AE BB DB Explorer

form_srcid: Ptaylor

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 38.107.191.98

View Author detected.

view author posts:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

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 t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Ptaylor%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/08/30 20:48:09, Link 218.101.18.238

Author: Ptaylor

This from the philosophy, not science thread http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1521     Quote # 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 218.101.18.111

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. http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1750                 Quote P. Z. Myers — does he have a clue how bad this looks? by William Dembski on October 30th, 2006 · 5 Comments Now:                 Quote 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 121.72.19.15

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       Quote 12. Inquisitive Brain  // Jan 9th 2007 at 2:08 pm Bll:    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 121.72.15.195

Author: Ptaylor

From the Religious Education OP: DaveTard:       Quote Dawkins and his ilk are nothing but liars, creeps, and mental lightweights. Reminds me of this classic exchange:   Quote 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 121.72.5.52

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:       Quote 31 Doug 02/14/2007 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 121.72.15.188

Author: Ptaylor

k.e. 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 121.72.13.213

Author: Ptaylor

Carslonjok (referencing Amadan):       Quote 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:       Quote 9 amadan 01/31/2007 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:       Quote 12 amadan 01/31/2007 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:       Quote 17 shaner74 01/31/2007 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:       Quote 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:       Quote 19 GilDodgen 01/31/2007 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 121.72.4.211

Author: Ptaylor

Jerry from JohnW's post above:   Quote 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 121.72.2.215

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 :         Quote 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 121.72.6.192

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:       Quote I am not sure what point I am trying to make here, but I think you all understand. Borne continues with         Quote 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 121.72.6.192

Author: Ptaylor

Darn, I somehow missed stevestory's comment about BrianG above - sorry.

Date: 2007/06/16 16:59:45, Link 121.72.15.168

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:             Quote 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 121.72.35.16

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 121.72.5.42

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 121.72.38.40

Author: Ptaylor

PaV has an interesting prediction re Behe's latest book:     Quote 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 121.72.4.216

Author: Ptaylor

Over at the Prayer studies thread StephenA infers that he is privy to the tardest of the tard.     Quote 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Kevin Beck has a nice take on Dembski's latest.

Date: 2007/08/20 01:15:44, Link 121.72.34.237

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. Bob 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 121.72.5.182

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 121.72.38.238

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Aug. 23 2007,17:37) Jehu shoots! He scores! (on the Crackpot Index anyway)       Quote 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. Linky Heh. Speaking of crackpots, I liked this comment from a couple of days ago on the PZ Myers-getting-sued thread:     Quote 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 121.72.27.73

Author: Ptaylor

Looks like ex-xian is about to become an ex-commenter:   Quote I'm still new here, but I can't help but ask...do 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 121.72.17.44

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 121.72.25.55

Author: Ptaylor

Joseph continues his tardity. Part of his post, aimed at PZ Myers:     Quote 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 121.72.20.47

Author: Ptaylor

Hooray! Larry chimes in.

Date: 2007/09/22 20:04:27, Link 121.72.5.178

Author: Ptaylor

Peter Irons responds to "Billy Botnick" over at Pharyngula. Hilarious.

Date: 2007/10/23 01:08:21, Link 121.72.13.189

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: http://img.waffleimages.com/d0f3a9a....ist.jpg It's pretty good, but there needs to be a chunk of text that says "EXPERTS: And why you know more than they do." SS, 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 “http://img.waffleimages.com/d0f3a9a3b0760c784d0fba79d6f474f27331e8c8/newcreationist.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors. Can you fix?

Date: 2007/10/24 19:41:36, Link 121.72.27.161

Author: Ptaylor

Tard fight!   Quote Jehu 10/24/2007 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 121.72.29.59

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?   Quote 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 121.72.1.218

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 121.72.31.125

Author: Ptaylor

Daniel King: "Hey - someone ban that guy!" Quote 30 Daniel King 11/09/2007 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 121.72.32.179

Author: Ptaylor

jeffox:   Quote 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:   Quote 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. Link

Date: 2007/11/13 23:52:55, Link 121.72.34.231

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 121.72.31.55

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 121.72.45.88

Author: Ptaylor

Classic tard from long time UDer (only way to tell they're genuine nowadays) Robo:         Quote 3 Robo 11/26/2007 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 121.72.49.201

Author: Ptaylor

Oh dear. UD gets another visit from a real scientist.:   Quote 13 aardpig 11/29/2007 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Double bannination!   Quote 37 Patrick 11/29/2007 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (djmullen @ Dec. 06 2007,01:53) Kwok banninated - from Amazon.com! 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:     Quote 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 (TOP 50 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   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 Amazon.com 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 Amazon.com, 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 Amazon.com 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 121.72.49.50

Author: Ptaylor

R Bill:     Quote (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:     Quote 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 203.167.243.226

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.       Quote 14 GilDodgen 12/20/2007 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 121.72.3.117

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 121.72.3.117

Author: Ptaylor

CeilingCat 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 203.167.243.226

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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 23 2008,20:56) More Good Taste from UD:           Quote 23 February 2008 Expelled change of release date centers on the dates of Darwin’s birth and death salamanca Ben Stein’s Expelled (www.expelledthemovie.com) 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 121.72.162.208

Author: Ptaylor

Quote 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 121.72.179.172

Author: Ptaylor

Dr. Dr. D wishes to remind us of how creepy he can be:   Quote 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 121.72.177.139

Author: Ptaylor

Another Brites post. Man, that's just plain embarrassing.

Date: 2008/04/07 04:49:42, Link 121.72.180.57

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:                   Quote "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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

DT has another <0.3 day. See the comments. For posterity:     Quote Dick to the Dawk on Bill Maher DaveScot 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 203.167.243.226

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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 15 2008,15:09) DI, Hitler, Darwin: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/hitlers_debt_to_darwin.html#more What is it with those wankers? Oh yes:   Quote 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 121.72.170.59

Author: Ptaylor

Dr 'That'sTwoDoctorsToYou' quotes someone quoting someone else:                     Quote 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).                 Quote 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 121.72.171.113

Author: Ptaylor

Heh, there is this post by the good TwoDocs. I like the last paragraph:         Quote 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:       Quote 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Huh? 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 121.72.173.182

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (Dr.GH @ May 02 2008,21:24) Howdy. 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:   Quote 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. BECK: No. 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. Source Scroll about 1/5 of the way down, or Find the string 'pill'.

Date: 2008/05/09 02:40:03, Link 121.72.161.163

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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Ho, hum - yet another bannination: Quote 17 Patrick 05/13/2008 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 121.72.168.84

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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

BS77 is back with his 12 things materialism didn't predict list!

Date: 2008/05/22 20:31:24, Link 121.72.163.75

Author: Ptaylor

Second bannination on the No controversy thread:   Quote 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 121.72.162.48

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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

M Caldwell won't be around much longer:     Quote 165 M Caldwell 05/29/2008 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: Quote Dave, You are a bright guy. Why in God’s name to you continue to hang about with these losers? and Quote 23 M Caldwell 05/29/2008 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 121.72.186.198

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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Calling R Bill, calling R Bill; we have a bannination in progress:   Quote 15 DaveScot 07/08/2008 6:17 pm austin_english 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

mwt, You beat me me to it - well done.

Date: 2008/07/09 21:38:57, Link 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Wow, this must be a first - Sal Cordova has been hit with the bannination stick (if only temporarily):   Quote 12 DaveScot 07/09/2008 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Happy birthday, bystander, from across the ditch.

Date: 2008/07/18 03:17:19, Link 121.72.165.25

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 121.72.175.235

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 121.72.175.235

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:       Quote [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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 04 2008,13:30)     Quote 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

PannenberOmega congratulates the UD moderators for not being arseholes...   Quote 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:   Quote 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 121.72.180.86

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 121.72.188.137

Author: Ptaylor

Ho hum, another bannination, this time by the big guy.     Quote William Dembski 08/22/2008 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 121.72.160.64

Author: Ptaylor

Happy (probably belated) birthday.

Date: 2008/08/28 02:30:14, Link 121.72.164.119

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"):             Quote 99 jerry 08/27/2008 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 etc... 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Trouble at t'mill:       Quote 17 StephenB 09/03/2008 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.     Quote 18 DaveScot 09/03/2008 5:58 pm StephenB 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: Quote 20 DaveScot 09/03/2008 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 121.72.183.3

Author: Ptaylor

Heh - BarryA sends UDers over to the Onion and the first commenter doesn't get it:       Quote 1 IRQ Conflict 09/05/2008 9:54 pm That doesn’t seem like a news site. More like satire. id.net.au, realising that most IDiots have a near-zero rated sense of humour, rushes in to the rescue:     Quote 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 121.72.177.171

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 121.72.186.9

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? Spoilsport!

Date: 2008/09/15 02:26:22, Link 121.72.186.9

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:     Quote 30 Larry Fafarman 09/14/2008 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 – http://scienceblogs.com/author.....nt-1104599 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 121.72.164.101

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:       Quote GilDodgen 09/19/2008 9:42 pm (blah blah blah) Link 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:     Quote 3 Trimbach 09/19/2008 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 121.72.180.134

Author: Ptaylor

Another belated* happy birthday. *I blame my time zone.

Date: 2008/09/20 23:40:57, Link 121.72.180.134

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:           Quote 26 October 2006 The Root of All Evil? GilDodgen 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 121.72.178.166

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Sep. 25 2008,13:27) A tard called Domoman:       Quote 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! Totally. 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:     Quote lol I don’t know enough which was apparently sent prematurely, and compare with the follow up full comment:     Quote *EDIT* 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 121.72.172.120

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:     Quote AB 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 121.72.172.120

Author: Ptaylor

Bannination reported over here.

Date: 2008/10/07 14:28:35, Link 203.167.243.226

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:   Quote [BDKnight is no longer with this forum. --UD Moderation]

Date: 2008/10/10 18:37:02, Link 121.72.171.141

Author: Ptaylor

Heh – this comment from Jerry a couple of days ago...       Quote 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:       Quote 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 121.72.171.141

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:   Quote Terry Fillups is hasta la bye bye. Please update your bannination lists accordingly.

Date: 2008/10/12 03:02:03, Link 121.72.171.141

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 12 2008,01:05) DaveTard:         Quote Forget About Global Warming Again? DaveScot ...We have a keen nose for bogus science here, folks. Nice catch. It's in the same vein as:     Quote 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

From the October surprise thread:   Quote 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 121.72.171.141

Author: Ptaylor

Rare out-of-natural-habitat DaveTard sighting:         Quote 303  DaveScot skeptic From http://www.uscis.gov/portal....90aRCRD *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 203.167.243.226

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: Quote 5 DaveScot 10/12/2008 2:21 pm Berg's Website Traffic Rank Skyrocketing Anyone know what to make of that?

Date: 2008/10/14 01:27:32, Link 121.72.171.141

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 121.72.171.141

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (Skullboy @ Oct. 14 2008,16:44) Just to document this before it's gone: Another doomed UD comment       Quote Joejoe17 10/14/2008 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:   Quote

Date: 2008/10/16 19:33:34, Link 121.72.171.141

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (steve_h @ Oct. 16 2008,18:14) Was there something embarrassing on the Howard Stern Thread http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/3680 It might have been this:         Quote 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 121.72.171.141

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:         Quote vrf 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:     Quote 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 121.72.192.165

Author: Ptaylor

I think someone's been visiting here. Dave on the 16th:     Quote Perjury is an impeachable crime. Clinton almost got impeached for lying about a perfectly legal bj. (Ahem) yours truly:     Quote Actually, you're wrong Dave on the 17th:     Quote 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 121.72.192.165

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (Zachriel @ Oct. 17 2008,15:32)   Quote 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:   Quote 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 121.72.161.73

Author: Ptaylor

Phhh... 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:     Quote 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:     Quote 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:     Quote 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 121.72.191.251

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (dmso74 @ Oct. 25 2008,17:36) (snip) ps this post also gets bonus points for reference to phantom "ID researchers." Phantom ID researchers? Jerry can identify them for you:     Quote 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 203.167.243.226

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:       Quote [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 121.72.191.251

Author: Ptaylor

Happy birthday.

Date: 2008/10/30 02:16:21, Link 121.72.191.251

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:           Quote Put a sock in repeating any of the mainstream delusions in this thread. That view gets more than enough coverage elsewhere. Sig worthy. Dave, 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 121.72.49.176

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:     Quote 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 121.72.48.114

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? Henry 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 203.167.243.226

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 121.72.172.112

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:       Quote GilDodgen I am Richard Dawkins’ worst nightmare P.S. What Advocatus Diaboli just said, too.

Date: 2008/11/06 21:42:20, Link 203.167.243.226

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, YoungCosmos...no 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 121.72.172.112

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 203.167.243.226

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." <snip> 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 203.167.243.226

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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

I don't haz any lolcats but have a belated happy belated birthday.

Date: 2008/11/14 00:03:25, Link 121.72.201.86

Author: Ptaylor

This could put the mention and pic of Dr Dr D currently on Conservapedia's main page in a new light. Caption:     Quote 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 203.167.243.226

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 121.72.166.240

Author: Ptaylor

Happy birthdays.

Date: 2008/11/23 02:02:56, Link 121.72.183.194

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):   Quote 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:   Quote 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 121.72.189.227

Author: Ptaylor

Happy birthday.

Date: 2008/11/24 03:31:07, Link 121.72.189.227

Author: Ptaylor

Happy very belated birthdays.

Date: 2008/11/24 23:36:36, Link 121.72.182.184

Author: Ptaylor

An hour ago on the Chortle thread:         Quote 4 Responses Now:         Quote 2 Responses Missing in action:     Quote 3 Chemfarmer 11/24/2008 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. 4 Bueller_007 11/24/2008 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Jehu has a little trouble delivering his koo da grah:   Quote ribcynskichev, 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 121.72.195.116

Author: Ptaylor

The predictable has happened to JackInhofe: Quote 58 Barry Arrington 11/27/2008 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 203.167.243.226

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 203.167.243.226

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 121.72.195.116

Author: Ptaylor

It had to happen:   Quote 13 Barry Arrington 11/28/2008 3:51 am Bueller_007 and MaxEntropy are no longer with us.

Date: 2008/11/28 16:24:10, Link 121.72.195.116

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: Quote Anthrop[ology: It’s now down to Darwinism vs. humanism - does mind matter?

Date: 2008/11/28 18:58:52, Link 121.72.195.116

Author: Ptaylor

Patrick has cut out all but the last sentence of colin_evans101's comment:     Quote   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:     Quote 17 colin_evans101 11/28/2008 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Hmmm - problems persist:   Quote This Domain (intelldesign.com) Has Been Disabled

Date: 2008/12/08 02:43:55, Link 121.72.171.129

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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Erm - anyone seen Dave lately?

Date: 2008/12/10 19:50:47, Link 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Atom is especially pleased with himself - he gets a joke made by a previous commenter:         Quote    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 203.167.243.226

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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 15 2008,17:12) Doering asks too many questions.     Quote 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:     Quote 30 Barry Arrington 12/15/2008 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 203.167.243.226

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:     Quote 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 121.72.192.122

Author: Ptaylor

O'Leary:   Quote 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 121.72.192.122

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 121.72.168.24

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 22 2008,23:27) Denyse bumps the shark <snip> Well spotted. Quoting O'Leary: Quote 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 121.72.167.207

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:     Quote TEN THOUGHTS DARWINIST’S NEED TO PONDER BEFORE BREAKFAST 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:   Quote 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 121.72.166.109

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 08 2009,22:55) I am trapped:         Quote 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 121.72.166.109

Author: Ptaylor

Er - I hate to break this to everybody, but tribune7 has a message for us:     Quote 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 121.72.166.109

Author: Ptaylor

The page on Richard Dawkins is especially good (they don't seem to like him very much), first header:     Quote 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 121.72.166.109

Author: Ptaylor

Happy birthday.

Date: 2009/01/18 13:26:42, Link 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

(Trying to get thread back on-topic,) in his latest post Dave has invented a new word:   Quote <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:       Quote 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. ...as it may change. The first comment points out that it was Lot's wife, of course.

Date: 2009/01/19 19:24:07, Link 203.167.243.226

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 203.167.243.226

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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Jerry is a tard:   Quote 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 121.72.166.109

Author: Ptaylor

Happy (belated) birthday to both of you.

Date: 2009/01/27 03:23:02, Link 121.72.179.154

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. Idiots. 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 203.167.243.226

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:   Quote [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 121.72.179.154

Author: Ptaylor

[quote=JLT,Jan. 30 2009,16:36]           Quote # 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.*** <snip> *** 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 203.167.243.226

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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Heh: William Wallace: Quote 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 203.167.243.226

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:     Quote 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 121.72.179.154

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 02 2009,20:54) Borne waxed philosophical about the fate of ID:             Quote 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         Quote "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 121.72.179.154

Author: Ptaylor

Wow - bitter?

Date: 2009/02/03 14:24:37, Link 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Kairosfocus on the FAQ 1 thread:   Quote A short remark:<snip> 566 words follow.

Date: 2009/02/04 23:51:48, Link 121.72.179.154

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (JLT @ Feb. 04 2009,07:27) Surprise: Casey Luskin thinks Ben Stein was EXPELLED by the University of Vermont.       Quote 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:   Quote 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 121.72.179.154

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 121.72.179.154

Author: Ptaylor

Jerry suggests a game:             Quote This continues my theme that investigating edge of evolution ideas is ID research. Suppose: 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Good old Gil never lets us down:   Quote <snip> 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 121.72.179.154

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 203.167.243.226

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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (sparc @ Feb. 11 2009,13:18) jerry   Quote 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: Quote 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 203.167.243.226

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 203.167.243.226

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 203.167.243.226

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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Our old friend Joseph, over on the Casey Luskin thread:         Quote JackInhofe, 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 121.72.179.154

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... DT: RIGHT THATS ENOUGH YOUR BANNED 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 121.72.179.154

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 13 2009,12:58) Ptaylor - You WIN THE INTERTUBES TODAY! 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:     Quote To this day I kick myself for not going to the “Kitzmiller” fiasco…

Date: 2009/02/15 21:02:46, Link 203.167.243.226

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:   Quote 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Reciprocating Bill, get ready:   Quote Clive Hayden 02/16/2009 1:18 pm Allen_MacNeill “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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Kia ora, mate.

Date: 2009/02/20 01:07:40, Link 121.72.166.188

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? Yours, Paul Taylor

Date: 2009/02/20 15:13:27, Link 121.72.166.188

Author: Ptaylor

Barry A has had enough JackInHofe:   Quote 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 121.72.166.188

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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 23 2009,16:43) Meanwhile, UD remains a good source.  Gil provides a killer argument regarding design:     Quote 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (AmandaHuginKiss @ Feb. 24 2009,14:32) Save me I'm posting over there http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-305673 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:         Quote 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         Quote —–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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Happy birthday.

Date: 2009/02/25 03:08:47, Link 121.72.166.188

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 121.72.166.188

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 121.72.166.188

Author: Ptaylor

Pfff, six thousand, six million - surely either is close enough for Dave.

Date: 2009/02/26 23:42:22, Link 121.72.166.188

Author: Ptaylor

Kia ora.

Date: 2009/03/01 15:53:02, Link 203.167.243.226

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:   Quote 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 121.72.166.188

Author: Ptaylor

Happy birthday.

Date: 2009/03/05 19:07:04, Link 203.167.243.226

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:   Quote All I can say about this fiasco is I cannot wait until I get elected to a school board. Linky

Date: 2009/03/09 15:51:39, Link 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Tardfight! Ray Martinez drops by on the cannot-live-by-scepticism thread and takes issue with Jerry. Sample: Quote 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (JLT @ Mar. 11 2009,10:50) A new all-time low: All atheists are racists.       Quote D'OL: 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:   Quote 10 March 2009 Gotta hand it to the ol’ boy … O'Leary 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 203.167.243.226

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 121.72.166.188

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 12 2009,19:50) Clive divorces logic and grammar (the polygamist!): http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-307466       Quote 23 Clive Hayden 03/12/2009 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:     Quote George, “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 121.72.166.188

Author: Ptaylor

Yes Chayanov, Clive has now completely lost it:       Quote Allen, 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 13 2009,03:26) Heeee's back...   Quote 36 DaveScot 03/12/2009 6:58 am KRiS “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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Meanwhile, Barry has put up another Darwin-was-a-racist thread:       Quote 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> Link What a wanker.

Date: 2009/03/16 21:00:55, Link 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (JLT @ Mar. 17 2009,15:41) AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 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...   Quote 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 ...so I've fixed it for him.

Date: 2009/03/18 14:24:31, Link 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 19 2009,08:34) LOL @ "HughJass" http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-308603 Here as well, missing DT: Quote ...Will he be back in a couple more days? Maybe after Easter Break?

Date: 2009/03/18 15:17:03, Link 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 19 2009,10:03)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 18 2009,13:34) LOL @ "HughJass" http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-308603 Rich - the post has been Banninated! Time to start archiving. Hugh's latest:   Quote 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! IS SPRINGER BACK ???:( What’s going on? Link Arthur Smith's comment immediately above Hugh's is also worth preserving:   Quote 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 203.167.243.226

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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 19 2009,16:51) Quick, before it's gone: Kellogg clarifies hamlet:     Quote 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:     Quote 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:     Quote Gil, “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:   Quote What is trou? I’m not familiar with this word. Link.

Date: 2009/03/18 23:42:47, Link 203.167.243.226

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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Meanwhile, Jerry is crowing on another thread:       Quote [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 203.167.243.226

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 121.72.166.188

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 203.167.243.226

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 203.167.243.226

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 121.72.166.188

Author: Ptaylor

Jerry: Quote “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 203.167.243.226

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:         Quote 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Quote 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

I see Prof Myers has taken an interest in Gil's current thread.

Date: 2009/03/30 14:38:22, Link 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Kia ora.

Date: 2009/03/30 17:15:02, Link 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

DonJavison announces his departure:   Quote 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Sig worthy?:   Quote bfast (#48): Thank you for mentioning those interesting news. Obviously, I have never believed in all those goofy attempts of the official academy to cover the embarassing truth of the Ediacara and Cambrian explosions with all kinds of unlikely theories. That is only evidence of how uncomfortable they are with those realities. And if, in the opinion of JayM, I am “misrepresenting the mainstream view”, I am very happy and proud of that. And yes, this (like many other things) is MAJOR evidenciary support for ID! -from gpuccio

Date: 2009/04/01 20:29:48, Link 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Heh - tragic mishap:     Quote <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 203.167.243.226

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 203.167.243.226

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:   Quote 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) Heh.

Date: 2009/04/07 18:11:23, Link 203.167.243.226

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:   Quote Maybe you will be able to latch on to that.

Date: 2009/04/07 20:02:07, Link 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

The headline for journalist Denyse's latest post...     Quote 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     Quote 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 121.72.207.96

Author: Ptaylor

Late again. Kia ora, mate.

Date: 2009/04/15 15:23:28, Link 203.167.243.226

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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Tardfight! Sal appears to have disemvowelled two comments by JAD. Davison's latest is as-yet untouched:     Quote Sal 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Well you have your answer, or at least as much of an answer Gil will likely ever give, David Kellogg:         Quote 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?:         Quote By the way, so far no one has guessed the acronym. Who gets the prize? Link. 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Huh? An hour or so ago David Kellogg had a response to Gerry's question:     Quote 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Happy birthday, kia ora.

Date: 2009/04/21 19:58:36, Link 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Barry has just about had enough with Hazel:   Quote 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 24 2009,16:55) From UD: http://nature.ca/puijila/pr_tm_e.cfm#nr and a babe, too! Heh. Nice one Nakashima:   Quote Hi, 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 121.72.173.139

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:   Quote Off-topic: 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 121.72.173.139

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 - idnet.com.au:     Quote 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

Dave Wisker responds to an implied assertion by StuartHarris:   Quote 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:   Quote Dave, 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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

A little more information on AKKK:   Quote 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 121.72.170.15

Author: Ptaylor

Late as always (I blame time zones). Kia ora, happy birthday.

Date: 2009/05/03 01:12:51, Link 121.72.170.15

Author: Ptaylor

Quote (Lowell @ May 03 2009,17:24) Obviously, the problem is that O'Bleary is working from some other source:       Quote 9 Ludwig 05/03/2009 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 203.167.243.226

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:   Quote 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 121.72.170.15

Author: Ptaylor

Fantastic! Denyse is holding a competition:   Quote Earn free stuff!: The Uncommon Descent Contest O'Leary 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. Rules: 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 203.167.243.226

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 203.167.243.226

Author: Ptaylor

DonaldM helpfully adds parenthetical remarks to his transcript of the recent Chris Matthews-Mike Pence interview in his latest post:   Quote 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.