worldview against insurmountable evidence against it?

...and doesn't get any better.

Date: 2010/08/09 20:20:29, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Petrushka asks Gordon a short and simple question:

Is that a recognized technical term, or something you made up?

Any citations in science journals?

Well, two short and simple questions. I'm putting a virtual beer on Gordy's reply being 300+ words long.

Date: 2010/08/09 21:08:41, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 10 2010,13:51)
Gordon's reply is actually 598 words, without ever providing a mathematically rigorous definition of dFSCI.

...with two footnotes adding an extra 95 words. I especially liked the bit where Gordon attributes the first use of the term to a famous scientist:
In fact, a little common sense would soon enough suffice to show that the term dFSCI — first used by GPuccio here at UD...

Anyway, I win - you all owe me a beer. Um - Stella Artois, please.

Date: 2010/08/10 15:14:50, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 10 2010,21:12)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 10 2010,03:08)

Anyway, I win - you all owe me a beer. Um - Stella Artois, please.

Sorry I thought you wanted a beer. Not anonymous-brew fighting piss.
In other words, it's horrible stuff. Unless it's the European version, which is nice and doesn't make you smack spouses about.

I know my beers, thankyouverymuch, and chose Stella (a) assuming you lot would opt for the imported version, and (b) considering the time of day. After 6 and it would have been a Chimay.
Waiting and Thirsty.

Date: 2010/08/11 23:59:29, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Uh oh - I get the feeling that NormO is about to get the Very Large Number treatment (90 gazillion x 10^150 = more than the amount of atomic particles in the universe = evolution is impossible)  from Kairos77 or BA Focus or whoever it is:

Three billion years is not enough time to evolve all those genes? The evidence suggests that life on Earth arose some 3.5 billion years ago and that sponges appeared over 600 million years ago. That leaves a very long time in between to evolve all those genes, as well as all that intricate cellular “machinery”.

Three billion years is a very long time.

I think NormO is about to find out that three billion years is not nearly enough time for evolution to occur from people who think the world is 6,000 years old.

Date: 2010/08/12 16:23:19, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 13 2010,09:17)

12 August 2010
On Guard Conference in Denton Texas
Clive Hayden
Denton Bible Church?, in Denton, TX, will be hosting the “2010 On Guard Christian Apologetics Conference” on November the 5th and 6th.


Edited to add: Especially tasty reading given the "but ID is science, it is" tone of DonaldM's immediately previous post about poor Casey Luskin being misrepresented.

Date: 2010/08/17 00:15:53, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 15 2010,16:28)
Y'know the Dodgenator has held up remarkably well over time. Kudos.

True enough, although I think Gil is showing signs of losing it. In this post he seems to have abandoned the use of any premisses and has gone straight to his conclusion, i.e. "Darwin was wrong". Essentially he has reduced himself to shouting "One!".

OK, to be fair to Gil, he explains to Onlookers that he is actually arguing E1 in the comments, but I hope my point stands.

Date: 2010/08/17 15:55:32, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I like this. Matteo encourages Onlookers to visit a couple of PZ Myers' recent posts, as they "read like they could have been written by ID proponents"*. If they do happen to go there they will find that the current (at time of typing) top-of-page article is titled The Vacuity of Stephen Meyer.

*One post being a critique of the Drake equation. UDers have demonstrated that they really don't like the equation, as it implies that there could be life elsewhere in the universe. This is obviously nonsense because um, er...

Date: 2010/08/18 22:41:43, Link
Author: Ptaylor
The latest post from begins:
Eric Werner of the University of Oxford published a blog piece in PLOS which I have liberally edited below. I think it is an important development in thinking about design in biology.

Hmm... isn't there another word for "liberally edited"?

Date: 2010/08/23 20:20:53, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Heh. Petrushka asks Tribune7 to consider deep time moving into the future.*
We can be fairly certain that life will look different in 200 million years.

Tribby's response:
We can fairly dispute that. Sharks and crocodiles and a lot of other species are presumed to have been around for 200 million years without significant change.

Regarding the ones presumed not to have been you can’t point to the macroevolutionary event that caused them to come about nor can you predict how macroevolution will cause them to change nor when will it cause the change.

The better predication would be to look at the fossil record and presume no significant change (see crocodile, shark) unless you count extinction as a change.

But that wouldn’t be a marcroevolutionary event.

So the world will be full of crocodiles and sharks, always has been, always will be.

*Smart move IMO, as these guys seem to have trouble thinking more than, say, 6,000 years into the past. I think someone here suggested doing this some time ago.

Date: 2010/08/25 22:31:58, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Gordon is missing his Japanese pal Nakashima:
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

Hi KF – Nakashima can’t comment – I am told he has been banned.

Uptight Asshole:
I feel bad for Nak. Clive gave him just enough rope to hang himself, and without even a moment’s thought he did just exactly that.

It really must have hurt. It certainly was embarrassing to watch.

Yeah, the brilliant Clive set a cunning trap and Nakashima being (like all evolutionists) a bit simple minded, fell straight into it. Funny, though, that's not quite how I remember it:
Clive Hayden


3:11 am
Nakashima is not Asian, it’s a sock puppet name, he’s been banned from here many times...

Date: 2010/09/01 03:23:34, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I'm not sure what to make of Dr Dr D's latest post in which he simply links to this rather good pastiche of the London Underground* map, on which, instead of tube stations, scientists are named along 'train' lines representing various scientific disciplines.

I'm not sure how the average UDer will take this, seeing their loathed enemies - Dawkins, Coyne, the D man himself - appear alongside uncontroversial personalities who they sometimes even support - e.g. Newton, Watson & Crick.

My pick - he's playing for "where's Behe, Wells and Dembski on that list" comments. I may be wrong, but it seems to me as if he's attempting to re-live his famous Dawkin's birthday bitterfest** vicariously. (Sorry, can't be arsed to find a link at this hour).

As I said, I may be wrong - anyone else have any thoughts?

*Clive, please tell Dr D it's the Underground, not Subway, map.
**The irony at the time was that he was claiming that he was not on Dawkins's acknowledgment list after having sent a mean spirited 'congratulations' note, where in fact he had been mentioned, in a real comprehension fail. On this sort of diagram the name W A Demsbski will never appear.

Date: 2010/09/18 03:25:11, Link
Author: Ptaylor
(Just while this thread has resurfaced):
As some of you know, I sit in a corner of the South Pacific quite far removed - geographically, politically and socially - from the influence of Ben Stein and Expelled. The DVD isn't available in stores here and as far as I know any cinematic showings have been confined to a few by evangelical church groups (yes, we do have some of those). So my knowledge of Expelled and involvement in discussions about it have been mostly limited to the Internet.

A few months ago this changed a little. Two long-time friends from the Seattle area finally lived up to a years-old promise to visit New Zealand and catch up with me. While I hadn't seen either of them for some years, I had become aware that one of my friends - I'll call him David King - has been leaning more and more to the right of the American political spectrum. Sure enough, within an hour of picking up Dave and his charming wife from the airport he told me how America is being purposefully driven to ruin by Obama and the other 'crooks' in the Democrat administration (he asked me whether there had been a noticeable increase in the number of Americans emigrating to this country since the 2008 election, which gave me a chuckle).

The conversation moved away from from politics and somehow it led to Dave mentioning Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything, which we have both read and enjoyed. This in turn led to me recounting an anecdote involving a statue of Charles Darwin and some backstabbing antics that one of Darwin's contemporaries got up to. At this point Dave became somewhat more serious and told me that academic misconduct, in the form of oppression of those that question dogmatic areas of science, is a real problem in America. Ben Stein had put together a fantastic new film about it called Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed - which he recommended. My reaction? I was two hours into a three day beach vacation with two friends I hadn't seen for several years, and I was very aware that tempers could flare. I simply said "Yes, I am aware of it" and changed the subject*.

However, I remained dumbfounded. Dave is not a religious guy, although I believe his parents are fundamentalist Christians. He does seem to have a penchant for falling for wingnutty conspiracy theories (damn - I forgot to find out whether he's a birfer - it wouldn't have surprised me), and it has got me wondering: Have others here found Expelled has had an influence on people they know who are not overtly religious?

*I was able to take him to task about his wingnuttery in a good natured way over many beers a couple of nights later so I don't feel totally emasculated about avoiding the subject.

Date: 2010/09/28 16:25:07, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Clive is really on a roll. Over on the Ray Comfort thread he's still at it, not quite admitting  to being a young earth creationist, but defending YEC-ism never the less. The stupid in full:

Dawkins is right not to waste time debating Comfort or any other YEC; It would be like a professor of Roman history ‘debating’ someone who thinks Rome didn’t even exist, or an Apollo astronaut ‘debating’ someone who believes the moon landing was a hoax. It would only serve to give undue credibility to an absurd position.

Firstly, it is not “like” anything you’ve mentioned. Secondly, Dawkins does debate what YECs say, why not debate it to their face? Thirdly, this is a weak position to maintain, one that says that they are not worth debating in person, yet he debates what they stand for, but only in their absence. If it is not “worth” debating, then be consistent. Fourthly, assuming that YECs are not worth debating begs the question, if you dismiss them to begin with, then nothing they say will be valuable as truth of the natural world. But this very debate is about truth of the natural world. Fifthly, if the atmosphere of YEC is so bad as you maintain, what does Dawkins have to lose? This argument about undue “publicity” of YECs is a red herring, because publicity comes from the public, and the majority of Americans side with Ray Comfort, not Richard Dawkins, thus the argument could be made that Ray Comfort is giving Richard Dawkins undue publicity.

You seem to be so certain of the outcome; why bother having the debates in the first place then?

You should be asking yourself this question.

Date: 2010/09/28 18:02:02, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Uppy is characteristically magnanimous toward his fellow commenters on the unnamed Robert Sheldon thread:
[After describing a lifeless planet where only simple chemical processes occur]

From this state we are told that meaning can emerge into existence from non-meaning. So too can symbols. So too can rules, not laws, but rules. From this, matter can create an abstraction of itself in the form of chemical representations.

This is why Ellazimm side-steps the conversation. It is why markf must dogmatically twist the living shit out of every word spoken. It is also why they both withhold even the slightest concession contrary to their beliefs. They are obliged to do so; they haven’t a thing to say about what is observably true.

My emph. Sounds like they're getting to him - oh, to have a bannination stick, right, upright?

Date: 2010/09/29 22:46:05, Link
Author: Ptaylor
StephenB on the Fibonacci Life thread:
For me, the word cause simply means something or someone that brings something else about. What can we say, for example, of Adam’s first sin? Obviously, God did not bring sin into the world or, put another way, he did not bring it about. In keeping with that point, Adam brought sin into the world and was, in that sense, the first cause of sin. All the same, God is the cause of Adam’s power to exercise his will and, in that sense, Adam’s act is not a first cause.


Date: 2010/10/07 16:54:06, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Here's a good laugh over on Corny's blog (context: discovery of Tiktaalik roseae):
Joe G said...

   So imprecise that researchers spent years looking in a specific strata in the Canadian arctic to find the predicted fossil.

   They had no business looking there.

   The data should have led them to some other place and strata to find what they were looking for.

(My embolderation)

Date: 2010/10/10 21:58:59, Link
Author: Ptaylor
There are a number of commenters at UD who are seldom mentioned here as their posts aren't especially inane or remarkable in some other way. The footsoldiers of tard, if you like. I've always thought of Collin as being one of these, but today has risen above the rabble and presented this little gem in the science fiction thread:
I always thought that science fiction must be hard to write for Christians because if it is too far in the future then it usually assumes that the Second Coming of Christ has not occurred. Most Christians probably assume that He will come sooner than a thousand years into the future or before mankind travels to the stars. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Go to the top of the class, Collin!

Edited for clarity and because I can.

Date: 2010/10/10 22:25:12, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Slightly off topic, but this seems to be the most relevant thread.

This headline has been sitting on my Google News page for over a week now:

UK Centre for Intelligent Design claims it will focus on science, not religion

Today it was joined by this one, referring to the same outfit:

Would you Adam and Eve it? Top scientists tell Scottish pupils: the Bible is true

Surely some mistake!

Edit: fixed second link

Date: 2010/10/13 16:39:01, Link
Author: Ptaylor
For the record, over at Corny's blog:
Joe G said...

   That said the fusion could be an actual event- something that did become fixed- 48 down to 46.

   Fine, but that still isn't evidence of common ancestry between chimps and humans.

   IOW the original population of humans- Adam and Eve- had 48- then somewhere along that line the fusion occurred and became fixed just as you said.

   Another possibility is the fusion was designd in as part of a package that provides reproductive isolation for similarly designed genomes/ organisms.

   And as for waving ahnds- that is what you guys do- you think you are jedi knights who can wave their hands and people will just take you word for it.

   That only works with weak-minded fools- troy, thorton, zachriel, et al....

Who'd have thought it? - Joe the non religious Muslim Christian bible literalist.
My bolding, and a hat tip to Thorton on the ridiculous evolutionists-only-won-Dover-by-selling-their-souls thread.

Date: 2010/10/13 19:50:26, Link
Author: Ptaylor
didymos, you must have visited just before Joe delivered his coup de grâce:
Joe G said...

   Child molesting thorton is upset because it lost its "primo" job as a mall cop trainee because it was soliciting sex from little boys in the mall bathrooms.

   Get over it...

Powerful argument there, Joe.

Date: 2010/10/18 16:40:07, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Heh, still on the Amazon thread Joe clarifies his position on the ice/water divide. In response to David A Rintoul:

But since I am arguing with a person who believes that ice is not water, I'll just stop here.

Joe responds:

"No, quite obviously it isn't, as I've shown you."

You haven't shown anything.

And ice is ice- made fom water yes, but water is a liquid.

Why do you think we have different words if it is the same thng?

Ice is frozen water david.

My emphasis.

Date: 2010/10/18 19:45:49, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 19 2010,11:05)
According to Clive, "evolutionists" are the reason why UD fails to provide evidence for ID
And evolutionists are the reason why the tango doesn’t flow on this site.

Gaz questions Clive on this, and Clive appears to have consulted an eight year old in formulating his response:

Why? What steps do they refuse to do?

Being open minded and open to the possibility that the design inference is valid and that evolution, no matter what it claims in just so stories, cannot explain all of what we see with living organisms. That’s what they usually refuse to do. It is the ID folks that are open-minded and more reasonable, in my opinion. You’ll probably disagree with me, which evidences my point even more.

I believe the logic being used here is labelled heads I win; tails you lose.

Oh, and Gaz calls him on it beautifully.

Date: 2010/10/19 16:26:34, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Joe is humble:
Joe G said...

Joe, I don't know what's worse: that you think you're intelligent,

   My IQ is only 150.

   There are people with higher IQs.

I think we know who that would be.

Date: 2010/10/19 23:11:10, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I mentioned this over on the Corny Hunter thread, but I think this comment needs to be preserved here:
Joe G said...

Joe, I don't know what's worse: that you think you're intelligent,

   My IQ is only 150.

   There are people with higher IQs.

Date: 2010/10/20 23:26:38, Link
Author: Ptaylor
All these people giving you grief on the Internet, Dr Dr Dembski. Look on the bright side, though - perhaps now you can be friends with Ken Ham again!

Date: 2010/10/25 18:40:37, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Oct. 26 2010,04:51)

So, previous ideas always beat more recent ones? They describe reality better because ...?

Ooh, ooh, I can help here! Here's the logic, courtesy of tragic mishap from just over a year ago:
<snip a few paragraphs>
As a YEC, I never really believed the only reason or even the biggest reason for that view is to preserve this classical theology. In fact, I can’t really recall that ever entering my thinking. Others might think that way, but I assure you I do not. My own reason is quite simply that when asking a historical question, the oldest accounts are quite literally the closest to the truth. It seems rather arrogant to me to trust the modern interpretations of the evidence rather than to trust the accounts of people who were much closer to the actual events than we were. Especially considering the ridiculous level of error in modern science in relation to truth in the absolute sense.

Date: 2010/10/27 14:18:13, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birfday, kia ora.

Date: 2010/10/27 18:17:02, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Sal Cordova, on the current lead post regarding the RDF/Josh Timenon affair:
Richard Dawkins is known as the Prophet of Pointlessness because it was Dawkins who said: “[the universe] has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference.”

Looks like he got the Dawkiins quote from one Stephen M Barr in a review of Unweaving the Rainbow on a site called The Evangelization Station. Could it be a misquote? - Surely not, given Sal's reputation for scrutiny. However mikev6 is curious enough to do a little searching:

Richard Dawkins is well known as the Prophet of Pointelessness

Really? The only google references to this term are this blog and the book you’re plugging. (Although, from the spelling above I assume you also have a problem with ballet dancers.)

Nice marketing ploy – congratulations!

...and, NormO calls him on it:

You got the Dawkins quote wrong. He doesn’t use the word ‘pointless’, the quote is actually:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference

Sal - how could you have let this happen? Oh, wait...

Date: 2010/10/28 17:00:14, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birfday, kia ora.

Date: 2010/11/01 22:31:27, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 02 2010,12:54)
I didn't realize nullasalus was this stupid

Another excercise in dumbitude is the ongoing conversation between Molch and CannuckianYankee in the comments of the Autumn Reading for Jerry thread, starting here. Cannucky essentially tells Molch that an athiest's worldview cannot be considered valid as it has obviously been formed without full knowledge of the evidence for theism (aka fundamental Christianity in C's mind). Molch asks him to reconsider this from another point of view, for example why he has rejected other faiths (providing an impressive overview of various religions and sub sects in the process) and Cannuck demonstrates that he simply cannot. Molch must feel like s/he is talking to a brick wall, and a fairly dim one at that.

Date: 2010/11/03 22:39:25, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Batshit nearly achieves a first:    
molch, I really don’t know your personal beliefs about theism atheism pantheism and all, but it seems to me that since Christianity actually offers tangible physical proof that Christ rose from the dead, besides personal witnesses, and that death should be a fairly large concern to you, as it should be to all who are born on this earth since we all must face death, then you should at least be willing to investigate the evidence with a somewhat open, but guarded, mind so as to ascertain if this is actually true. Especially since the promise at the basis of accepting Christ into your life is so huge, i.e. Eternal life promised to you by the Creator of heaven and earth,, for whom it is impossible to be untrue to His promise through Christ!!!

He gets his point - accept Christ or die - across in a succinct 134 words. Good going, Batty!
But...oh no...he can't help himself - he adds

2070 more words

Date: 2010/11/08 21:54:58, Link
Author: Ptaylor
They appear to be running a stupidest comment contest over on Bully's On Language and Science thread. Frostyboy (he of the High IQ) is a contender:
Truth is the ultimate measure of everything. It is the concept of what actually really is. Science tries to come as close to truth as it can but the nature of science is that any claim or conclusion it comes to must be open to revision and rexamination. That is why theories that are held as dogma by a consensus are still fair game for criticism and skepticism. Darwinian Evolution even if correct must still face all of the objections by its detractors and critics. Same goes for ID- ID even if it is incomplete as a theory is still a scientific theory because all scientific theories are incomplete. That is why the argument that you cant prove a designer was involved is fallacious. A theory does not need to be proven for it to be sceintific. (snip another paragraph)

...but above, not wanting to be outdone, hits straight back with:
The question is, if darwinists are so sure that their theory is correct why are they so worried of going up against ID?

Let the two theories “fight” each other and see which wins.


(Emphasis mine in both)
Could be a photo finish.

Date: 2010/11/10 16:09:09, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 10 2010,23:31)
Professor Prolix (a/k/a kairosfocus a/k/a Gordon Mullings) drops this pile of that which promotes growth, which includes this nugget:
I suggest modification in light of the above, on the lines of key insertions rooted in GP’s suggestions as influenced by Nullasalus, and taking on board a key cautionary point by Timaeus:

Shorter KF: I have nothing to add to what others say, but will be sure to not add anything in as many words as possible. (906 words to be exact.)

Well he did bring up something that I hadn't previously noticed:
As the definition currently stands in the glossary:

Darwinism – theories of evolution deriving from the work of Charles Darwin and Richard Wallace, as published from 1858 – 9 on.,...

Richard Wallace? Have these dimwits really had Richard Wallace as the co-presenter of the TOE for all these months/years in their glossary? Anyone here know who was responsible for this entry? (IIRC Gordon himself may have been involved).

Date: 2010/11/11 17:36:35, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birfday, kia ora. Here's a virtual pint of Abbot ale.

Date: 2010/11/11 20:29:36, Link
Author: Ptaylor
(Thinks: hmmm, my favourite thread is slipping down the table, I wonder if I can find anything IDiotic enough to quote bump it up?) Oh - here we go:
Uppie tells it like it is...  
Time after time after time the argument against ID is blown apart. Logic, observation, evidence.

...and asks a sobering question:
Doesn’t anyone out there have a cogent argument against ID that is not incoherent, logically unsound, question begging, factually incorrect, politically motivated, or simply stupid?

So that's it - !oolretaW. All arguments against ID have been blown out of the water, and they were all stupid ones anyway. Time for everyone to pick up their things and leave. Last one out switch the light off, please.
(Edited to add that those two excerpts comprise the entire post.)

Date: 2010/11/12 21:57:50, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Over on the thread where we learned about Richard Wallace Muramasa is curious:  
Doesn’t anyone in this thread have the ability to correct glossary entries?

The UD regulars, however, are not.

Date: 2010/11/14 22:59:09, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 15 2010,15:45)
Gil Dodgen's new post begins thusly:
As many UD readers know, I am a classical pianist by training since the age of seven.

He fails to mention his winning checkers program and his current occupation as a programmer. Must have been distracted.

It's still simply A1, though.
I like this little slip:  
But fear not, we have in the 20th century such great classics as those by the Rolling Stones with these inspirational lyrics:

Err - Gil - this is the 21st century.
(Cheap shot I know, but hey, it's Gil)

Date: 2010/11/16 18:38:38, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Dense scores an own goal. In answer to her post "Excerpt from Firewall, exposing social Darwinist eugenics in Canada" NormO asks:
led by a radio-evangelist William Aberhart, and later by his protégé Ernest Manning, …

So the eugenics movement in Alberta was spearheaded by two evangelical Christians and yet somehow Darwin was to blame?

Date: 2010/11/24 02:17:45, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Remember the days when the phrase 'new atheist' invoked the names Dawkins, Hitchens and Dodgen?
No? Not to worry,  Gil does:
I’ve been on both sides of the divide. I was a Dawkins/Hitchens-style atheist until age 43, but have been one of those dreadful, mindless, born-again Christians for almost the last 17 years.

Date: 2010/11/29 19:48:40, Link
Author: Ptaylor
My, they've decided a lot of things about how atheists think in the comments on vj's Survival of the Godliest thread. Some samples:
allanus -  
Atheists inhabit a hopeless world. Since they believe in nothing, they are afraid of everything. God does not exist. No one is in control. “The center cannot hold.”

It is not love of the environment that stops them from procreating. Nor in most cases is it simple materialism or self-centeredness. It is the fear of bringing children into a world that seems doomed for destruction.

vj -  
Few indeed are the atheists who acknowledge the essential intolerance of their world-view. Most of them try to wiggle out of Marxist atrocities.

Gil -  

Date: 2010/12/06 20:40:18, Link
Author: Ptaylor
UD regular mynym weighs in on the anti gay Taking Manhattan out of the Apple thread. His advice: violence is a very real problem in the gay community. He's got evidence - newspaper and magazine articles detailing specific instances. Three of them. From the nineteen nineties. A sample:
Gays and lesbians are more likely to be victims of domestic violence than anti-gay violence, according to a survey made public yesterday by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs.
(The Gazette (Montreal) October 23, 1996, Wednesday,
Final Edition. News; Pg. F10 Gay domestic violence; Study
documents abuse in homosexual relationships
Byline: Vicki Haddock)

The fuckwit then goes on to show in three more posts that the further back in time you go the more you will find the reporting of homosexuality (or sexual disorientation, as he calls it) as a vice. In fact it was rife in Nazi Germany. Another sample:
It would be against medical principles to provide a list of the Nazi leaders and their perversions. One thing, however, is certain—not ten percent of those men who, in 1933, took the fate of Germany into their hands, were sexually normal…
(The Memoirs of a Sexologist
(New York: 1954) pp. 429 ff)

So - it was teh gheys that caused WWII, not Dar... er - wait...

Date: 2010/12/07 16:29:13, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Fross @ Dec. 07 2010,17:05)
wow, UD can rarely get 20 comments to any post, but you bring up the "homosexual agenda" and it quickly sky-rockets to 125 comments with some of the most vile anti-gay rhetoric I've seen in a while.  
I will no longer be visiting that site for the same reasons I don't visit other hate speech sites.  (it gets my blood boiling)

Understood, and I admire your stance. On the other hand it does help to expose them for the assholes they can be. Check out tribby's latest:
Berceuse saying those who have a different view that yourself are practicing “bigotry and intolerance” is a good indication that the ones with the different view are not the one who is bigoted and intolerant.
You guys know that not all homosexuals practice anal sex, right?

Do you agree that the ones that do are doing something wrong, and that that particular act should be unwaveringly condemned?

Hypocrisy personified.

Date: 2010/12/08 13:43:40, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Heh - currently appearing at the top of the screen on Bully's latest thread:
Ads by Google Gay Adoption                Gay Marriage           Gay Rights          Gay Parents          Gay Fathers

Date: 2010/12/09 17:45:28, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Uptight BiPed has nailed it:
The nice thing about places like Uncommon Descent in a web-enabled world, is that a vastly larger number of people are becoming exposed to just how deeply people (intelligent ones) are willing to argue in favor of ignorance.

(Don't follow the link if you want to keep away from the odious Manhattan thread.)

Date: 2010/12/09 21:32:10, Link
Author: Ptaylor
(Sorry - post error.)

Date: 2010/12/12 19:08:31, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quite right to draw a close to this. Your summary runs to nearly 6000 words – just under half the length of my MSc dissertation which took me 6 months to write. You will understand if I don’t read it all!

Vivid – thanks for your apology. It is always hard to do that – I know all too well.

SAR – I would like you for a daughter-in-law.

I wonder if anyone changed their mind about anything?


Ooh, ooh - I can answer that! I used to suspect that UD regulars would have an anti gay bias. Now I know that they - vjt, uptight, stephenb, tribby, gordon and others - are flaming anti gay bigots.

Date: 2010/12/16 16:05:08, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Oh no, kairosfocus's sensibilities have been offended:

Kindly stop pretending to innocence.

You know or should know that the very opening sentence of the link you cited at 16 above is a vulgar piece of namecalling slander that uses an obscene word.

We don’t need that sort of demonising rubbish filth at UD.

blah blah blah...

The obscene word? Bull...dust,er, bullsh.., er, sorry, I can't bring myself to repeat it. What a silly fucker you are, Gordon.

Date: 2011/01/16 16:32:42, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Seversky @ Jan. 17 2011,08:51)
Oh, damn!  I just noticed this quiz is for leading atheists only and I'm just an agnostic.

Yes, the quiz is for Important People only; not for the Severskys and Ptaylors of this world. Vjt explains:
I’m asking these questions, because I think the world has a right to know how the 25 most influential living atheists view newborn babies. The moral status of newborn babies is an ethical issue of vital importance, and I’d like to know what the world’s leading atheists think about this subject. Because I’m a generous person, I’m giving them three days to answer my five simple questions. The countdown ends at 12:01 a.m. (one minute past midnight) on Thursday, 20 January, 2011, Greenwich Mean Time (UTC). I think that’s quite enough time for the word to get around, and for people to respond.

I'm sure Dawkins, Hitchens, Hawking and the other 22 have cleared all appointments for the next few days in order to compose their responses.

(Later) - I see that markf is already pissing on the parade:

Do you think any of those 25 read UD? Or have you posted the questions somewhere else?

Date: 2011/01/17 00:05:37, Link
Author: Ptaylor
The whole vjt post positively reeks of the humourless arrogance so frequently seen at UD. Torley picks up on a couple of Myers's comments (which I read as unremarkable -    
Nope, birth is also arbitrary, and it has not been even a cultural universal that newborns are regarded as fully human.

...and with a degree of flipancy -    
I've had a few. They weren't.
He then puts together a list of questions with an unmistakable bias toward his own agenda, and presumes that all of those on the Top 25 Atheists list (why atheists, vj, when ID has nothing to do with religion or lack of it?) will respond to it, let alone notice it in the first place.
He then gives them a three day deadline and announces that he will simply assume the answers for non-respondents, confirming his bias, of course.
The comments are generally no better; a sample (in response to another obviously flippant comment) from above:
So babies are not human and women are meat factories.

The vulgarity and inanity of this man has no bounds!

Didn't someone here once coin a term for stupidity with arrogance? It belongs all over this thread.

Date: 2011/01/23 20:04:13, Link
Author: Ptaylor
So the jury, in the form of one vjtorley, has come back and delivered its verdict on the ethics of the 'Top 25 Atheists'. As always his thread is long and rambling*, but in it he tells us that in his list of questions he put, the last one -
Do you believe that killing a newborn baby is just as wrong as killing an adult?

- is actually a gotcha!. Who'd have thought?
He has received three negative answers to the question, one of which was qualified, and one (qualified) affirmative. To that total of one he adds five more based on recent statements or writings, from the likes of Dawkins, Singer and Myers. He seems to have backed off from his original plan to simply assume the position of other non responders. So it's a small data set, but it is enough to cause outrage!:
However, the big split in opinion on such a basic moral issue highlights the fact that on ethical matters, the world’s leading atheists are a house divided.
This prompts me to ask: if the world’s top atheists cannot even agree on this issue, how much confidence can we have in their repeated assertion that “naturalistic ethics” can deliver “goodness without God”?

(Emphasis in original). How dare they have differing opinions?

And more outrage: he paints a scenario where two people get murdered in similar circumstances, one an adult, the other a newborn baby and asks whether they should receive the same punishment.
Six of the world’s most influential atheists would give Jones a lighter punishment than Smith. I have to say that I find that scandalous. I will continue to call these six atheists out on this one, because their position is morally odious.

Scandalous, I tells ya!!!

*Anyway, a fun fact - vj starts his thread with the concept of all men being created equal, citing Jefferson, Lincoln and others. The implication is that these atheists do not agree with this concept.
Commenter Neil Rickert is very quick to shoot this one down:
The common thread running through those famous statements, is that not one of them was about abortion – not a single one.

Most of those statements were intended to be about adults, and some were intended to be about male adults.

Date: 2011/01/23 20:30:43, Link
Author: Ptaylor
A happy birthday and a 'Cher, bro' to each of you.

Date: 2011/01/25 18:26:47, Link
Author: Ptaylor
While you people have all been yammering on to Kris/IBIG/Ftk or wishing happy birthdays or whatever you haven't noticed the growing excitement at UD - it's looking more and more likely that Darwinism is about to fall!

Date: 2011/01/26 13:15:24, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 26 2011,22:38)
Man, Gordon is really outdoing himself in his last two postings, ID Foundations 2 - Counterflow and ID Foundations 3.

It's not so much that the OP for '-3' is six pages long or that the bottom of the page says "[Continues here]", it's that when you go to "here", you get another eight pages of drivel.

Now THAT is tard!

Even worse, I have a sick feeling that if I was to look even farther back into the tardpile I would find entry -1 in the series.

That is quite something. I don't bother reading Gordon's tripe (or Batshit's for that matter), but on scrolling through the comments I'm a little perplexed to see that German army tactics in WWI are somehow involved. Anyway this comment from Gordo gave me a little smile:

On re-looking above, I have said remarkably little about entropy proper, I may have to add a remark or two. (There is a whole informational approach to thermodynamics.)

-My bold and no further comment.

Date: 2011/02/16 16:12:01, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 15 2011,21:49)
Has UD become the "All O'Leary, all of the time" blog?  The last eight articles are all by her, then Corny bleats something about plants proving Evolution is a religion, then we get five more by O'Leary.

Can't UD afford anybody else?

And now all posts - 15 of them - on the front page are Dense's. C'mon UD - how about giving us a bit of variety? Gil, give us, say, argument E1, or Barry, blame some recent murder on Darwin. Clive, how about giving us some CS Lewis, or Kairos...

erm - wait...

Date: 2011/02/17 18:48:37, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Oh dear - I don't think this will end well. Pachyaena is rubbishing ba77's cherished things-materialism-predicted-vs-things-theism-predicted list. The comment begins:

To bornagain77,

whoever wrote this-

doesn’t have a clue about the scientific method or the predictions science has made.

... and doesn't get any better (for BA that is)

ETA - don't bother clicking on the link in the quoted part - it doesn't work and I'm not about to fix it.

Date: 2011/02/23 23:07:01, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Wow - Gil has turned argument E3 into a 52 slide Powerpoint presentation - I No Longer Have Faith To Be An Atheist.

Date: 2011/02/24 14:06:36, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthday, kia ora.

Date: 2011/02/25 00:49:12, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Gill gives us an insight into his former 'militant atheist' self in a comment on his I No Longer Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist thread:  
The bottom line is that atheism and materialism represent completely irrational philosophical, mathematical, and empirical constructs.

Attempts on the part of Darwinists and materialists to defend their transparently bankrupt hypotheses have reduced them to ideologues who are impervious to reason.

This is trivially obvious.

You wouldn’t have wanted to know me when I was a militant atheist. I was a terrible person. I hated the God I thought did not exist. My soul obviously knew that He existed, because He created my soul, and I was mad at Him for bringing me into existence with no ultimate purpose or meaning.

Fortunately, I was eventually un-poisoned and detoxified by logic, reason, evidence, and an extraordinary encounter with Jesus Christ.

My embolderation.
I call, well, not bullshit, but self deception in the extreme.

Date: 2011/02/28 13:54:15, Link
Author: Ptaylor
O'Leary's latest begins:
Contrary to the spirit of this catalogue of bitches against critical thinking in the school system, I offered to answer a schoolkid’s questions. I do write children’s science sometimes, but am sure glad I don’t teach for a living.

That's you and the sane world, Denyse.

Date: 2011/03/04 18:07:28, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Hmm... Casey Luskin has put a new post up criticising the DI's latest favourite bogeyman, Stephen Hawking. (He complains about Hawking using fallacious logic - oh the ironing.) It ends with a question...
What else would you expect from the guy that said "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"?

...but, oddly, Casey has not enabled comments to allow for any answers. Didn't he once say the no comments policy was not his idea? What to make of this?

Date: 2011/03/07 21:41:19, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 08 2011,10:17)

Fatwa envy, Denyse?  Come on.  We expect better* from you.

* Better TARD.  That stuff's weak even for her.  It's like watching Babe Ruth bunt.

Agreed (not withstanding the Onion link dimwittery). The content of her current flood of posts is more tedious than her best not-even-wrong work.

The most entertainment for me over there lately has been in the comments on Harry's Gotcha, Atheist thread; first with markf running rings around StephenB on the subject of the contradictory nature of various religions (of course SB's religion is the One True one), starting around here .Markf gets Stevie to say some pretty ridiculous stuff, such as:
The strength of the evidence for Christianity has nothing at all to do with the fact that very few people even know what the evidence is.

You claim that the evidence for Christianity is not strong, yet you appear not to know what that evidence is. Don’t you think that is a bit irregular?

Then we have the evidence for Jesus/Obama/Potter nonsense sparc mentioned upthread.

Bruce David is in the comments all along with a rather serene presence. When the subject moves to the concept of God he explains that he believes God is all loving, all forgiving and all pervasive. The collective response from UD can be summed up as: "No, our God is much smaller and pettier than that".

As I type the last comment is from Sonfaro, who seems like a decent type for a pro ID-er:
…Hey gang. Could we agree to disagree on this one? We’re all friends here.

I have a prediction:
StephenB: "No".

Date: 2011/03/08 18:12:09, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 09 2011,10:22)
haha, some days, the TardBuckets at UD are a riot to watch.

You talking about the tardfest lastyearon has commented on?

Date: 2011/03/10 15:24:46, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Both Dense and Go-away-little-girl PaV have chosen to link to an article which marks 25 years since the Chernobyl disaster. The reason? Quarter of a century for potential evilution and still no crocoducks!!!1

(Bonus larfs - at 7 pages PaV describes the article as 'extremely long'.)

Date: 2011/03/11 23:41:35, Link
Author: Ptaylor
This is fun. In response to a typically massive heap of logarrhea from BA77 jon specter says:
That is very interesting. How does one differentiate a teleological Darwinian process from one that isn’t?

(Over 800 words including all the links, Very Big Numbers, further notes and irrelevancies that we've come to expect.)

jon specter:
That is all very interesting, but how do you differentiate a teleological Darwinian process from one that isn’t?

Date: 2011/03/13 14:28:22, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Raevmo @ Mar. 14 2011,06:20)
In her unrelenting self-promotion campaign (well, who else would promote her?) O'Leary brings to our attention an interview with her in the Dutch Catholic newspaper "Katholiek Nieuwsblad" (a weekly with circulation of about 10,000).

Interestingly, there is this description of Denyse:
De 60-jarige gelauwerde wetenschapsjournaliste uit Canada

Meaning, the 60-year-old laureled science journalist from Canada.




Date: 2011/03/13 21:16:08, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I see Vividbleau has brought the latest overtly religion oriented'Question: How Can We Know One Belief Selected for By Evolution is Superior to Another?' thread to a sudden stop (for now) by clever use of Teh Godwin:      

“To use an analogy, earthly existence is like being in a play, say Macbeth. In the context of the play, much happens that appears evil, but when the play is done, the director claps the actor who played Macbeth on the shoulder and says, “Well done. You played your part well and served my purpose admirably.” It’s kind of like that.”

Bornagain’s term “madhouse” is most appropos.

Lets insert Hitler for Macbeth. Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews, millions of Christians and gays. What he did only apeeared to be evil. Furthermore he gets a clap on the shoulder and is told “well done, you played your part perfectly and served my purpose admirably”!!!!!!

Acoording to your logic not only does Hitler get an atta boy so do the millions who suffered torture, starvation, gassing and other unspeakable crimes against their person. Way to go everyone you get atta boys as well!!!

For the survivors and their families who might take an offense to these heinious crimes against humanity you say

“The problem is, you take this temporary physical existence, which is not our true home nor our permanent abode, much too seriously.”!!!!!

This is a disgusting philosphy.


Date: 2011/03/13 23:03:19, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 14 2011,14:51)
Can y'all guess who wrote this?
B and E, so 1

(Dang -posting despite Dr.GH beating me to it)

Date: 2011/03/14 17:45:21, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Oh noes - UD regular Collin is putting ideas into BA's head:

You should write a short book evaluating arguments against darwinism.
You could give each argument a rating.

5 stars = “Proof.” Just one of these arguments means darwinism can’t be true.

4 stars = Strong evidence against darwinism. This argument makes evolution highly improbable.

3 stars = good argument against darwinism. This argument makes darwinism improbable.

2 stars = fair argument. This argument makes darwinism somewhat less likely.

1 star = neutral/has no bearing/ weak argument. I bet you’d make a lot of money doing just what you do commenting on this blog.

Does he really think BA could limit himself to writing a short book?

Date: 2011/03/17 01:25:45, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 17 2011,18:00)
You can't post YouTube video links in a book.  Ok - you can, just not ones that work.  

You can try:

Date: 2011/03/21 22:59:35, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 22 2011,14:10)
This guy has a Ph.D. in philosophy? How can he argue that, on the one hand, a world with no earthquakes or tsunamis is impossible and on the other, it would have been possible if our ancestors behaved?

Well, he could be saying that before the Fall (not the band, of course) people had the ability to withstand such acts of nature, which The Designer then removed(?)
Bonkers anyway.

Date: 2011/03/22 15:08:43, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Clivebaby (hi Clive!):    
jurassicmac, Bantay,

   Bantay asked: What if evidence suggests a non-naturalistic explanation is preferred over a naturalistic or materialist explanation? Should ideas about science be changed and modified accordingly?

   jurassicmac replied: Give me an example of a piece of evidence that could suggest a non-naturalistic explanation is preferred over a natural one.

Notice jurassicmac didn’t answer the question.

I don't think I need say anything more.

Date: 2011/03/22 16:23:36, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Mar. 23 2011,09:03)
Looking for recommendations from you re: the best atheists and agnostics to interview for this film. For the record, this is not "Expelled II." I promise to play fair.

You already know them - Dawkins, Myers, Scott etc. Try Hitchens this time. And why not use a 'working title'? Say "Intersections: The crossroad of Religion and Science"

Date: 2011/03/22 16:30:45, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 23 2011,09:19)
A funny moment from Larry Moran:

...and he follows up with this:
Collin asks,

So do you not believe that natural selection, variation and common descent combine to have a major impact on evolution?

What’s the point of asking a question like that? Are you trying to make your side look like IDiots?


ETA: LOLarity ensues, from both Dense and Collin; check it out. And silly typos.

Date: 2011/03/22 20:31:18, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Heh heh, Matteo's got himself put into moderation. Dense:
Larry Moran at 16 (and anyone interested), the offensive post has been removed.

I am not the troll monitor, but I spotted it, and will ask the monitor to put the poster in moderation.

The removed post, referring to Larry Moran (asterisks in original):




6:31 pm

I’m sorry, but what a d****bag.

While whining that he is not a “Darwinist” and objecting to the use of the term to describe him, he insists on using the term “Intelligent Design Creationist” for those who do not consider themselves creationists.

How about a little reciprocity, d****bag? You’re by your own definition a better, more virtuous person than any of us, so why don’t you lead by example? Otherwise, shush, and go back to your sandbox.

Date: 2011/03/23 19:23:18, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Meanwhile PaV continues his efforts to make MathGrrl go away, little girl:  
Please tell me you’ve read more than just the abstract!!

If you haven’t, then please, just go away.

Denyse is not playing along:  
Mod comment: PaV at 32 and 34: MathGrrl is an invited guest. We don’t accuse people of making an “insincere statement” here. Cool off, okay?

PaV's next move? Appeal to Bully on Harry's self-congratulatory follow-up thread. Sample paragraph:  
She is simply baiting us here. If she knew what she was talking about, then she would know that she’s been given answers already. The problem is not that an answer hasn’t been given, but that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Or, at the very least, is not making any attempt whatsoever to make this apparent.


Date: 2011/03/23 22:43:28, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 24 2011,15:28)
Anyone seen a post from Clive in the last few weeks? I haven't been following UD much of late, but seems to me he's been missing in inaction.

Clive's still around, misunderstanding and misinterpreting as ever. I commented on this the other day here, or go direct to Clivebaby here.

Date: 2011/03/27 19:25:09, Link
Author: Ptaylor
QuiteID lets the mask slip a little further on O'leary's follow-up MathGrrl files thread:  
PaV, you may be right: I hope so. But I don’t think the long-term ID advocates in this discussion have acquitted themselves very well. With the notable exception of vjtorley, — and Denyse — they have been confusing, contradictory, goal-shifting, and altogether unscientific. Nobody can read this discussion and conclude that there’s any settled understanding of CSI or specification in ID theory. It’s the Keystone Kops around here.

Date: 2011/03/28 17:45:28, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 29 2011,10:12)
Pav, the viciously stupid sophist, describes his philosophy of science

Is it the duty of the ID community to prove, in every instance, that this claim is true? The way science works is that a claim is expected to work in every applicable situation. Demonstrating that it doesn’t, would invalidate the claim.

or, just say that situation is inapplicable.  

amirite amirite amirite?

That post just continues to demonstrate UD's complete inability to see its own failure. (Reminds me of the Schlafly/Lenski affair in that regard). It's a long post - here's a link, but don't feel compelled to go there - PaV summarises succinctly:
It would be best if MathGrrl went away. She’s wasting our time.

Go away little girl.

Date: 2011/03/29 22:58:06, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 30 2011,14:55)
Gadies and Lentleman, we have a rare E.1.

BA's reply is uncharacteristically brief, but true to form, dead wrong:  
Gil, that is deep!

Date: 2011/03/30 21:17:16, Link
Author: Ptaylor
In other news OhDeary has a thread up complaining about Spiegel Online describing Richard Dawkins as a scientist. In the comments DonaldM shows the rigour typical of ID scientists:
What actual science has Dawkins performed in the past 25 years or so? Good question. I haven’t checked on this lately, but if I recall, someone searched for Dawkins’s name to come up as an author of a peer reviewed scientific article on places like Pub Med and came up empty for anything recent. Might be worth checking that out again. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least if there is zip, zero, nada!

So it's "I don't know, and I don't have any inclination to find out, but I heard from a friend of a friend that some guy checked it out once and they couldn't find anything. If I could be arsed to find out (which I am not) I am quite certain of the outcome".

Date: 2011/04/02 19:14:16, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 02 2011,18:30)
Forman is probably sitting in the basement playing himself in checkers and feeling p-r-e-t-t-y s-m-u-g at that clever post.  Yes sirree Bob.  Yepper.  That really showed them, by heck!  

Frill is trying to reach critical tard but is limited by his paltry imagination

Frill is trying to reach critical tard but is limited by his carefully impoverished imagination

FIFY, courtesy R Dawkins.

Date: 2011/04/05 23:45:11, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Gil displays a little irritation at the way the “Atheists Don’t Have No Songs” comments are heading:

...because he wants to say something he hasn't said before...
I just got back from a rehearsal at our church playing piano with the many talented musicians in our worship team, in preparation for next Sunday’s service. This is such a joyful and life-enriching experience (which the atheist will never comprehend or experience), not just for the praise music but for the fellowship among us. At every rehearsal we have a time of prayer and share our personal lives and struggles with each other.

As a former Dawkins-style atheist I can offer the following observations: Atheism is hopelessly irrational and illogical. It is soul destroying.

...for at least a week.

Date: 2011/04/06 15:07:14, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (sparc @ April 06 2011,17:39)
BTW, who is hiding behind "News"?

Given the links to post-darwinist.blogspot in the current post by 'News' I'd say it has to be Dense. I've no idea why - perhaps she has become aware that around 90% of recent posts have been under her name, not such a good look.

Date: 2011/04/06 23:40:13, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 07 2011,09:10)
Mark is my hero:




6:11 am


“Is there a bright side if you are an atheist?”

Oh yes. For example,

- no pressure to sit through hour long rambles or harangues once a week in a building with minimal heating and hard seats

- easier to enjoy satires on religion

- no need to repeat “I was once an atheist but now I know better” every week.

My emphasis.

And Gil simply does not get the joke in his new post in response to markf The Bright Side of Atheism. Sample paragraph:
In our church there is no pressure to do anything; it’s all voluntary. The seats are soft and the heating is comfortable. The sermons are not rambles or harangues, but insightful messages (often convicting, but necessarily and constructively so) given by a pastor with a Ph.D. in ethics who has been a professor at Vanguard University for many years, who is one of the best humanitarians I have ever known, and who puts his feet to his faith. He and a team from our church just got back from war-ravaged Africa on a mission to build minimal housing for widows and orphans.

(From there he meanders on to argument A1)

He has completely missed (or maybe ignored) the jibe aimed at him. I'm sort of lost for words for him - self centred? humourless? Oh yes - noncarborundum got it right earlier - Gil Dodgen is a git.

Date: 2011/04/07 18:10:20, Link
Author: Ptaylor
And just prior to the mushrooms we have Gordon E Mullings, victim:
PS: Onlookers, do you see why it is I spoke earlier about fever swamps and angry clouds of mosquitoes? I am sorry if my words are painful but consider what has happened to me at UD — not even ATBC — across a day where I decided to sacrifice a fair quantum of time to answer issues on points (having been accused of being evasive when I have been in fact busy elsewhere, starting with economic and constitutional crises following hard on the heels of an intense trip overseas). Distortion of issues and arguments, refusal to engage central issues on the merits, refusal to acknowledge plain facts, denigration, slander, outright lying. A sad picture, but a telling one on what has been going on on origins science issues, for years. Do you see how the faculty and administrators of U of K were so misled, ill advised and polarised that they implicated their school in a US$ 125,000 legal blunder?

Boo hoo.

BTW, can anyone here see how that last sentence has anything at all to do with the remainder?

Date: 2011/04/10 19:18:22, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Seversky @ April 11 2011,12:03)
Quote (didymos @ April 10 2011,18:37)
Weird.  A GilDo post that seemingly defies Dodgenation:  

So powerful has been Darwinian indoctrination that it leads some people to become completely irrational, even people who are thoroughly rational in other ways. Natural selection created both selfishness and altruism, and it created parents who protect their children at risk to their own lives, but also parents who train their children to commit suicide.

No matter what the scenario — selfishness, altruism, self-preservation, suicide — natural selection selected them all to perpetuate our selfish genes. What a wonderful, all-encompassing “theory” that explains everything, but how utterly ridiculous.

And yet, it's still completely unoriginal and tedious.

And still he fails to understand the concepts he rails against.  

The instinct that leads parents to sacrifice their lives for their children is arguably a product of natural selection.  Those parents who train their children to commit suicide are driven by a pernicious cultural influence - specifically religion.

The weird thing is that Gil continues to worship a God who, by the testimony of his faith's own scripture, is capable of inflicting the most awful cruelty, suffering and death on the creatures he is supposed to love above all things.  That's some powerful need for a father/protector figure.

And he sees no need at all for intelligent design to explain such things.

Date: 2011/04/11 18:31:15, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Harry appears to have forgotten that MathGrrl hasn't been banned, and can respond to his misrepresentations:  
Barry Arrington,

In her post mathgirl asserted that functional complex specified information cannot be measured in a mathematically rigorous way.

That’s not quite correct. I asked for a rigorous mathematical definition of CSI and some example calculations, rather than any of its derivatives, since that is the metric described by Dembski and asserted by many ID proponents to be a clear indicator of the involvement of an intelligent agent.

She is wrong about that, as the comments on her own post demonstrate.

Actually, the posts in that very long thread demonstrate that no one who participated was able to provide that rigorous mathematical definition nor was anyone able to provide example calculations. vjtorley has started at least two other threads since that confirm that conclusion.

But whether she is wrong or right is beside the point with respect to my post. Even mathgirl does not deny the EXISTENCE of FCSI. Why do you?

As noted, I was discussing CSI rather than any of its variants such as FCSI. My conclusion is that, without a rigorous mathematical defintion and examples of how to calculate it, the metric is literally meaningless. Without such a definition and examples, it isn’t possible even in principle to associate the term with a real world referent.

Date: 2011/04/11 23:51:51, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (socle @ April 12 2011,16:09)
Finally, someone posts a substantive response to Mathgrrl's CSI challenge:

If something is both complex and specified, then it is specified complexity.
An example would be shakespear’s sonnet. It is both extremely improbable to come about by chance and at the same time it is meaningful. So there.
Even if you cant calculate a number for it, we still know it is a real thing. You just cant argue that.

The paragraph above that is also, err, challenging:  
My understanding is that CSI is the same thing as specified complexity.
Are you saying that we cannot recognize specified complexity if we cant calculate it accurately?
Specified complexity is just that!
Complexity that is specified.

OK, which one of you is kuartus?Agree with fnxtr, just up there ^.

In other news Bully has seen fit to re-open the whole CSI thing: Is Mathgirl Smarter than Orgel and Wicken Combined? Doubtful.

Date: 2011/04/12 15:21:29, Link
Author: Ptaylor
PaV 'Go away little girl' has waded in, complaining about liberals and presenting this bizarre challenge:  

I have a challenge for you. Scientists assert the “Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum”. I say that it has not been rigorously demonstrated.

For scientists—and you in particular—to convince me of this supposed “law”, please apply this “law” to the destruction of the World Trade Centers. Unless you can demonstrate clearly that it applies to that event, then the “Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum” is just hyperbole. I await your proof.

And when you “prove” that, then I’ll show you how to calculate CSI for any one of your four scenarios.

Anyone here know what he is on about?

Date: 2011/04/12 20:17:25, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Bruce David is having a discussion with StephenB on logic and philosophy on the Does Good come from God II thread. Bruce points out that that Stephen's views differ considerably from those of many well respected philosophers. Stephen's reply, shortened:    
Hume, Kant, and Locke? Morons!

Date: 2011/04/13 22:33:58, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Gil's latest comment:
I continue to be mystified by the Darwinian community concerning the creative powers of natural selection.

Natural selection is differential death. Natural selection by definition has no creative powers. Differential death cannot create anything new. This should be taught in every Logic 101 course at every institution of higher learning.
(bolding mine)
Gil - for all of your original input into UD why do you ever bother going past those first five words?

Extra! - Matteo brings some lulz to the conversation:
Darwinism seems to be quite literally the worship of death.

That one literally killed me.

Date: 2011/05/01 18:17:51, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Man, but it's dull over there. For the last four full days I count 29 posts by News/O'Deary, 2 by Jonathan M, and 1 from the Frill. However the current top post from News might have potential larrity. She says:
Read part of [What Darwin Got Wrong by Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini] for free here.
...and the link appears to have the full text of the book. As commenter DrREC observes:            
This seems a little theft-y to me….

PS - Just back from a week in Rarotonga - highly recommended.

Edited to add: Hilarity has failed to ensue. DenseNews has removed the link. Oh well.
Also: My links above aren't working - I cannot seem to be able to remove a <br> tag in each of them. Anyone have any suggestions on this?

Date: 2011/05/03 17:37:21, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Awww - Upright BiPed hearts StephenB:
StephenB “wins” just about every time he touches his keypad.

I, for one, am glad he spends his time here.

I can't imagine a nicer couple.

Date: 2011/05/08 23:14:51, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Seversky @ May 09 2011,15:31)
Ah, Uncommon Descent!  The gift that just keeps on giving.

Here DeNews O'Leary uses a conference about the chronic illnesses suffered by Charles Darwin to have another bitch about "Darwinism" as a religion.  

So remind me, which of us has the obsession with religion?

You beat me to it. Posting anyway:
Dense, on learning that a whole conference is to be convened around the subject of Charles Darwin's health:
Only Darwinism as a religion could lead to the degree of self-absorption these studies exhibit.

DrREC, on bothering to investigate:
Seems like a medical conference that advances hypotheses about the afflictions of a single historical figure each year.

I don’t see the tie-in to a religious Darwinist cult, just some MDs with a history hobby.

Date: 2011/05/13 22:50:16, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Mung daydreams about putting darwinism on trial:        
Can you imagine Charles Darwin on the witness stand, trying to explain the differences between his various editions?

Err, Mung...

Edited: The link above doesn't work. If you hover over it you will see a <br> tag in the url, which does not belong, and reappears after I edit it out. Any suggestions?

Date: 2011/05/15 21:19:33, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (olegt @ May 16 2011,11:10)
tragic mishap is a Poe.

Yes turell, tell us how you came to the conclusion that all religious people only have faith in God to feel good.

This is UD. We welcome arrogant idiots here.

Stealing that from you.

ETA - Brings back memories of Davetard's classic:
We have a keen nose for bogus science here, folks.

Good times.

Date: 2011/05/17 22:31:27, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Heh - over on VJT's post about the relatedness of ancient hominids and modern humans NZer (I cringe when I see that name over there) is sceptical of the whole 'cave man' thing. He seems to suspect that morphological differences of fossils could be put down to simple variations as can be seen in humans today, assumptions about woefully incomplete specimens, or diseases (specifically rickets), among other things. He ends up with this:
Could these discoveries not be human outcasts that lived in caves due to their diseases? If not, why not?

Right, they lived in caves because they were so shunned that they were thrown out of their houses and apartments, and not even allowed to live in their cars!

Date: 2011/05/18 15:26:50, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 19 2011,01:14)
OK, which one of you guys is johnnyb?



6:26 am

I have a friend who was a professor, who started a successful undergraduate research program, who had a pretty decently-sized funding, and whose work the BBC did a documentary about. When they found out he wasn’t a Darwinist, he was fired, and the problem of being non-Darwinist prevented him from getting any meaningful academic work, so he had to go into truck driving for the rest of his career.

Link? The UD search function points to Dense's Recent Uncommon Descent posts thread but I cannot see it there.

Date: 2011/05/19 23:11:30, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Gil has another A1 argument.

Date: 2011/05/21 01:04:24, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Right - it has just gone 6:00 pm on the 21st of May in my time zone. Nothing yet, but I'll let you know if anything happens in the next hour - if I can.

Date: 2011/05/21 02:06:04, Link
Author: Ptaylor
7:05 - Starting to wonder if it might have been a mistake selling up everything and sending the proceeds to that nice Mr Camping.

Date: 2011/05/23 03:41:58, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 23 2011,17:05)
Sorry about that, folks, but it needed to be said.

I suggest you edit to delete the apology - it's entirely unnecessary.

Date: 2011/05/23 22:37:11, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Just great - Camping has come up with (1) an excuse for the non-events of 21 May and (2) a revised prediction:
But Camping said that he's now realized the apocalypse will come five months after May 21, the original date he predicted. He had earlier said Oct. 21 was when the globe would be consumed by a fireball.

Saturday was "an invisible judgment day" in which a spiritual judgment took place, he said. But the timing and the structure is the same as it has always been, he said.

"We've always said May 21 was the day, but we didn't understand altogether the spiritual meaning," he said. "May 21 is the day that Christ came and put the world under judgment."


No apologies, and only a veiled acknowledgement that his prediction had cost many (his followers) dearly:
Camping said Family Radio would never tell anyone what they should do with their possessions.

"That is between them and God," he said.

I disagreed with some comments I read after the 21st to the effect that the media had given him too much publicity - on the whole I thought he was mostly treated with polite incredulity when he's been on-screen and, when off screen, mockery. The current crop of articles give me pause, though. He's using the press to continue his propaganda. From what I've read this must have been a 'no questions' press statement - fair enough, but if he's going to act the way he did pre-21st, I hope the media treats him with all the scorn and derision he deserves.

ETA: Good analysis here.

Date: 2011/05/30 22:59:35, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Heh, this over at Pharyngula:

In which creationists make me giddily, joyfully gleeful!
The fun part is that the nitwits at Uncommon Descent have posted 10 + 1 Questions For Professor Myers, and are urging the Scottish creationists to show up and confront me with their stumpers.


Date: 2011/06/01 00:11:32, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Gil has posted a comment on his Who are the Real Freethinkers thread*. His final paragraph begins:
I realize that my posts at UD are somewhat inflammatory.

I don't know how anyone can mix the phrase 'somewhat inflammatory' with 'completely predictable', but somehow Gil can!

*Sorry to re-rile you there, Seversky.

Date: 2011/06/01 18:29:44, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Pa"Go away, little girl"V continues his fondness for putting down others with unwarranted assumptions. Here he is addressing Elizabeth Liddle:  
I don’t know how old you are, but I’ve been looking for Darwinian answers for nigh thirteen years. I bet you were in grade school then. And what have I found? Nothing that gives any kind of realistic answer for how highly improbable informational events can be accounted for.

Liddle's response:    
heh. I was born in 1952, PaV. Turning 60 next year. But my mind has been pretty open from birth, and I hope will remain that way for a couple more decades still.

How about you?

PaV: tosser (as the Brits say).

Date: 2011/06/02 18:22:41, Link
Author: Ptaylor
PZ Myers links to this as a variation on The Courtier's Reply. I think it encapsulates the recent MathGrrl debacle very well.

Date: 2011/06/09 22:04:33, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (socle @ June 10 2011,10:47)
Denyse's latest

Can those people get anything right? Commenter NeilBJ has done some fact checking for the ace Canadian journalist:  
That was Eugenie Scott in the video, not Barbara Forrest.

Date: 2011/06/13 01:56:18, Link
Author: Ptaylor
There's some good tard over in the comments on the 'PZ open cut quote mines' thread. (These people and irony really are strangers, aren't they?) Even the one clear headed (in my opinion, of course) commenter, Neil Rickert has tard injected into his comment by the now rarely seen loudspeaker in the ceiling method:
I have to single out this man, whom I consider the most contemptable, despicable, cruel, and vicious evil liar in the creationist movement today, yes, he’s a nasty, nasty person. (PZ has never met or talked with this ID proponent.)

Maybe the particular ID proponent has written some books, and maybe it is from those books that PZ finds the ID proponent to be a “vicious evil liar.”

I think I listened to the same podcast, and the particular ID proponent was identified as Jonathan Wells. I’m not sure why you omitted that detail. PZ is not the only evolutionist who holds a low opinion of Wells. Larry Moran has been posting a series on his blog (see this post for an example.

(moderator: Neil the language applied would not usually be used of someone who one had not met by a rational clear thinking person. How can someone be “evil” where there is “no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference” (Dawkins)?)

There's more: Gil has his 2c worth, actually avoiding using the Dodgenator 3000 for once, but still managing to remain content free. There's some serious misconstrual from Barb (who surely merits more discussion here IMO), and JohnnyB tells us that PZ converted him from mere IDiocy to full blown creationism. Just as I'm writing Clive has wandered in and delivered a surprise CS Lewis quote. Touché there, Clive!

Date: 2011/06/13 22:31:02, Link
Author: Ptaylor
A perfect response, in my opinion. Driver to tsmith:
   but evolution has been falsified

The scientists haven’t noticed. They are still doing evolutionary biology. How do you explain it?

It won't impress the low level IDiots, like tsmith, but it represents a fact that the UDers have to face and somehow get around on a daily basis. It seems to be driving Gil, especially, bonkers.

Date: 2011/06/15 00:26:30, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 15 2011,13:50)
Pssst. Denyse. Pssst. Wilhelm Reich's original field (before it became left field) was psychiatry, and specifically psychoanalysis, not psychology.

I placed a snarky comment here about DeLerium not getting her facts straight a few days ago, but I have to pass on this one, as I once made the same mistake. I wrote a letter to all psychiatrists in my country referring their profession as psychology - very embarrassing.

Date: 2011/06/19 16:59:49, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (lkeithlu @ June 20 2011,09:39)
Now, I see, I can't even log into ID. Have they changed their format?

I think it is just that particular thread:
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

I can still log on for other threads; possibly it is just a time-out thing, as the OP for that one dates back to early April.

Date: 2011/06/19 20:24:42, Link
Author: Ptaylor
DeLeary's been busy - 5 posts by News and 2 by O'Leary dated 19 June. Few of them seem to be noteworthy  - anyone have any insight/guesses as to what motivates her?

Date: 2011/06/22 00:07:32, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (paragwinn @ June 22 2011,16:37)
Gil 'did lil ol me cause such a ruckus?' Do:        
I intentionally included the Read more >> link immediately after my obviously provocative introduction in hopes that it would lure devout Darwinists ... into a trap.

A Tard Pit?

Gil needs a few more lessons in evolutionary camouflage.

What a self centred prat. Gil really does seem to think that by writing    
MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT: I Believe in Evolution
...that the world would stop and say "What? Gil Dodgen - accepting evolution? - I've go to read this".
And moreover, that he believes that this...
Here’s the bottom line: The notion that all of life can be explained by Darwinian mechanisms (including Rachmaninoff, his piano concerti, musical instruments invented and refined for centuries, and those inspired to learn to play them) is just simply preposterous. a convincing argument.

To use a term recently coined in my neck of the woods: twatcock.

Date: 2011/06/26 19:56:44, Link
Author: Ptaylor
The current DeNews piece is titled:  
Sociologist: Darwinism is the astrology of science
The sociologist is, of course Steve Fuller, who testified at Dover, where analogies to astrology were notably drawn.
One more time (& sorry to be Frill-like in repeating this): UD regulars, irony- strangers.

Date: 2011/06/27 16:23:32, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Zachriel @ June 28 2011,08:55)
Mathgrrl comes out! Apparently, she's Tony Stark in drag.

I think MathGrrl's final two comments warrant preserving here:

Your apology would be much more convincing if you had removed the original post. After all, it’s not as though comments and entire threads haven’t disappeared from Uncommon Descent in the past.

The truth is that you decided to spend your time ingratiating yourself with your chosen tribe through actions that you would find obnoxious were they directed at yourself and which you would not take against someone who agreed with you. Your behavior would be more worthy of respect if you had the integrity to man up and own your motivations. I would have laughed and saluted had you simply said “Yeah, I outed a pseudonym because I didn’t like what the person behind it was saying and I knew the people I identify with would appreciate it.”

As it is, your lack of testicular fortitude highlights not only the character flaws that lead to attacking the person rather than addressing the argument, but also the smug insincerity that permeates your apology.

I hope it worked for you. I know that whole “CSI can be generated by natural processes” thing must have been embarrassing and cost you some UD street cred.


For the record, you have very little evidence on which you based your conclusion, making it little more than a not unreasonable guess. Since that is more evidence than any ID proponent has ever used to support their claims here before, though, I’m going to toss you a bone and let you know that you are correct.

I’ve posted MathGrrl’s autobiography if anyone is interested.

This will be my last post here.

And link.
ETA - Beaten to it by BillB!
Edited even further: MathGrrl's link - recommended.

Date: 2011/06/27 23:51:57, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ June 28 2011,16:07)
I've no intention to answer any of these; he has proven over and over that he won't bother to stay on topic and off the personal insults. But it would be fine with me if some of you clicked on the link above, read his rants, and voted his latest three comments as "unhelpful" if you think that they might just be that. A few more negative votes and they will be hidden from the view of anyone who blunders onto that site.

I've already been doing that for the past few weeks. I also get a sense of deep personal satisfaction when seeing
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway.] opening the comment, voting downwards, and closing it again.

Date: 2011/06/29 04:35:43, Link
Author: Ptaylor
DeLerious :  
Update, just in: Walt Ruloff and his associates, who were the original producers of EXPELLED, won the auction. More later.

Date: 2011/06/29 19:41:17, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Somehow, something that happened five years ago...
In 2006, Nature covered PZ Myers’s Pharyngula as one of the “top five science blogs.” What were they thinking?

...qualifies as "News" at UD. You can click on this link if you want, but be warned, there's a rather disturbing image there.

Date: 2011/06/29 22:44:12, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Barb delivers:  
[Quoting Elizabeth Liddle]“That’s why we can trust our minds. Because we can do amazing things, with them, including checking our reasoning for errors, testing our conclusions against sensory data, and cross-checking our inferences with the inferences of others.”

Yes, we can, Ms. Liddle, but this doesn’t explain the people who believe that the moon landing was faked. Or the people who believe only what they want to believe regardless of the facts.

My emphasis.

Date: 2011/06/30 00:16:42, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (CeilingCat @ June 30 2011,16:38)
Does anybody know when "Gordon" will be up for a hurricane name?

I don't know, but I found this to be amusing at Wikipedia:
The name Gordon has been used for three tropical cyclones in the Atlantic Ocean since 1988 when it replaced the name Gilbert on the list of hurricane names.

ETA: Minor grammar clarification.

Date: 2011/07/03 19:50:32, Link
Author: Ptaylor
And again, happy birfday.

Date: 2011/07/04 20:05:58, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Kristine @ July 05 2011,11:56)
ID will ego
Ergo UD will give Dawkins
Sorrow -
And no porn!
Just thinkin' about
CSI's away the dense-y
'Til unicorns!
Oh Tomorrow, Tomorrow,
it's rainbows
and dinos will saddle up!

I'll have some of what she's having, please.

ETA - PS Happy 4th July to all you merry cans.

Date: 2011/07/05 14:57:36, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Pthanks everyone.

Date: 2011/07/07 01:23:21, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Gil, 11 February 2009:
Darwinists, John Cage, Flimflam Artists, and Himalayan Dung Heaps

When I was in college I studied piano with a Hungarian concert pianist by the name of Istvan Nadas. He was a student of Bartok and a miraculous survivor of a Nazi death camp....

Gilagain,  6 July 2011:
Human Evil, Music, Logic, and Himalayan Dung Heaps

When I was in college I studied classical piano with Istvan Nadas who was a Hungarian concert pianist and a student of Bela Bartok. Istvan was a miraculous survivor of one of Hitler’s death camps. The stories he told me still haunt me to this day....

How about the hang glider story next, Gil? Haven't heard that for a while. Or the checkers one, or...

Date: 2011/07/10 21:30:32, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Heh, someone has finally pointed out StephenB's stats fail:
StephenB: On the other hand, if the dice are fair, any number from two to twelve will have an equal chance of coming up.

WOW! this is so amazingly wrong! I’m also surprised at the number of others who chimed in who also believe this patently false claim.

No wonder few folks buy into the ID probability arguments since the ID proponents cannot even get the most basic probability concepts correct.

Responses to this are mostly good natured, e.g. "SB better come clean on that one, lol." Not Uptight BiPed, though:
Any side of the die encompasses the same probability. The fact that they are numbered is beside the point.

Date: 2011/07/12 18:05:14, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I'm not sure if it's the intention of this thread, but here are some of my personal favorites from UD (mostly originally spotted by others here):
I am Richard Dawkins’ worst nightmare — a former militant atheist and Darwinist

To this day I kick myself for not going to the “Kitzmiller” fiasco…

I wouldn’t be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified.

We have a keen nose for bogus science here, folks.

Born again 77 is one of the most scientifically knowledgeable posters on this site, and he continues to wipe up the floor with Darwinists who cannot even begin to answer or even approach must of his points.

...coupled with...
correction billionn trillion = 10^21 = 10^9 + 10^12

And of course my current sig!

Edited: my, not by (I have a cold).

Date: 2011/07/12 18:29:45, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Wow, StephenB absolutely cannot admit to having made what is really just a trivial error.

Date: 2011/07/17 17:34:40, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Thomas Cudworth, to Elizabeth Liddle:
So again, I grant you that ID people have done some dumb things and taken some dumb stands. But none of those things touch ID at the theoretical heart. I’m a thinker. I do theory, not culture-war politics. So I’d appreciate if if you would let the culture-war stuff go, and if Nick would be man enough to admit that he has played culture-war politics himself, and that he is every bit as guilty as any Discovery person at doing so. He has deliberately misled the public about Behe and Denton and the main theoretical claims of ID. He should apologize, and desist.

Thomas Cudworth, to kairosfocus, just under two hours later:
I agree with you. I’m on your side both in the culture war and on the scientific question of design. But I don’t think the two should be mixed together in theoretical discussions of biology.

Embolderation mine, in both instances. I'm sure Thomas thinks he's being consistent, but I can't see it. As they say, go configure.

Date: 2011/07/17 20:28:29, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Wow - I have just realised the reason for BA's continual blogarrhea:
Well here are my two cents:
[2500 words follow over 2 posts]

He gets paid to do it! And at one measly cent for every 1,250 words who can blame him for long entries?

Date: 2011/07/18 17:59:41, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Thomas Cudworth on his 'Why Were So Many Darwin Defenders No-Shows at the World’s Premier Evolutionary Conference?' thread:
...When Eugenie Scott, in public debate with David Berlinksi[sic], was asked the question how many morphological changes would be needed to turn a land mammal into a whale, she flew into a rage (literally). ...

Anyone here know where and when this debate occurred?

ETA - Unexpectedly, Gordon E Mullings of Montserrat has asked the same question.

Date: 2011/07/18 22:50:09, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Thomas Cudworth is not impressed with Nick Matzke's pathetic level of detail:

We are not communicating. Are you sure that you have read what I wrote? Do you realize what I mean by an evolutionary pathway?

By an evolutionary pathway to the flagellum, I mean a step-by-step recipe for building a bacterium with a flagellum, out of a bacterium with no flagellum, not even a partial flagellum. I want to see the flagellum going up in stages before my very eyes, as I can watch a skyscraper going up in stories before my eyes. I want a morphological description of the bacterium for each intermediate stage, an explanation of the selection advantage of each stage, and a list of DNA bases that had to be altered to get to that stage, and what the substitutions were, and the exact locations where all this took place along the bacterial genome. And of course that implies I need a count of the number of necessary stages (10? 20? 100?), and also I need a full discussion of mutation rates and the time-frame that is being hypothesized, so that I can see whether wildly optimistic estimates of favorable mutations are being employed, etc.

Now, has Nick provided a pathway *in accord with my specifications*?

If so, *where*?

(It wouldn’t be in a journal article, I can tell you that. A 500-page book, minimum, complete with many diagrams of both DNA sections and morphological changes, would be needed to cover the details I’ve asked for.)

Date: 2011/07/21 16:36:18, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Heh, Robert Sheldon seems to indicate a little frustration with BatshitInsane:
You may want to catalogue all your material on a blog or website and link to it instead of pasting it in the comments section. This would also make it easier to archive and update.

Psst - Robert - he does both.

Date: 2011/07/21 20:04:49, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I have a little Quote of the Day gadget on my iGoogle home tab. I thought of this thread when I saw this one from Penn Jillette:
My favorite thing about the Internet is that you get to go into the private world of real creeps without having to smell them.

Date: 2011/07/27 01:40:19, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birfday from a fellow - err, July-an.

Date: 2011/07/27 18:20:42, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Idion rises to a challenge:  
Matzke “If you have a better explanation, though, then post it.”

Ah! the old “even though what I am asserting is false, and even though I know that it is false, and even though you know that I know that it is false, I still get to assert it until you supply me a ‘better’ ['better' being determined by me] explanation.”

Take that, Darwinists!

Date: 2011/07/28 16:15:00, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 29 2011,03:48)
Interestingly this is why New Zealand is such a nice place to live.

Nothing to do with the sheep, then?

I can assure you that the sheep are simply a bonus.

Date: 2011/07/31 17:16:49, Link
Author: Ptaylor
DeNews, responding to complaints about the rate of posting of new articles and suggestion of a forum style for UD:
Elizabeth Liddle, speaking only for UD News, not the mod team as a whole, it sounds like a good idea. We have the legal and ethical problem that we don’t have the resources to mod a forum. Legal because we are a not-for-profit incorporated in Colorado (and one of us is very vulnerable for nationality reasons), ethical because we have a commitment not to sound like “Down the Illegal Boozecan” or whatever it is. We recommend that you be cautious about contributor rights unless you are well insulated against fallout. A hide of brass helps too. ;)

    The Colorado reference would appear to answer a recent question re UD's ownership.
    I don't understand the legality problem - can anyone here help?
    Who is "very vulnerable for nationality reasons"? Is it perhaps Gordon E Mullings of Montserrat? Denyse O'Leary of Toronto, Canada?
    “Down the Illegal Boozecan” - that would be this fucking site!
    "A hide of brass helps" - this from a site with a reputation for welcoming robust discuss- er, wait.

Date: 2011/08/04 19:55:20, Link
Author: Ptaylor
In a thread headed 'To Save Time Barry Argues Both Sides' Bully has an imaginary argument with Elizabeth Liddle. Guess who wins?

Date: 2011/08/08 18:02:02, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Heh, Elizabeth Liddle pushes it, ever so gently:
I don’t know the limits. Nobody does. I applaud efforts of Mike Behe and people like Richard Lenski who are doing things that may lead to more insight. Otherwise, it’s just “Darwinism” of the Gaps.

Elizabeth Liddle:  
I guess, except that there are lots of gaps that are fairly well filled, and no obvious theoretical reason why there should be longitudinal limits.

Plenty for lateral limits though, which are what we see, and which would be odd if the thing were the product of design (human design lineages don’t have lateral limits).

But I agree with you about Lenski. His work is awesome.

My emphasisation. (Edited to try to make the point clearer)

Date: 2011/08/08 19:12:11, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 09 2011,11:05)
Mrs. O'Leary brings up the Shroud of Turin, much to bornagain77's delight.

And she seems to think that, well, 'The Shroud of Turin makes way more sense than water on Mars', quoting approvingly of David Klinghoffer at EnV. The undertone (yes, it's my interpretation) is that the mere speculation, let alone scientific investigation, into whether liquid water may exist on Mars is nonsense of the highest order.
Tolerated-for-the-moment ID sceptic woodford agrees with UD regular SCheesman who asks:  
I fail to understand why it should be an issue to the ID community if water is found on Mars.

Frost122585, however, (who also seems to have a crush on the shroud) has the answer:
Water on Mars?! …

Who cares.

Date: 2011/08/09 14:52:27, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Kia ora.

Date: 2011/08/09 22:01:30, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Comments on the Shroud of Turin thread are a laugh. The subject (starting here) of Jesus's hair length has come up. Consensus so far: Jesus weren't no damned hippy.

Date: 2011/08/10 02:07:05, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Gil goes all E1 on us, extolling one Prager University. Prager's home page boasts:
At Prager University our motto is "Give Us Five Minutes and We'll Give You a Semester."

That sounds like quite a boast until one realizes that most of the time you spend in college is wasted. The same might easily be said of high school.

Give us those five minutes and we’ll give you a semester's worth of wisdom on a variety of topics from political science to psychology to religious studies. This is stuff you can really use, that can change your life.

Aww man, to think of all of those years and months I spent studying up to Masters degree level - all wasted. (Actually much of my time at undergraduate level was wasted - hell it was fun.)

Date: 2011/08/12 01:12:04, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Unpleasant Blowhard is doing what he does best. Sample:
All that effort, yet its still both painfully and immediately obvious that you haven’t read what it is you are critisizing; you don’t know what you are talking about. You can trust me on this because I’ve read every paper cited by that article.

Emphasis in original.
There's more.

Date: 2011/08/15 01:48:40, Link
Author: Ptaylor
UD's** interest in Elizabeth Liddle is starting to feel positively creepy, with a photo of her* featured at the top of this current post.
As DrREC observes in the comments:  
On a side note, this site seems somewhat obsessed with Elizabeth Liddle. Numerous original posts stemming from comments (in which the original topic is often substantially, let’s say ‘reframed’ have appeared. It is getting a bit much-running bio and photos of a commenter?

*I assume it is her given the URL of the jpg. My browser also tells me that an image of Elizabeth Anscombe has also loaded, but damned if I can see it in a number of platform/browser combinations.
**Edited - I wrongly attributed this to Harry Barrington - the post is by vjtorley. Barry does feature in the comments. Apologies to Mr Arrington, you asshole.

Date: 2011/08/18 16:59:47, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 19 2011,09:35)
Patrick - BWA HA HA HA AH!!!!!11111

What a beautiful link!!!!  How long until it's 404ed at UD???

Marginally less hilarious, but still sig-worthy, Steno continues:
It is though the pressure of naturalism that leads to us reject univocal thought patterns, but this will ultimately undermine science because naturalism doesn’t obligate us to read nature literally. Intelligent design proponents are thus the true custodians of science.

(My emph)

Date: 2011/08/18 23:52:03, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 19 2011,14:08)
Interesting. I graduated from high school in 1963. My 9th grade Biology text didn't include the word evolution or the concept, but I learned the concept somewhere. Probably from the Life Magazine series on human evolution. Around 1956.

I recall that our biology text when I was around 15 (mid 1970s) had a section devoted to evolution. It may have been controversial at the time because I remember our teacher started the unit by giving quite a strong narrative in defence of evolutionary theory. It went something like: What would the world be like if evolution did not happen? Well, we would not see mutations occurring and becoming fixed in populations, yet we do. We would not see physical barriers (mountains, rivers) changing and causing a single population to divide into two (leading to speciation), and yet we do. The list went on; there were around 8-10 items.

That may not look very compelling, but that would be due to a mixture of poor recollection and narration on my part. I remember thinking at the time 'Wow - that kills creationism stone dead'.

I know it would not persuade any of the ID regulars* but I'd love to get hold of that list. After three and a half decades however I don't have a clue how I would find it, even with today's interwebs. Does it strike a chord with anyone here?

*Token attempt to appear to be on topic.

Date: 2011/08/21 00:02:09, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 20 2011,14:05)
Could we be about to see the rare eat-your-own-young banning?

Barry ArringtonAugust 20, 2011 at 8:57 pm

Sadly, Ilion is no longer with us.

And, on another thread
Barry ArringtonAugust 20, 2011 at 8:59 pm

Sadly (because he often had a lot of intelligent things to say) Ilion is no longer with us.

Date: 2011/08/21 21:38:52, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Well, I'm just trying to figure out what the fuck she's trying to say.

Date: 2011/08/23 00:18:10, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 23 2011,16:26)
I forget, is one of Dr Dr Bill's degrees in biology?

Well pointed out. It highlights the hypocrisy in Holloway's very first sentence:
We’ve all noticed the ID critics all speak outside of their realm of expertise.

And they all think they can overthrow an entire field of science in which practically none of them have any expertise.

Date: 2011/08/24 16:08:54, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I am reminded - sadly - that UD does not exist simply for entertainment purposes. ScottAndrews:
By that argument absolutely anything is possible. A monkey can type Shakespeare because the exact configuration of blades of grass on the earth is highly improbable, and yet there it is.

I can throw a lump of dirt at a wall, and the exact configuration of sand and rocks will be highly improbable. So is it reasonable to expect that it might turn into a life form? After all, both are improbable.

Tonight I’m going to teach my five year old how to see through that reasoning.
(My bold)
IDC - passing ignorance down generations.

Date: 2011/08/25 19:58:30, Link
Author: Ptaylor
CannuckianYankee is having trouble with English language the:  
My prediction is that alien life will be so outlandishly and weirdly alien to Richard Dawkins when they attempt to convert him to theism.

Date: 2011/08/26 14:24:13, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birfday, kia ora.

Date: 2011/08/30 11:02:12, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 31 2011,00:59)
O'Leary and the likes may explain the following question:
If there are protestant why there are still catholics?

I'm currently on vacation in lovely, lovely Prague. Being a first time visitor I took a sightseeing tour yesterday, which included Prague Castle. Our guide explained the ubiquitous religiously artistry to us: 'We used to be a Catholic (pronounced cat-lick) country but we aren't any more (implication was that after many tumultous events the people are free of oppression). In fact we are not really religious at all; only about 5% of people go to church at all.'
And you know - I actually thought of Dense when I heard that.

Date: 2011/09/13 19:52:59, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I happen to work with a bunch of journalists. On the whole they are quite picky about getting things right. Such as avoiding typos in headlines.

Apparently it is not a universal trait.

Date: 2011/09/25 22:19:09, Link
Author: Ptaylor
NickMatzke_UD, to Gil:
Looks to me like you’ve kept the same high-certainty, low-level-of-relevant-scholarship attitude, you just switched sides while doing so. Actually coming to grips with the scientific literature on some specific biological topic would be worth a thousand defiant testimonials.
(My bolding)
Gil responds with a, well, defiant testimonial:

I examined the evidence and logic, and determined that you and those of your persuasion are promoting a thesis that cannot be defended on scientific, rational, mathematical or evidential grounds, and have therefore resorted to intimidation and vilification as the only recourse in an attempt to defend an indefensible, dying philosophy, disguised and promoted as “science.”

The fact that I am a legitimate scientist who followed the evidence where it led, and a former militant, obnoxious atheist like you, is what really pisses you off.

Date: 2011/09/29 00:34:15, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Gil appears to be pricked by comments on his predictability:
My purpose is to provide encouragement to fellow victims of materialistic philosophy — which is ubiquitous and pervasive in public education and all the popular media — and to demonstrate that legitimate science points in the direction of design and therefore purpose and meaning in life.

I promise to never again reference my abandonment of militant atheism, since that seems to be out of bounds. I’ll just address the science.
<more of the usual Gil-speak - "transparently illogical", "mathematically absurd", etc>

So there goes argument E from the Dodgenator3000. It'll be interesting to see if he can keep his word.

Date: 2011/09/29 15:47:03, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (paragwinn @ Sep. 29 2011,11:15)
Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 28 2011,15:57)


2) Preference without prejudice will be given to anyone who can calculate the specified complexity of any living organism.

Who was it at UD who said that they would perform the task stated in #2 if given thousands or tens of thousands of dollars? This could be the incentive they're looking for!

That would of course be Pa-"go away little girl"-V, as originally pointed out by oldman here.

What she wants from us is the “chance hypothesis” for these programs. If she is willing to pay me large sums of money, I might consider showing her how its done. However, considering the time, effort and thought required, I am not willing to give it to her for free.

Current link.

Date: 2011/10/03 20:31:00, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Joseph, master of the I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I school of debate, responding to DrREC:

   Does Spenter even consider gene duplication in his book?

Yes, he does.
   Why do you think they are non-mechanistic or designed?

Why do you think they are stochastic?
   You take the evidence for evolution, accept it, and say “that isn’t Darwinian” and “ID isn’t against evolution.”

That is a funny thing you do, DrREC. You obviously have no clue as to what ID claims yet you feel compelled to rail against it.
   By which I think you mean Darwinian=natural, unguided.

Actually evolutionary biologists say that- natural selection is blind/ mindless and the mutations are undirected.
   This makes you a theistic evolutionist.

Nope. But that makes you a butthead.
   You accept the mechanisms, but see a guiding hand behind them, I guess.

Design is a mechanism. A targeted search is a design mechanism. No need for any hand, just a well written genetic algorithm.
   That said, there isn’t any evidence that requires invoking a designer in evolution, geology, meteorology or the casino.

Strange then that scientists have presented plenty of evidence for ID in fields such as biology, geology, physics, chemistry and cosmology.


Date: 2011/10/05 16:37:44, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Heh, DrBot:

   [Bozorgmehr] was—as is usual at Darwinist blogs—denigrated, call names, and told he didn’t know anything.

Go away little girl


Date: 2011/10/11 17:24:30, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Preserving (because you never know), NickMatzke_UD's latest response to BSI77 on the latest Junk DNA thread:
That’s not the research article, it’s the news article summary.

And either way, it has NOTHING to do with incongruence between phylogenetic trees! Do you even know what incongruence means? They used phylogenetic trees to do the study, for godssakes!

Bolding random parts of a news article about a research paper you don’t understand is not an argument. These kinds of shenanigans are why I mostly just ignore your posts, and why the scientific community will definitely, and rightly, never take the kind of stuff you put out seriously.

Here’s what the article was actually about — using phylogenetic trees to test whether the most common mechanism of speciation was:

1. A matter of gradually building up many small changes — which might be expected if natural selection of a long series of mutations was the major cause of lineage-splitting.

2. A matter of single, rare events — which might be expected if dispersal to new regions was the major cause of lineage splitting, e.g. when a species on rare occasions gets over a mountain range, out to a remote island, etc.

#1 predicts that the lengths of the branches between nodes on the phylogenetic tree will have a normal (bell curve) distribution, since if you add up the waiting times of a large number of exponentially-distributed events, you get a normal distribution.

#2 predicts that the lengths of the branches between nodes on the phylogenetic tree will have an exponential distribution.

They found statistically more support for #2. Since a lot of biologists have had the opinion that geographic separation is the most common cause of speciation, this tends to support their position.

There are various criticisms one can make of the study, since e.g. estimating branch lengths is nontrivial, but that’s neither here nor there.

In short…what am I, as a scientist, supposed to think about the shenangians you are pulling here? I know you’re not doing it dishonestly, you’re doing it out of the confidence that you’re correct, and your eagerness to show it — but that’s almost worse! Imagine what it looks like to a scientist who is already predisposed to dislike religion. Here’s a guy who calls himself “bornagain77?, who goes around telling people that a major scientific theory is a total fraud, yet he can’t even get the first thing correct about a recent scientific paper, and his doubling-down on the mistake indicates he doesn’t even care enough to double-check his claim once he is criticized about it.

I’m just amused, because I’ve seen such shenanigans so many times from creationists, but a lot of scientists get pretty darn ticked off at the abuse of their work and their field by people who have high confidence, but no idea what they are talking about. This, not atheism, is what makes so many scientists so strongly opposed to creationism/ID. That and the fact that other creationists/IDists don’t correct such mistakes, which are being made all the time.

And, if the goal is to convert people to evangelical Christianity, imagine how your behavior looks from the scientists’ perspective. Apparently, becoming born again involves throwing away your brain, naively misinterpreting the hard and careful work of scientists, and loudly proclaiming to the world that the scientists are wrong, when you don’t even know what you are talking about. That’s about the last thing that will ever appeal to a scientist, or to anyone who values science.

Creationists are one of the biggest impediments to successful apologetics that exists in the modern world.

As with criticism of Elizabeth Liddle I think Nick is also imparting a false sense of respectability to UDers' arguments. However, after this I get the feeling he won't be bothering to hang out over there much longer.

And while I am at it, who is IDiot ScottAndrews? He seems to be in the race with StephenB, Uppy and others to be the most arrogant in their ignorance.

Date: 2011/10/12 16:47:07, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Sig worthy - BSI77 to DrREC:
You guys need to roll up you sleeves and do the actual experimental work

(Long link problem happening, it is comment 10.1.1 on the ID Foundations, 8: Switcheroo and on and on thread.)
DrREC's reply:
Projection much?

What experimental work have you ever done?

Date: 2011/10/16 18:16:53, Link
Author: Ptaylor
PaV has updated a strangely familiar argument. Shortened:
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against an iPhone...

Date: 2011/10/17 00:17:01, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 17 2011,15:49)
Gil, you mean the things you've been posting at UD are the best you can do?  Christ. No wonder you're bitter.

That post had a different effect for me. That awful old Mac Davis song wormed its way into my mind. And it's still there - aarrgh!

Date: 2011/10/17 00:39:28, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Logic, PaV style:
kellyhomes @ 21.1.2:

   Let me ask you, what “positive evidence” do you have that Intelligent Design caused a land mammal to become aquatic?

But you’ve already asked me that question. I simply turned it around and asked you. You think you have evidence. Well, where is it?

Date: 2011/10/18 18:14:09, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Heh, a current DeNews headline:
Sophisticated tool production system discovered, from 200,000-400,000 million years ago

Spotted by Bilbo I

Date: 2011/10/19 17:55:48, Link
Author: Ptaylor
They really don't like OOL studies/research, do they? Really gets them going. Sample comments from the Jack Szostak on origin of life post:
The least offensive way I can describe this is that it is irrational. Szostak is drawing conclusions based on nothing, and people are believing him.
- ScottAndrews
Wasted money. Wasted time. Wasted science.
- UppyBipey

Date: 2011/10/20 00:44:45, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 20 2011,15:05)
Perhaps you should  watch Expelled

Well, at least now you're on topic, but why on earth do you imagine anyone here would be interested in a trailer for Expelled? You may notice that this threat is currently 118 pages long and has gone on for 4 years - the commenters here are very familiar with the movie. If I can presume to speak for others here I would say the consensus is that it is total dreck (a view shared by the scientifically literate community). Given what you've posted above I cannot see how you're going to change that.

Date: 2011/10/22 23:55:39, Link
Author: Ptaylor
You don't even have to read past the title...
Mud-to-Mozart Atheology (Or, Who are the real skeptics?) see that the frilled one is using the Dodgenator 3000 argument A1.
As ever, though, it doesn't matter so much which variation he uses, each one of his posts is essentially about Gil.
PS - First couple of comments there make it worth a visit, IMO.

Date: 2011/10/25 19:45:18, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 26 2011,11:51)
Lewontin LARGE!

And Gordon is rocking both the red and the {bold curly bracket} loudspeakers in the ceiling. Must be a woofer-tweeter sort of thing.

Final comment on that thread:
I will not reward that behaviour, so I will now shut down comments, and add responses in brief overnight to what requires a reasonable comment for record, as editorial notes.


So, do I have this right?: KF gets shot down in the comments, and his response is (1) close comments, and (2) {add bold curly bracket comments} to all posts protected from any chance of further responses? If he was of any consequence I'd say that's pretty despicable, but he isn't.

Or do I have that wrong?

Edit: Grammar error; it was irritating me

Date: 2011/10/27 17:43:26, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Is Elizabeth Liddle leaving UD for good?:
No, it isn’t, because of drift effects.

Scott, it’s been nice talking to you, but I think it’s time I left you guys to yourselves :) ]

If you want to get in touch, I’m here:

and you, and everyone else, are very welcome to drop by. The idea behind the site is that it is a place where people with very different views can debate with as little rancour as possible. At least, that’s the idea :)

Hope to see you around.


Edit: Well, yes.

Date: 2011/10/28 22:15:40, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 29 2011,14:57)
Surprisingly no "world class ckeckers", "LS-DYNA", "I was a worse than Dawkins militant atheist", "autonomously guided airdrop systems", "artificial-intelligence" "classical piano", but this little gem surely compensates for much  
At a recent men’s church retreat
I am hoping for video footage.

Gil almost nails it in his opening paragraph:
Why are ID theorists skeptical of “man-caused carbon dioxide emissions leading to the destruction of the planet” theory? The reason is that we follow the evidence, and have a nose that smells out junk science in the name of an ideological (indeed, a religious) agenda.

My embolderation.

Date: 2011/10/30 15:54:08, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 31 2011,08:05)
it's another permutation of that grand old saw "I, personally, am dumb as fuck.  Therefore, you are wrong."

From recent comments it's difficult to tell if you are referring to Joseph or Gil. Which one...
...oh, never mind.

Date: 2011/11/01 20:50:43, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Fossfur on DeNews' 'Scientists, our moral and intellectual superiors: Big Dutch researcher made up or manipulated dozens of papers' thread:
I see my reply was ‘disappeared’. Figures.

And here it iswas:
FossfurNovember 1, 2011 at 7:00 pm

It’s primarily an anti-science Christian apologetics blog; this is par for the course. The stories reported on are for the purposes of sneering, not illumination. There’s no actual interest in discovery, and certainly nothing that could be described as ‘intelligent design news’.

It’s hilarious really. Considering the amount of articles dealing with morality you’ll be hard pressed to find anything at UD on the Catholic church’s systematic cover-up of the rape of children. Not a peep. It’s like it never happened!

But when someone has the temerity to call out William Lane Craig as an apologist for genocide….well. That’s simply beyond the pale! The heathens have gone too far this time!!!

Date: 2011/11/03 20:17:20, Link
Author: Ptaylor
More disappearing comments, this time on the Caroline Crocker thread. GinoB made a comment to the effect that Crocker deserved to be disciplined if she was teaching creationism (sorry, saw the post but did not save it). Now all we have there is BSI77:      
bornagain77November 3, 2011 at 7:05 pm
GinoB, excuse me but could you please show me that neo-Darwinism is true. (several hundred words ensue)

Date: 2011/11/03 20:53:27, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 04 2011,13:20)
Denyse squeaks:
Dr. Bot, you can please yourself re British libel law, but you are no longer with us. As a general rule, anyone who threatens to sue is off the board.

A "general rule" that has never been articulated and never applied. Something like "ID Science."

And just a few minutes later:
NewsNovember 3, 2011 at 7:33 pm

“Perhaps we all should just spam the comments with Youtube links and Christian music? That’s about the only thing left here.”

Fossfur is no longer with us.


Date: 2011/11/03 22:57:29, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Well, here's something you don't see too often on UD - a graceful acceptance of a correction from BA77 hisself:
bornagain77November 3, 2011 at 9:14 pm

Nothing biased in that reporting eh DrRec??? ,,, Lead off quote to the article being a theologically based ‘bad design’ quote;:

What a book a Devil’s Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low and horridly cruel works of nature.
– Charles Darwin

I suppose one of these days they will get to actual evidence! :)
Log in to Reply
   DrRECNovember 3, 2011 at 9:17 pm

   I didn’t see bias in the reporting.

   And the lead quote, the one that precedes Darwin’s, is from the book of Isaiah.

   Did you miss that, or choose to lie?
   Log in to Reply
       bornagain77November 3, 2011 at 9:32 pm

      DrREC, for once you are right, the reporting is fairly even handed. I skipped the scripture, saw the theologically based ‘bad design’ quote, and mistakenly thought the entire article was going to be ‘hit piece’.

Notwithstanding the "for once", congratulations, BA.

Date: 2011/11/07 17:22:38, Link
Author: Ptaylor
News! - DeNews says something sane* about alien visitation theorists:
Yes, tis is just culture news.

But it is culture news. It’s nonsense in itself, but what it tells us is worth considering. In science, the quest for space aliens is pursued by far-fetched theories, and in popular culture via crackpot conspiracy claims.

William J Murray**, however, does not agree:
I don’t see anything remotely warranting the apsersion of being “nonsense in itself” in considering the theory that intelligent alien life exists, or in the idea that they’ve visited the Earth.

I think there is considerable evidence in support of those ideas, not the least of which is very credible testimonial evidence, such as that released by The Disclosure Project.

*In my opinion of course; routes that lead to this view may vary.
**Who has been expending a lot of effort in not saying anything much over at Elizabeth Liddle's blog lately.

Date: 2011/11/08 20:44:41, Link
Author: Ptaylor
I don't know how long Amazon has been featuring user-contributed "So you'd like to..." guides. but the first one I noticed was just yesterday and it gave me a laugh: "So you'd like to...Lower Your I.Q." You know what DVD was featured.
Edited for readability and to mimic original style.

Date: 2011/11/15 19:17:54, Link
Author: Ptaylor
No comment other than that I cannot let this pass. Dense:
[Carl] Sagan was an engaging writer but not a careful thinker

Date: 2011/11/17 03:02:47, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,16:30)
See the Flood that caused the Niobrara  Sea

I mainly stay on the UD thread(s) here, but following your link I have to say...Hahahahahahahahaha!

Date: 2011/11/20 14:49:18, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Patrick @ Nov. 21 2011,01:22)
Not only are CSI and its many variants undefined, there are no empirical observations that require it as an explanation.  But intelligent design creationism is science, really.

BSI77 -    
OT: New Video of William Dembski:

   How Do We Detect Design in Nature? One Minute Apologist With William Dembski – video

Check it out - the Dr Dr is asked how we detect design in nature and begins (my transcript):
Right, well you look at stuff and when you can't figure out what it is you just say 'I guess God did it so that's - uh (laughs) no, that's not how you (specify?) design. That's how we are widely caricatured as saying that you can detect design...

...and ends:
Who else can the designer be, I mean who else but God could be responsible for, let's say, the structure in the DNA?


Date: 2011/11/20 17:54:45, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 21 2011,10:07)
Gordo's brain on T.A.R.D.:        


Pop, pop, pop, pop, POP, pop, pop, POP, POW . . .

Log in to Reply

WTF set that off, I wonder. Could a clue be within Gordon's paragraph immediately above that?
Anti-ID conspiracy theorists love to say that those pesky creationists are always changing their terminology to get around the First Amendment. ID’s intellectual pedigree refutes that charge, but The First Gene adds more reasons why that charge should not be taken seriously.

Could it be that this is the first time those three words have ever been strung together?

Date: 2011/11/21 19:56:29, Link
Author: Ptaylor
DeNews, ever thorough:
AMWNovember 21, 2011 at 6:45 pm

Did the original article really refer to spiders as insects?

Log in to Reply

   NewsNovember 21, 2011 at 7:19 pm

   Good catch! Now corrected to “insets and spiders.”

Date: 2011/11/23 13:33:05, Link
Author: Ptaylor
DeNews: Lynn Margulis has died.
BA77's response?:
Semi OT: Here is a near death experience blah blah blah youtube blah further notes blah blah...

Self centred wanker.

Date: 2011/11/23 20:18:17, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 24 2011,11:09)
O'Leary is in the middle of a major face-palm experience in the Physicist David Deutsch says really dumb stuff when outside his field of expertise? thread.  O'Leary, who has no known field of expertise, doesn't like Victoria Pyncheon's review of Deutsch's latest book at the Forbes Blog.  She writes of the review that, "It’s hard to imagine someone getting so much wrong in a single review." and goes off on a diatribe about how science is worthless and everything good in the last few centuries has been the work of Jesus Christ and right thinking non-scientists.

Well, she might claim journalism, but even there she shows ineptitude. Earlier today she wrote the headline "Robert Trivers, the evolutionary psychologust who wants to fix us, admits that he has been “remarkably unsuccessful” at avoiding self-deception" (it's in my browser history). At first I thought it was possibly a rather tortured play on words, maybe psychologust - wind - windbag, but no, it was a typo; she has now corrected it.

Date: 2011/11/25 23:04:32, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Brave Sir Gil defends the honour of Lady Lynn against his fearsome arch enemy...
   Dear Professor Dawkins,

   Why are you grumpy? Her [Lynn Margulis's] chemistry shut down at death. She was nothing more than a bunch of chemistry that came about by natural selection and random variation.

   She’s dead and has entered eternal oblivion just as you will one day. Her life was completely pointless and meaningless in the grand scheme of things, just as your life ultimately will be.

   So, professor Dawkins, why not take your own advice?


   So why be grumpy? Or, is that how you enjoy your life?

...from behind the parapets of Castle UD!

Date: 2011/12/14 19:17:27, Link
Author: Ptaylor
[quote=Occam's Aftershave,Dec. 15 2011,11:18]This is great.  Bully Arrington attempts to call out Dr. Rec on his poker example, shoots himself in the foot.

DrREC Wants to Play Poker

I like this bit:
We’re not done yet.  What if Larry gets 10 straight flushes in a row?  What are the odds?  The odds are approximately 1/1.34^48.  That’s 1 in 1.34 followed by 48 zeros.

Erm, I'm not a mathematician but it looks to me that he's made two elementary blunders in a row there. Surely 1.34 followed by 48 zeros is still 1.34.
I wonder whether any of the regulars over there are going to correct him? (Or do I need to be corrected?)

Date: 2011/12/18 18:27:56, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 19 2011,11:18)
Quote (didymos @ Dec. 18 2011,15:49)
Expect "Street Theatre" to be banninated shortly:
The oxymoron that is ID News is merely a synonym for the bitter, and impotent rantings of those scattered die-hards who have yet to understand that the promised scientific, cultural and spiritual revolution has failed.

Uncommon Descent is reminiscent of Hitler’s bunker in the last days of the war – deluded individuals pushing imaginary battalions of IDEA clubs across the map; an ethereal post-apocalyptic radio station, defiantly transmitting songs of resistance and hope to the faithful.


PotW, whoever you are.

Good user name too. I suspect that not one of them picked up on its derivation.

Date: 2012/01/04 14:56:08, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 05 2012,05:20)
Timaeus is an ass:
If you [Elizabeth Liddle] will listen to some advice, I would imagine that the reason you might have been “distracted” is that you spend an inordinate amount of time blogging and debating on the internet. You are often arguing on several UD threads at a time, blogging on your own site, and as far as I understand it, commenting on other sites and/or communicating with other bloggers (e.g., Todd Wood) as well. I estimate that most weeks your total time investment must be 10 to 20 hours. (Probably closer to the higher figure, given the number of books and papers you report you are reading about evolution, design, etc.) How someone who is a full-time university professor of neuroscience and psychology, with research, teaching and adminstrative duties, and family duties as well (which you have mentioned here), can afford the time to wrangle so much every week about evolution is beyond me. I would think that keeping up with all the neuroscience and psychology journals would be more than one could handle, without trying to become an expert on evolutionary biology and trying to destroy ID on the side. Of course, it’s your business how you use your time. But the very scattery kind of life you must live explains how you could easily be distracted from a thread. I would suggest restricting the number of threads you participate in, not only for the purpose of time management, but so that the quality of discussion (both your listening and your responding) can be higher. (Better a dinner at a fine steak house once a week than eating out seven days in a row at McDonald’s, or, if you will, Wimpy’s.) But of course, you are free to reject all such advice.

PaV put it much more succinctly:  
Go away little girl.

Date: 2012/01/15 17:57:10, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 16 2012,09:33)
The whole interview is just your typical Dembski whine-fest; picking the scabs of battles lost while promising a brighter future.

Although not quite as bright as the future he promised in 2004:
Dembski: In the next five years, molecular Darwinism—the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level—will be dead. When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules. I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years. Intelligent design will of course profit greatly from this. For ID to win the day, however, will require talented new researchers able to move this research program forward, showing how intelligent design provides better insights into biological systems than the dying Darwinian paradigm.

January 2012:
In the end, what I see as winning it for ID is the tendency in the long run for reality to vindicate truth. Unfortunately, as Keynes pointed out, in the long run, we’re all dead. I believe the most interesting and fruitful science will in the end be done under ID’s umbrella, because it gets at the truth of the matter—the intelligence that animates nature. When that happens, scientists will vote with their feet, abandoning Darwinism and embracing design. I hope to see this in my lifetime, but I’m not holding my breath.

My emphasis in both quotes.

Date: 2012/01/15 20:30:56, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 15 2011,10:15)
Got another live ID proponent at Amazon:

More ID at Amazon

After a nice long summer break I just brought myself up-to-date on that thread, but was disappointed to read the latest entry:    
B. A. Daley says:
[Deleted by Amazon on Jan 7, 2012 1:34:34 PM PST]
Did you catch the pre-deletion post?

Date: 2012/01/16 21:03:42, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 17 2012,11:38)
Upright Biped then spins in circles spewing aspersions on Nick's character without answering that one very simple question that destroys every IDiot claim that known evolutionary mechanisms can't create information.

That sub-thread is too funny. Matzke and champignon keep on pushing for a response, UB continually evading (he's a last-wordist, so he's compelled to respond even though he has no answer). The last current comment is from UD regular dullasalus, who provides us with both a laugh out loud (is there an acronym for that?) moment and an OMG-are-you-really-that-dim one as well:
I like your staying on target, UB.

I have a question of my own about the question.

if a gene is duplicated, and one copy get modified such that it has a different specificity or function, has the amount of information in the genome increased?

If I take a bicycle, then crush it such that the resulting lump of metal/plastic could be used as a doorstop, would this be an example of the bicycle being ‘modified such that it has a different specificity or function’? If so, should this be regarded as an increase in information?


Date: 2012/01/17 20:41:27, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Freddie @ Jan. 18 2012,09:56)
Another avenue with a tremendous opportunity for new laughs opens up ...

It seems that for Joe, the fact that Google throws up some suggestions when you enter "evidence for ancient astronauts" this is, well, evidence for ancient astronauts:
Geez given what you accept as evidence for your position- but I will help you.

Psst - Joe, there is evidence for invisible pink unicorns, too - try it!

Date: 2012/01/19 00:19:55, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Dr. Matzke,

You are not going to try and discredit everything that is written in the Acts & Facts publication simply because it is a creationist publication are you? It doesn’t work like that. Show us where this particular article is wrong – don’t just try and totally discredit it because it is a creationist publication. That is foolish and unscholarly.

Besides, when it comes the the human pelvis, it may very well be that the original design of the pelvis was changed when God judged Adam and Eve for their sin. God’s original world was perfect, but was cursed along with God’s judgment on Adam. Plus, thanks to mutations and devolution(evolution in the wrong direction), many design issues probably have creeped into the world of living creatures.

“The Designer didn’t have to square a circle, he just had to put the freakin’ birth canal somewhere other than right through a tiny hole in the pelvis. Why put it through the skeleton at all? A portal a few inches higher up in the lower belly would do nicely. No tearing and incontinence, no jamming the baby’s head through the pelvis, no problem with breach births, etc. etc.”

OK, Dr. Matzke, why don’t you go ahead and design a human the way you are saying and see how well it goes for you, if you think it is so easy. Saying it is possible and showing us it is possible is a very different thing. We don’t know but perhaps there is very good reason for the current design. However, my take on the issue is more along the lines of a punishment for sin, like Genesis says.

All science so far!

Date: 2012/01/22 19:30:24, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Joe, at Uncommon Descent replying to NickMatzke_UD:  
Claims of accumulations of random mutations actually construct multi-protein machines but it never pans out.

That is why scientists are skeptical of it.

And Nick, if you testified in a Court case involving ID and tried to use gene duplication you will get laughed out of the Court-room.

Elsewhere on the Internet:  
Nicholas J. Matzke is the former Public Information Project Director at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and served an instrumental role in NCSE's preparation for the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial.[1] One of his chief contributions was discovering drafts of Of Pandas and People which demonstrated that the term "intelligent design" was later substituted for "creationism".

(My bold, both.)
Who/which to believe?

Date: 2012/01/23 15:11:33, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 23 2012,23:53)

Aha! I peel back my cunning disguise to reveal ... another cunning disguise! Sorry, all of us here at 113 Acacia Avenue, Christchurch are determined that the utmost secrecy must be maintained.

Right in the thick of things for the last year and a half. You have my commiserations.

Date: 2012/01/23 16:31:11, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Teh funny - Joe to Elizabeth Liddle:  
Yeah, I admit that you do know quite a bit about silly arguments, but in this case your example does not fit.

If we were to find Tiktaalik-like things in strata before there were tetrapods and after there were fish, then yes, Tiktaalik was just a very long-lived transitional.

EL's response:  
   and after there were fish

There are still fish.

Date: 2012/01/25 00:32:39, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Happy birthdays, kia ora.

Date: 2012/01/29 17:18:21, Link
Author: Ptaylor
ScottAndrews2 unwittingly speaks for every single ID enthusiast:
That’s where I have to stop myself, because I know I’m not really qualified to discuss ID in depth. Only to shoot off about evolution.


Date: 2012/02/02 17:24:01, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Timaeus reminds Elizabeth Liddle...  

If you think a guy with two Ph.D.s (one in math, one in philosophy) has made an elementary mistake in his own research field, and you have the mathematical knowledge to demonstrate the mistake, then why don’t you write up your argument formally and submit it as an article (I know you are a big fan of articles!) to a peer-reviewed journal of probability theory or design theory or the like, instead of airing it here or on other blog sites, among people who mostly aren’t competent to referee? If you are going to invest scores of hours arguing against Dembski’s position, why not do it where it counts?

...that it's Doctor Doctor Dembski to you.
Note that the rest of that comment distils to Go away, little girl.

Re the space travel thing I once found Poul Anderson's Tau Zero a good read. In it a group of space travellers find themselves in a situation where, because of an accident, they have to keep their (ramjet) engines running. This meant that they were in a state of constant acceleration, getting ever closer to, but never reaching, the speed of light. The travellers reach various milestones such as realisation that all of their acquaintances on earth are likely dead, humanity has likely gone extinct, the sun will have died, etc. Wikipedia has a reasonable synopsis.

I found the ending a little silly, with the crew finding a means of slowing and finding habitation after witnessing a cosmic crunch and new big bang, but as a product of its day I found it an enlightening read wrt the speed of light limitation thing.

Date: 2012/02/02 21:19:24, Link
Author: Ptaylor
eigenstate sails close to the wind in his response to the sanctimonious and condescending Timaeus. Excerpt:
Understand and agree! I will insist on a key asymmetry here, though. PZ Myers, for all his “uncouthness”, can deliver, intellectually, when he wants to, or needs to. He’s a heavy-weight, or a heft medium-weight when it counts to the difficult work of intellectual performance and knowledge building. Dembski is a con man, though, a lightweight, a poser. He makes lots of social blunders, too, I note, but he doesn’t have the redeeming substance of actually being able to deliver where it really counts. That’s not a hard rule for ID advocates, as I said above. There are ID advocates who are serious, thoughtful, deserving of respectful dialog and discourse, even if I/we disagree vehemently on the merits of the argument. Uncommon Descent just doesn’t attract, seek or develop that. It’s an intellectual ghetto here, a place for the scorned and dissonance-discomfited to get a shot in the arm for their superstitions. That is Dembski’s legacy, here, a heritage of ressentiment.

My emphasis
(I think I'll save the whole thing just in case, well, you know).
ETA: That was from post 20 on that thread. eigenstate also posted #19, which I had missed: also worth a read.

Date: 2012/02/07 19:21:27, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Is Bruce David channelling the spirit of DaveScot?:
It is not that the paranormal and spiritism are “personal”, but rather that a very strong characteristic of mind is that it is creative. Creativity, by its very nature is unpredictable, not subject to any kind of law that determines outcome.

One of the consequences of ID which has not been stressed enough, IMHO, is the central “dogma”, if you will, that it is only intelligence that is capable of producing complex, functionally specified information (CFSI). Another way of putting this is that it is only intelligence that is creative. A third way (a la Granville Sewell) is that the only known phenomenon that is capable of violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics is intelligence. And we don’t need to be Shakespeare, Beethoven, or Leonardo da Vinci to do this. I am doing this right now as I write this. We do it any time we figure out how to repair something, or speak a meaningful sentence longer than 20 characters or so. What does that say about us human beings?

In my view, one of the aspects of our being made in the “image and likeness” of God is that we, like Him, are creative. Others are that our essence is Love and that we are capable of knowing.

Date: 2012/02/09 01:37:59, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Bruce David is continuing to defend his claim that people regularly break the 2nd law of thermodynamics:
Well, my goodness. I go away for 24 hours and find that I’ve generated quite a discussion. Let me try to get caught up.

It's full of tard, of course, but here's my favorite bit:

(Responding to champignon who has said "I can assure you that no one has found a single macroscopic violation of the second law by any system")
The reason no one has found a single violation in spite of the fact that the earth itself is one massive violation of the Second Law is because they are simply unwilling to see it. “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

Added emphasis, I believe, is not necessary.

Date: 2012/02/09 22:35:21, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (REC @ Feb. 10 2012,13:37)
Barry Arrington deleted a comment thread and left this:

I see brave Sir Gil has turned up to jeer from behind Bully's skirts:
It is asking “what the hell do you know you arrogant prick?”

A prick is a penis in popular parlance. How could a penis be arrogant? I suggest, DrRec, that you get immediate anger-management counseling. These services should be available from evolutionary psychologists in your area.

Interestingly, it was brilliant attorney Phil Johnson’s book, Darwin on Trial, that was in some ways instrumental in my realization that Darwinism is unsubstantiated materialistic philosophy passed off as “science.”

Phil points out the rhetorical tactics used by Darwinists to obfuscate and redirect legitimate challenges into areas that are completely irrelevant concerning scientific evidence and logical analysis.

The elephant in the room is design, and no amount of penis argumentation will make it go away.

This guy actually got a Ph.D. at Yale? That’s not just bizarre; it’s downright scary.

This poor soul must be mentally ill, or perhaps a drug addict.

Prick=penis=piece of anatomy, how could that be called arrogant? Hey Gil, see if you can make sense of this: you're an asshole.
Oh, and E1!

Date: 2012/02/10 21:38:21, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Gil, February 9, 2012 at 9:25 pm:
This poor soul must be mentally ill, or perhaps a drug addict.

Gil, February 10, 2012 at 7:33 pm:
The drug is Darwinist dogma. It shuts down one’s reasoning faculties.

So that's what he meant. Hey Gil, I still mean what I originally did when I called you an asshole up-thread.

Date: 2012/02/12 22:00:14, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 13 2012,12:51)
Done.  I'm just sacrificing myself as encouragement NOT to go to UD anymore.

P.S.  anyone watching can let me know if I've been banned or not.

And yea, it came to pass:

ogreMk5 is no longer with us.

Date: 2012/02/12 22:11:06, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Cross-posted from UD4:
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 13 2012,12:51)
Done.  I'm just sacrificing myself as encouragement NOT to go to UD anymore.

P.S.  anyone watching can let me know if I've been banned or not.

And yea, it came to pass:

ogreMk5 is no longer with us.

Date: 2012/02/13 16:41:28, Link
Author: Ptaylor
And the meltdown continues:
Ben h asks why comments appear to be disappearing.
Harry Barrington replies:  
I deleted it ben. if ES does not have the guts to post his idiocy here (and he did not), I will not let one of his surrogates do it for him.

Words fail.

Date: 2012/02/13 19:08:46, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Getting back to a regular DeNews story, Dense reports that one of her science news sources, a site named Creation-Evolution Headlines no less, cites a study that would imply that humans have descended from dogs, not monkeys as the darwinists try to tell us.
In the study dogs outperformed chimpanzees in a certain type of intelligence test. Specifically, dogs understood the concept of (human) pointing (to indicate the location of food) better than the chimps.
This of course doesn't completely destroy darwinism, but creates a huge problem for it. Why? Because dogs don't have fingers!
So dogs learned to detect a message using fingers, which they don’t have, but chimps, which have fingers, didn’t learn to detect the message? Jane Goodall, check YOUR messages.

I tell you, man, evilution's days are numbered.

Date: 2012/02/13 23:58:43, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Uptight Blowhard comes very late to the party...
eigenstate, again, you have willfully failed to address the actual content of any of my specific rejoinders, going all the way back to your very first entry into the conversation. Virtually everything you say is based upon what you have thus far ignored, so I therefore feel no obligation to attempt a discussion with you.

If you care to address the conumdrum your force upon the evidence by misapplying the concept of physical information, then we can proceed.

...only to somehow learn of eigenstate's bannination. He acknowledges the banning with characteristic grace:
wow. I see that missing eigenstate’s articulate incoherence is something I will have to endure.

edited to make more sense

Date: 2012/02/14 00:01:53, Link
Author: Ptaylor
(page bump)

Date: 2012/02/14 14:51:05, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Barry's latest (emphasis added):
The law of non-contradiction (“LNC”) states that for any proposition “A,” A cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same formal relation.

The existence of the LNC is the very basis of all argumentation, and anyone who denies it also denies meaning, order, truth and logic. For obvious reasons, therefore, it is not only useless but also affirmatively harmful to the search for truth to argue with someone who refuses to admit unambiguously the LNC. Arguing with a person who denies the basis for argument is self-defeating and can lead only to confusion. Only a fool or a charlatan denies the LNC, and this site will not be a platform from which fools and charlatans will be allowed to spew their noxious inanities.

For that reason, I am today announcing a new moderation policy at UD. At any time the moderator reserves the right to ask the following question to any person who would comment or continue to comment on this site: “Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?” The answer to this question is either “yes” or “no.” If the person gives any answer other than the single word “no,” he or she will immediately be deemed not worth arguing with and therefore banned from this site.

We will start with Petrushka to demonstrate the application of the policy. Petrushka, can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?

My opinion: bizarre.

Date: 2012/02/14 15:42:20, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 15 2012,08:33)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 14 2012,15:26)

Dum Dum Dum ... another one bites the dust!

UD Moderator: That’s not “no” rhampton7. Goodbye.

UD Moderator: That’s not “no” ben h. Goodbye.

Date: 2012/02/16 13:33:55, Link
Author: Ptaylor
While you people are arguing the finer points of logic, Barry demonstrates that he is a master of it:
lastyearon: “You removed just about every critic of ID from the site.”

Nonsense, as your very presence demonstrates.

Date: 2012/02/18 00:15:43, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Not clever laek those others. Happy birthday.

Date: 2012/02/20 20:29:47, Link
Author: Ptaylor
This could become interesting. Aleta and StephenB have been exchanging comments for a while on Kf's Law of non-Contradiction post. I haven't really been following the argument, other than to note Stephen's rather, erm, unique form of civility. Aleta's latest (last?) comment at UD:
Reply at including an explanation of why I’m responding there, not here.

...and the response at TSZ begins:
Over at UD, Stephen makes a point worth responding to. However, I'm going to respond here, not there, because the environment here is, shall we say, more conducive to constructive discussion, with more and different people able to join in.

That's right Stephen, many people at UD have been banned lately, simply for displaying, well, thoughtfulness, and to my eyes the flow of thought there has definitely slowed down. Will Stephen rise to the occasion and venture beyond UD waters?
OK, since starting this I have hit refresh and there are two new comments from SB. The answer would be No:
Aleta, I feel sorry for you because I don’t believe that you are not capable of rational thought. Let me know if I can ever help you.

Psst - Stephen, you fucked that up. So he adds:
Oops, I mean, I don’t believe that you are capable of rational thought. My offer for help still goes, however.

Edited to fix a link and to attempt to fix the <br> tag in another.
And again to finally fix both. Thanks to keiths for the advice.

Date: 2012/02/24 00:39:31, Link
Author: Ptaylor
This beer's to your good health - happy birthday.

Date: 2012/02/26 20:50:13, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 27 2012,12:43)
There was a backup up till Saturday, and it should be back online (minus posts since then) in a few hours.

I'll be sorry to have lost all those interesting comments to my Conching posts, but I've got the original backed up, and Gregory probably has his.

Life will go on....

If it helps I have tabs still open with the front page and the Good arguments and straw men thread. They were opened not long before the crash. Nothing else, though. I've copied them to Word - let me know if you want them.

Date: 2012/03/01 19:26:40, Link
Author: Ptaylor
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 02 2012,08:29)
The thread is being closed, the tard bottled.

Doesn't stop Joe, though. He's continued on at the new 'Holding tank for general chatter about GAs' thread. Current post:  
And here is one for guano- Fuck you asshole

Edited for clarificationness