AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Quack

form_srcid: Quack

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.


form_srcid: Quack

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


DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2007/05/30 09:26:12, Link
Author: Quack

I recently published 4 peer-reviewed articles that each propose design-based alternative theories to areas of evolutionary research and consider my research the link between ID and hard science.

I have no reason to doubt the quality of the articles mentioned, except I am very skeptical about the premise upon which they apparently rest. To me, mention of a “link between ID and hard science” lights a warning light. A link between ?? and ‘hard science? Even the link?

Future research should be able to tell whether natural causes or driving forces will be enough to create an intricate molecular machine such as Life. It will be a question for engineers, who in general are much more skeptical about the feasibility of reaching such a complex system in a relatively short time.

I consider my use of design patterns as the link between evolutionary science and intelligent design. It is based on the premise that Life is an evolving molecular machine, and when you try to understand how a machine works, you study its design.

I don’t know to what degree I may qualify as an engineer, but I have at least been working with engineered machines & electronics most of my life.

Firstly, let me say that I object to the implied similarity between manmade – designed, manufactured or built machines – and [an] “intricate molecular machine as Life”. I’d rather limit the validity of such comparisons to be between regular machines and robots.

I don’t think manmade machinery and life have anything in common. Otherwise, I believe we have to include the entire universe or solar systems in our definition of designed systems. After all, the solar system behaves like any other machine.

Put simply, the premise that Life is an evolving molecular machine is wrong. Whenever I have been studying a machine, I have studied how it works. I never have bothered with thoughts about its design. I have assumed that it was designed and built for a specific purpose and left it at that.

So what is the purpose of life? Off the top of my head, I would say ‘to procreate.’ I do in fact believe that is all there is to it. If we consider the fact that all life display this tendency, this drive towards procreation, and also take into consideration that this seems to be of such importance that it takes precedence even before preservation of individual life, that is the most reasonable inference.

The higher goal, survival of the genes takes precedence over individual life. A strange purpose for any machine. Machines are made for quite specific purposes.

WRT “engineers, who in general are much more skeptical about the feasibility of reaching such a complex system in a relatively short time”, I am rather sceptical about that statement.

What does it mean – is 3+ billion years insufficient to account for evolution? In my opinion, the geological and fossil record, in addition to other evidence shows it absolutely sufficient.

As long as ID remains an alternative that needs artificial links to science, it will remain simply the argument that it is too complex to have evolved, ergo it was designed.”

It doesn’t seem reasonable to believe that we will find any (better) answers about the origins of species by abandoning tried and sound scientific methods.

BTW, AdR's homepage is very hard to read - i can't read it. I have tried both Firefox, Opera and MSIE, but the light characters on a black background are too dim.

Date: 2007/05/31 04:43:12, Link
Author: Quack

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law was wrong.

I am afraid I find the above statement somewhat off target.

It is correct as far as stating that the ToE is not a scientific law, but then nobody claims that it is either.

The theory have no problem meeting "challenges", but may of course be overturned anytime if new evidence should require that.

What the ToE however is, is a scientific theory. Just like any other theory, say the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity, it just is science's answer to the questions raised by our studies of nature.

And like all scientific theories, it just is the best we can do; our best possible answer to the questions, and open for revision or even falsification at all times. Science admits that all theories are just theories, but still the best we are able to make out of facts, findings, and observations.

Gravity is a theory, fact and a law; but that doesn't mean that the theory cannot be falsified. In fact, that is what happened when it was found that the theory of relativity showed that Newton's theory of gravity could not account for everything about the movement of energy, light and matter.

Newtons theory is all we need with respect to building bridges or cars; it is not sufficient to calculate the movement of celestial bodies or for satellite navigation systems.

I am afraid I find it sad that critics of the theory of evolution shows such limited knowledge not only about that theory, but even about science in general.

Date: 2008/01/15 03:31:27, Link
Author: Quack
. It is a simple idea that during evolution the reproductive organs moved towards opposite end of that of the head, which represents individuality at most. So the head and reproductive organs in mammals are on the opposite ends of their bodies.

It may be a simple idea, but is it a good idea? What information do we have that may help us in drawing an intelligent, informed inference about how the basic body plan that we observe throughout the animal kingdom evolved?

I am still only an amateur in all aspects of both life and science, after a long time on this planet, so I am just stating my opinion. But after having read Sean Carroll's
"Endless Forms Most Beautiful", i tend to believe that our body plan simply reflects the present stand of the evolutionary process.

That means the reproductive apparatus being located at the rear; can anyone think of a more suitable position? I can't. So what about the testicles? So what? Keeping them in a cooling bag seems like a most economical solution. As long as that solution is reasonably well functioning without excessive detrimental costs, it will persist once it has been established.

Or something like that. I have a problem selecting and knitting English words. Hope I am not too far off target.

WRT this character VMartin; to me, his refusal to reveal his 'beliefs', 'opinions' or whatever suggests that he really doesn't know what to think. Maybe he just enjoys being in opposition? And that is no attempt at psychoanalysis; it is just a speculation about what his motives might be.

BTW, he seems to be making a lot of fuss about being on or off topic. As far as i can tell, the stated topic of this thread had nothing with paint mixing to do?

Which reminds me - since the thread anyway seems to lead nowhere. Back in the 1950's sometime, an American warship visited my home town in Norway. In a conversation with one of the crew I happened to ask what his job on the ship was. He answered "paint mixer". "Paint mixer?" I replied, but had guessed that he didn't want to tell, I might after all be a Soviet spy...

If I may pursue the subject further, since VMartin refuses to voice an opinion about the age of the Earth: Does he accept the fundamentals of science, like physics, chemistry et cetera as used in our attempts at determining the age of our planet and the rest of the universe? And if not, why?  
But I fear I am asking too much. If however he should ask me, I wouldn't mind trying to answer as truthfully as I could.

Date: 2008/01/27 05:23:47, Link
Author: Quack
I just love this kitchy panegyric at page 233, which IMHO is but the tip of the iceberg of Behe's pathetic propaganda style of writing:
The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell - to investigate life at the molecular level-is a loud, clear, piercing cry of "design!"  The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein, Lavoisier and Schrodinger, Pasteur, and Darwin. The observation of the intelligent design of life is as momentous as the observation that the earth goes around the sun or that disease is caused by bacteria or that radiation is emitted in quanta. The magnitude of the victory, gained at such great cost through sustained effort over the course of decades, would be expected to send champagne corks flying in labs around the world. This triumph of science should evoke cries of "Eureka!" from ten thousand throats, should occasion much hand-slapping and high-fiving, and perhaps even be an excuse to take a day off.
But no bottles have been uncorked, no hands slapped. Instead, a curious, embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. When the subject comes up in public, feet start to shuffle, and breathing gets a bit labored. In private people are a bit more relaxed; many explicitly admit the obvious but then stare at the ground, shake their heads, and let it go at that.
Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling discovery? Why is the observation of design handled with intellectual gloves? The dilemma is that while one side of the elephant is labeled intelligent design, the other side might be labeled God.

Date: 2008/02/02 06:32:52, Link
Author: Quack

(I am translating from the Norwegian edition of C. G. Jung’s “Die Beziehungen zwischen dem Ich und dem Unbewussten”)


“As initial symptoms of his grave compulsory neurosis,  a 15 years old patient had the following dream: He is walking down an unfamiliar street. It is dark. He hears footsteps behind. He walks faster, a little frightened. The footsteps come closer and his anxiety rises. He begins to run. But the footsteps seem to be catching up with him. Finally he turns around, and he sees the Devil. Filled with fear of death he jumps up into the air and stays hanging there. This dream was repeated twice as a sign that it was of special importance.
 As we know, compulsory neurosis – by its exaggerated cautiousness and ceremonial compulsiveness not only  appears with a superficial  likeness of a moral problem, but it is also at the bottom inhumanity, criminality and evil, the integration of which the otherwise finely organized personality desperately oppose. Because of that so much needs to be done in a ceremonially “correct” manner, as it were a counterweight against  the evil lurking threateningly in the rear. After this dream the neurosis, that mainly consisted of the patient – as he expressed it – holding himself in a “provisional” or “uncontaminated” pure condition, where he “nullified” or “annulled” his contact with the world and everything that reminded of perishability by insane, over-complicated, scrupulous cleansing ceremonies and an anxious observance of numerous and exceedingly complicated rules. Even before the patient realized what hellish future awaited him, the dream showed him that for him it involved a pact with the Devil, if he wanted to return to Earth again.”

I engaged poor pal Sal in a debate on ARN about 10 years ago. I got so annoyed with his arguments that I deleted the entire thread. I sometimes have regretted that I deleted it. But now that I see how he has been busy digging – not his own grave but more like a veritable mausoleum, it doesn’t matter.

After having read this thread from the beginning up to page 10, I think I have had more than I can digest. And still there are 17 pages left. It beats Stephen King!

Mr. Christopher:
Sal appears to be a very sick man indeed.  His whole reason for being such an IDiot creationist seems to be motivated by a need to prove the bible is true and can be relied upon.  

What hell it must be to be a grown man who is so afraid of facing life standing on his own two feet that he needs magic to face it, and then spends his life trying to prove the magic is real to himself and others.

This is the hell hole of faith.  Every believer doubts at some level, this is why they hate those of us who doubt out loud.

Sal is a vile man.

It has long been clear that what motivates the creationists is their strong desire to have their faith confirmed.  Since their faith is founded not only on the bible itself, but on the premise that the bible actually is the Word of God and therefore literally true, they are suffering from doubt and uncertainty.

Came ID to their rescue offering relief. They would have been complacent and happy had not  science been doing its best to strew salt in the wounds.

Some double-thinkers are able, as they claim, to  accept science, except they believe in a young earth anyway because that is what the Bible says. With Sal it is different; he is trying to create a universe that fits his faith.

So at page 10 of this thread it struck me; he is in a position reminiscent of Jung’s miserable patient. Sal has entered in a pact with creationism to save his peace of mind. To him, conceding to the evolution of species ( and probably abiogenesis as well) as the result of natural processes is to him nothing less than the death of God. So what can he do? As said, he creates a universe corresponding to the universe he thinks is needed to keep God alive. The lesser evil to him is to twist reality, to engage in deceit and unethical behaviour like editing, modifying or just deleting arguments he don’t like. Anything goes as long as it can uphold the illusion.  He simply is blind, really blind, to his own shortcomings. He simply is incapable of viewing himself objectively. The inflated ego he displays is proof of that.

There is a saying in his beloved Bible that says it all:

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
(Matt. 7:3)

This actually is but one of many examples of how the Bible also contains truth, profound psychological insight. 20th century depth psychology calls it ‘projection’. We project the dark sides of ourselves onto other people – in an attempt to liberate ourselves. It is the scapegoat principle in action.

Date: 2008/02/03 04:19:47, Link
Author: Quack
I am afraid we are getting off topic, so after we have dissected Sal's mind, please let us return to the Young Cosmos. But before that, just to complete the picture WRT the NT:

In "The Jesus Mysteries", authors Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy writes:      
Could it be that orthodox Christianity was a later deviation from Gnosticism and that Gnosticism was a synthesis of Judaism and the Pagan Mystery religion? This was the beginning of the Jesus Mysteries Thesis.
Boldly stated, the picture that emerged for us was as follows. We knew that most ancient Mediterranean cultures had adopted the ancient Mysteries, adapting them to their own national tastes and creating their own version of the myth of the dying and resurrecting godman. Perhaps some of the Jews had, likewise, adopted the Pagan Mysteries and created their own version of the Mysteries, which we now know as Gnosticism. Perhaps initiates of the Jewish Mysteries had adapted the potent symbolism of the OsirisDionysus myths into a myth of their own, the hero of which was the Jewish dying and resurrecting godman Jesus.
If this was so, then the Jesus story was not a biography at all but a consciously crafted vehicle for encoded spiritual teachings created by Jewish Gnostics. As in the Pagan Mysteries, initiation into the Inner Mysteries would reveal the myth's allegorical meaning. Perhaps those uninitiated into the Inner Mysteries had mistakenly come to regard the Jesus myth as historical fact and in this way Literalist Christianity had been created.

It is only to be expected that Christian apologetics strongly reject any alternative to traditional literalism, but if we accept as a fact that miracles are extremely rare - maybe even entirely impossible, we are entitled to subjecting all available evidence to the merciless light of rational thought. Simply put, if nobody was born of a virgin, walked on water, made water into wine, died, spent three days and two nights in a tomb, resurrected and flew away into heaven, then why was that story created, what does it mean?

Date: 2008/02/14 06:51:36, Link
Author: Quack
moved to FTK thread

Sorry, but I can't find the FTK thread?

Date: 2008/02/23 02:21:42, Link
Author: Quack
This is what happens when scientific theories become scientific dogma immune to contrary evidence and criticism by virtue of being uncontestable fact. It happened to Sigmund Freud’s theory,

What 'happened' to "Darwin's theory"? What was that theory again? Anyone knows?

Date: 2008/02/23 02:38:26, Link
Author: Quack
Is Sal on sick leave? A circular saw accident? Doesn't seem he knows much about tool use. I always use a chain saw for massacres. I don't have much to contribute to this forum, but i found this (in my opinion, rather poor as Limericks go) that I dedicate to Sal:

There was a young fellow named Dirkin,
Who was always jerkin' his gherkin.
His mother said: "Dirkin
Quit jerkin' your gherkin, .
Your gherkin's for ferkin', not jerkin' ."

Date: 2008/02/26 05:18:07, Link
Author: Quack
A creationist claims:

"Dr. John Baumgardner is the worlds number 1 expert on plate tectonics."

I don't know, he seems to be a bright scientist, creationist, but #1 on that subject, I would like to know?

Date: 2008/02/29 04:50:30, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Paul Flocken @ Feb. 28 2008,17:46)
I would never have thought George Bush would be so clueless as to repeat a mistake of his father and be clueless about what us commoners have to deal with.  Or even to give the appearance of it, assuming he is not as clueless as that.

Q What's your advice to the average American who is hurting now, facing the prospect of $4 a gallon gasoline, a lot of people facing --

THE PRESIDENT: Wait, what did you just say? You're predicting $4 a gallon gasoline?

Q A number of analysts are predicting --


Q -- $4 a gallon gasoline this spring when they reformulate.

THE PRESIDENT: That's interesting. I hadn't heard that.

Q Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I know it's high now.

Live, it sounded even worse than it reads.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I know it's high now.

Live, it sounded even worse than it reads.

No comment, except I am paying $2 (NOK 12) per liter. What we don't burn ourselves here in Norway, we ship to you.

Date: 2008/03/01 03:33:19, Link
Author: Quack
I still fail to see any rationale for the reference to Tourette's syndrome, but that may perhaps be simply because i know people suffering from said syndrome and know how wonderfully intelligent and resourceful people they are?

May i also offer my layman's opinion that if we all are bigots, so are we all idiots, jerks, wankers, shitbags and all the other invectives of which I realize you (none mentioned, none forgotten) are very familiar with - I know only a handful, poor me - so I am fundamentally excluded from the elite.

OTOH, isn't nihilism a very convenient life strategy?

But thank heaven we are not all IDiots.

Date: 2008/03/24 06:00:33, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Guest @ Mar. 22 2008,12:54)
<strong>Science Avenger:</strong>


This troll has completely derailed three threads already, why let him continue?


Indeed, why?  The kicker for me was this exchange:

<blockquote> David Stanton: In fact a 1% selection advantage would be quite adequate [to move the whale's blowhole].

Jacob: How do you know that 1% would be quite adequate?

Shebardigan: If you put $10.00 in a bank at 1% compound interest, for a hundred thousand years, what do you end up with?

Jacob:Well with an inflation rate of just 3% you would have nothing.

Now call me a hardass, but someone who would say something like that ought to be banned right then and there.  He's either too stupid to follow the discussion, or too intellectually dishonest to concede the point.  Neither is a trait that's going to stimulate interesting discussion here.


Actually many people miss this about the relation between the inflation rate and a bank's interest rate. This of course happened in Germany during the late  20s and they had to come out with new currency.

Sometimes the truth is hidden in the subtleties of a concept. Banned for mentioning the eroding power of inflation? Interesting. Just as being banned for exposing the weaknesses of the prevailing evolutionary theory. How Nazi of you!

I doesn't even need pointing out how stupid of you it is even to introduce inflation as an argument in this case. Now please tell us why inflation is a relevant subject in a discussion about accumulation of a 1% advantage in biology.

If you want to be taken seriously, the first thing you need to do is to clean up your act and realize that you are not the Darwin of creationism.

Date: 2008/03/31 05:51:42, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (carlsonjok @ Mar. 31 2008,05:40)
Who is getting Expelled again?
In case anyone is wondering where 30 comments disappeared to they can be found at

I would note that the comments that were deleted were all the comments discussing Sal's dishonest use of the Darwin puppy quote.  Sal's original comment is still there, though. You are one classy guy, Dave.

Who is getting Expelled again?
In case anyone is wondering where 30 comments disappeared to they can be found at

Purgatory not found.

Date: 2008/03/31 10:06:14, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (guthrie @ Mar. 30 2008,14:27)
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 30 2008,02:46)
It is kind of annyoing on PT that when a comment section goes ballistic, it is almost always as a result of a creationist saying really stupid things, and not as a result of smart discourse.

Yes.  This is why it is very hard to have a proper science forum, because few people have the knowledge to actually discuss some new and interesting science in an interesting way.  Hence a lack of replies, except to say "Cool", or "I never knew that".  
This is why all science related forums have a tendency towards pseudoscience, because vomiting it and cleaning up afterwards creates a huge amount of traffic and posts.

A proper science forum? Seems a long time since I saw much science on PT. But aside from that, I think it would be a good idea to have trollpost moved to Trollheimen. ("Home of trolls", a mountain area in Norway.)

There, us trollhunters instead of with a blunderbuss could go at them with a bazooka.

Current subjects on PT, March 21 – March 30:

Expelled Exposed: The Untold Sequel
SGU on Expelled
Guardian on Expelled: A step to the right
The Age of The Machine
We Were Invited to Expelled Conference Call
Julia Sweeney: Expelled and Ben Stein
Troy Britain: Expelled! The Movie Rip-off and the Event at Biola
Florida’s “Evolution Academic Freedom Act”
Irons v. McCreary on creationism
Taking Behe at his word
UcD: Clinton Dawkins: Guilty as Charged
The Economist: Where angels no longer fear to tread
Like “Expelled,” “Left Behind: Eternal Forces” had Net Buzz - So, Why did it TANK?
Intelligent Design Deployed in Kentucky
Expelled Exposed
Expelled!: A spoiler
NewScientist Blog: Are ID proponents being silenced?
Richard Dawkins: Lying for Jesus?
About that cell video in Expelled…
A homage to PZ
CBS13: Man Interviewed In Movie Not Allowed To See It
Dawkins and PZ Myers on ‘Expelled’
Luskin v Tree of Life: More Troubles in the Tree of Animal Life?
Phyloinformatics Summer of Code 2008
Allen MacNeill: Expelled from Expelled
Intelligent Design Movie Is Not for Heathens
Expelled gone missing from Santa Clara
GetExpelled RSVP
Pioneer Press: Biology prof expelled from screening of ‘Expelled’
NY Times: No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film
Evolution of the Heart

Date: 2008/04/19 04:26:37, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ April 18 2008,15:59)
Somebody is obsessed with HO-MO-Sexules!

Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.

Date: 2008/04/25 02:19:52, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 24 2008,23:25)
hmm. in stealing intellectual property, misrepresenting science, whoring out propositional logic to the most godly bidder and squatting anywhere that Jo Shmo points out that this is possibly the stupidest idea ever, Stein represents the essence of Intelligent Design Creationism.

*ETA some stuff

Hear all my hands clapping? Just a part-time lurker here, but I have to speak - to applaud such no-nonsense talk, no beating around the bush but spelling it out, loud and clear.

Date: 2008/04/25 03:30:48, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Quack @ April 25 2008,02:19)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 24 2008,23:25)
hmm. in stealing intellectual property, misrepresenting science, whoring out propositional logic to the most godly bidder and squatting anywhere that Jo Shmo points out that this is possibly the stupidest idea ever, Stein represents the essence of Intelligent Design Creationism.

*ETA some stuff

Hear all my hands clapping? Just a part-time lurker here, but I have to speak - to applaud such no-nonsense talk, no beating around the bush but spelling it out, loud and clear.

Referring of course to the entire excellent piece, not just the qoute!

Date: 2008/04/26 02:10:56, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (olegt @ April 25 2008,20:42)
It was fun while it lasted.  Now it looks like Gloppy has 404ed teh links.  :(

Well, at least we still have the Institute for Evolutionary Informatics!

Bad link. Better one higher up in thread.

Date: 2008/04/30 03:48:08, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 29 2008,23:16)
Quote (Jkrebs @ April 29 2008,22:46)
bfast offers this here:

If there is a genetic twiddler that, using foresight, has guided the development of life from amoeba to man, even if the twiddler periodically injected huge chunks of data, if the twiddler twiddled with an existing species to get the new one, rather than creating ex-nihlo, then we have UCD.

This is exactly why many Christians who have taken the time to learn about ID reject it as bad theology (as well as bad science) - because it reduces God to a "genetic twiddler."  Thanks to bfast for both the candor and the nicely descriptive term.

Not very omnipotent / omniscient if you have to twiddle..

Quote (Jkrebs @ April 29 2008,22:46)
bfast offers this here:

If there is a genetic twiddler that, using foresight, has guided the development of life from amoeba to man, even if the twiddler periodically injected huge chunks of data, if the twiddler twiddled with an existing species to get the new one, rather than creating ex-nihlo, then we have UCD.

This is exactly why many Christians who have taken the time to learn about ID reject it as bad theology (as well as bad science) - because it reduces God to a "genetic twiddler."  Thanks to bfast for both the candor and the nicely descriptive term.

Not very omnipotent / omniscient if you have to twiddle..

Dawkins got it right; the twiddler must be ET.

Date: 2008/04/30 03:56:03, Link
Author: Quack
I have often wondered, may keith be suffering from third stage syphilis (Neurosyphilis), posting from a mental institution?

Date: 2008/04/30 06:11:28, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (blipey @ April 29 2008,19:49)
Same thread.
starwind: <i>Darwinian evolution is the materialist explanation...</i>

starwind: <i>Darwinian evolution is the materialist explanation for why one species is fittest and will ultimately survive over other species, and that also applies to humans, as per evolution theory.</i>

This is not exactly right.  ToE does not state that a species is "fittest"--only "more fit".  And even more importantly, it does not state that a species will survive "instead" of another species as this paragraph implies--only that members of a species with certain traits will survive over members of the same species without the same adaption.  This is the misapplication that leads to eugenics.

Why bother with eugenics, if  evolution and "survival of the fittest" takes care of it?

Date: 2008/05/02 14:31:09, Link
Author: Quack
From PT:
keith | May 1, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply

The facts of evolution wouldn’t have enough material for one 1/2 hour sermon…

Someone who thinks he can do palaeontology, the fossil record, the geological column, genetics, embryology and then some in 1/2 hour must be suffering from delusions of grandeur. Diagnosis substantiated.

Date: 2008/05/08 04:26:53, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (didymos @ May 08 2008,00:45)
Quote (blipey @ May 07 2008,22:02)
An aside that you can answer AFTER:

ahem,  Does Jesus know you're avatar is flipping people off?


Does that make him cry?

I'm thinkin' what Jesus would do in this situation would be to execute whatever the equivalent of flipping someone off is if you're a 1st century mediterranean Jewish peasant.  I seem to recall something about him not being too keen on hypocrites who cloak themselves in piety.

Don't know, maybe this is a bad idea, but I got to thinking, and I can see that image in my mind: Jesus (the robed, bearded character we all know and respect) - with his finger raised.

Religious bigots and hypocrites can't help themselves. It happens all the time, we know them by their fruits:

While I am certain WW would characterize me in the best creationist tardition as a damn atheist Darwinist liar, I can only state my most sincere response to his display of bad taste: It really pissed me off!

One of my "guru's" used this 'metaphor': When you are pointing a finger at someone, three fingers are pointing back towards yourself.  Our friend Jesus is on record with a more poetic way of expressing the same eternal truth.

Date: 2008/05/08 04:44:47, Link
Author: Quack
Typo unintentional, left on purpose.

Date: 2008/05/09 02:47:52, Link
Author: Quack
Hmn.  Show me a pinhole camera that has a focus adjustment.

I don't know if it is relevant, but sometimes at night and I don't have my glasses on, I create a "pinhole" with my index finger and actually, I can focus on the clock by adjusting the size of the pinhole.

Are you saying that is not possible?

Date: 2008/05/09 03:12:47, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 09 2008,02:55)
Found this
With an ordinary camera, the depth of focus reduces, as the aperture increases. With a pinhole camera, all distances are in the same focus because the aperture is extremely small. In other words, a pinhole camera appears to have infinite depth of focus. This means everything in the field of view is in focus.

When designing your pinhole camera it is important to choose a pinhole diameter that is appropriate for the focal length of your camera. The focal length is the distance from the pinhole to the film plane.

So seems that changing the diameter of the hole changes the focal length. More here
That sound about right Quack?

Now, if only the eye had the ability to change the size of the hole that light was coming in through....


Date: 2008/05/12 09:04:05, Link
Author: Quack

I found this quote of Behe:

“There’s no reason that the extended fine-tuning I am presenting here necessarily requires active meddling with nature any more than the fine-tuning of theistic evolution does. One can think the universe is finely tuned toany degree and still conceive that “the universe [originated] by a single creative act” and underwent “it’s natural development by laws implanted in it.” One simply has to envision that the agent who caused the universe was able to specify from the start not only laws but much more.
231, Edge Of Evolution”

The implication being, as far as I can tell, that these ‘laws’ were laid down by the designer at the creation of the universe and are the ultimate cause for both the biological evolution down to the butterfly wing eye spots and everything else. It seems to me Behe is lost in reductionism, completely unaware of where science is going. Seems he has progressed from the interventionist mode of ID to the front loaded, non-interventionist mode. What he shares with all sorts of creationists however, is the faith in reductionism.

It is interesting to note that O’Leary and others are bent on keeping the interventionist designer alive, making it clear that he/it is not identical with ET, leaving G-o-d as the only option. All that remains is for them to convince Dembski that ID should be replaced with DD, Divine Design.

Now it so happens that I am re-reading “A Different Universe” by Robert B. Laughlin for the umpteenth time, searching for a suitable quote for use a sig. But I am giving it up; the whole book is the entire argument, a simplified resume of which might be this quote “We also know that while a simple and absolute law, such as hydrodynamics, can evolve from the deeper laws underneath, it is at the same time independent of them, in that it would be the same even if the deeper laws were changed” (From the chapter “The Emergent Age”, p.207)

In the same chapter, Laughlin says things like  

“The idea that the struggle to understand the natural world has come to an end is not only wrong, it is ludicrously wrong. We are surrounded by mysterious physical miracles, and the continuing, unfinished task of science is to unravel them.”

“Ironically, the very success of reductionism has helped pave the way for its eclipse.”

“The transition to the age of Emergence brings to an end the myth of the absolute power of mathematics. This myth is still entrenched in our culture, unfortunately, …”

There is so much more but I’ve got to stop somewhere. I think this is a very important book, (I don’t think Laughlin would have written it were it not) and I will have to spend much more time with it before I am through with it. I just love it because it forces me to think.

ID/creationism relies heavily on reductionism in its crusade against science. While Laughlin claims that we are “surrounded by mysterious physical miracles”, and they are not the works of some Intelligent Designer…

I hope a lot of people will buy this book, read it, study it, understand it!

Date: 2008/05/16 03:29:24, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (stevestory @ May 15 2008,20:36)
Dumbski says:

The day Darwinism and Intelligent Design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall.

...says the guy who routinely bans scientists from his blog.

30 November 2005
Why I ruthlessly edit comments on this blog
William Dembski

Here’s an email from someone I banned from this blog.

How many people has Dembski banned from his blog this year? 75? 100? (AtBC, for the record, is at 0 or 1, depending on how you count.)

CharlesW commenting at UcD:      
What Dembski’s atheistic materialist opponents obviously can’t understand is that in this case censorsip is free speech.

How Orwellesque!

Date: 2008/05/16 04:08:00, Link
Author: Quack
Interesting exchange even if the subject isn't quite my cup of tea.

I don't know if it would be good form for me to say Gotcha! but I am a little proud that I actually have read the entire book

Hope you wil enjoy it as much as I did. (If you've got the time to read it!)

Date: 2008/05/17 04:16:55, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (didymos @ May 17 2008,02:44)
Quote (Quack @ May 16 2008,02:08)
Interesting exchange even if the subject isn't quite my cup of tea.

Gotcha?  Did I screw up on something?

Not at all, sir! Just my clumsy way of saying that I suppose maybe not too many people have read that book - there is not much of value to be learned from it, but it is a great detective story and in my opinion a good read. There is however, I think, one lesson that a creationist (= WW) might learn from it, and that was what was uppermost in my mind when I wrote my comment -

That at least is what I believe that I have learned from reading scientists, like Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, Richard Feynman, Sean Carroll, and many more: A forceful demonstration of how a scientist works, what time and effort he invests in his work. And the love for what he is doing. Quite the opposite of the image of Antichrist that creationists have in their murky minds.

WRT Feynman, this may be as good a time as any for this little ‘anecdote’:

On Swedish Radio a couple of years ago, a reporter told of how he had met Feynman: They had arranged for an interview, and asked him about his playing of bongo drums. He replied that the question was not relevant, the interview was to be about science. The reporters pointed out that a picture of him playing the bongos was on the cover of a book of his so the subject somehow seemed to be relevant.

Well, Feynman got on the phone to his wife: I am taking this crazy gang from Swedish Radio home with me. Could you have some sandwiches and beer ready for us?

They got a demonstration of the great scientist playing bongo drums.

Date: 2008/05/21 03:07:14, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Guest @ May 20 2008,17:21)
From NCSE: Eyeing ID:

<strong>Stanton said:</strong>

<strong>Stanton said:</strong>

<blockquote>Can a land animal evolve into a whale in 1000 years??

Fossil evidence shows that whales assumed a wholly aquatic lifestyle in about 20 million years, over the expanse of the Eocene epoch.

Your obtuseness remains unimpressive.

Your obtuseness still remains unimpressive.

So that's what happened the QUESTION WAS could it have happened in 1000 years given different conditions?? That's what I don't get about the 'scientists' here. To really test a theory you imagine different scenarios and see if the theory still works.

Since you are so clever, why don't you do it yourself? Let us see you 'imagine different scenarios' and see if your hyptohesis works? But why stop at 1000 years, why not be really imaginative and see if it might take, say, 100 years? Or why not 6 months? Imagination is a wonderful scientific tool! Test some 'different conditions' on yourself - jump in and come back when you have become a walrus or something. Or better still, stay there forever.

Date: 2008/05/28 09:07:37, Link
Author: Quack
... mechanisms and info.sources all working in harmony. I don't think all that design can have been in the memory of the early cells.
So you have got that figured out now? You are damn right,
But how was it transmitted for cells to read it, as life got more advanced?

and the mechanism has been known for a real long time, it is called mutations. Know what - the cells are still doing it the same way!

Date: 2008/05/29 13:28:35, Link
Author: Quack
I registered at UD one or two years ago, and made a few short and rather, IMHO, harmless comments. Without checking i cannot be certain, but I don't think any of them evere weer published.

So to check things out, for the past week I have been posting lots of "fucktest" messages, insulting Dembski and making various comments to see if anything would happen (bannination) but it still apears like I can post comments. I believe I was assigned to the NUL device right from the beginning.

Open debate, ID style.

After many years away from ARN, where I did some posting 10 years ago, I checked in there last year, and found that the activity was nothing like it used to be.

But I got engaged in a debate with thast most obnoxious character Frank Cox. I soon got fed up with his mindless rant and asked if he would continue the debate at, with the hope that he might meet some stronger opposition.

He declined with words that made me wonder if he was afraid his pure soul would be contaminated by visiting that atheist brewingpot - or something like that.

The post soon disappeared without warning, so I made one or two attempts more, asking what the problem might be, until I no longer were able to login.

What I may have said to offend their pure and sensitive souls I don't know, it must have been something quite horrible - I would never have guessed that I could match Frank Cox.

They sure know how to see the splinter in their brother's eye.

Date: 2008/05/30 08:25:28, Link
Author: Quack

If the arguments in favor of evolution are so overwhelming, then why do evolutionists need the help of the courts in suppressing criticism of evolution ? Now we are being told that ID cannot be taught even in philosophy class.

Larry, it would take to much effort to make a comprehensive rebuttal of all that you say and maybe I am not the right person to do it, so just this:

Criticism of evolution:
What you refer to as ‘criticism of evolution’ is not ‘criticism of evolution’, but the claim that the theory of evolution is false, falsified by the ‘theory of Intelligent Design’ we believe ‘there are details in biology that are too complex to have a natural cause, we believe they were designed. But we do not know where, when or by whom the design and implementation was done. We are not doing any effort at researching such pathetic details either.’ We just believe it because it suits our purpose, our goals.

Teaching of ID:
What is there to teach? IIRC, it has been stated from ID quarters that there isn’t anything to teach, there is no theory of ID (yet?!)

Much ado about nothing doesn’t belong in schools. Not there, and definitely not here!

Why don’t you face reality: ID is Dembski, O’Leary, Cordova(YEC!) and a bunch of claqueurs like you, BA77 et cetera. Behe and Mike Gene? Lots of rhetoric, but no substance.

Commenting on PT:
I wouldn’t call what you, Keith Eaton, William Wallace, Philip Bruce Heywood and some others are posting ‘comments’, they are more like flies in the ointment. From what I have seen, they only serve to derail threads into discussion about crackpottery instead of science.

After many years of studying creationists I have found that creationism is founded on ignorance and unwillingness to learn science. Did you se  the  recent display at UcD of  complete ignorance about even the most basic of sciences, gravity? You know who did it, don’t you?

The most interesting thing about creationism is its psychology – the contents are crap.

Date: 2008/05/30 16:53:46, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (ERV @ May 30 2008,12:45)
Im loving this TARDmine:
Reason to Believe blag

I followed the link to see where it would take me and I wound up with Paul Davies. Now, Paul Davies may be a great scientist, but IMHO, he is a poor philospher. Otherwise, he would not have had to make a statement like  "To set the record straight, I am a fierce opponent of so-called "Intelligent Design", ..."

I am afraid his philosophising makes for 'gefundenes fressen' for creationists.

Date: 2008/06/02 02:51:13, Link
Author: Quack
I’ve seen it before. While a normal person has no problems with morals or ‘right and wrong’, xtian fundies are capable of making the most bizarre statements. Completely unable to comprehend their own stupidity. As I often point out, they suffer from the splinter vs. beam syndrome.

If she had had any smarts left, she would have said ‘sorry, my bad’, and she could have gone back to her ID research. Engaging in a lecture on morals as she is doing now is more like adding insult to injury. She is and forever will be beyond reason.

Date: 2008/06/02 06:08:11, Link
Author: Quack
I do not tolerate acts of immorality

What about moral dilemmas? Close your eyes to them also?

Date: 2008/06/03 04:07:47, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 03 2008,03:07)
William, you say
When miracles occur, the usual suspects claim misdiagnosis. Self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of the supernatural deniers.

Would you care to venture an opinion as to why amputees seem to be excluded from Miracle cures? No amputee has ever been "healed" by a miracle. Why does your god hate amputees?

Not only that, why did He bother creating this miserable world at all - already knowing how he would have to wipe it all out only to have the same miserable world start all over again - when he could have sent us all to straight to heaven from the beginning?

This world is corrupt, how can He let it go on for one more second?

Guess he won't listen to reason. The chances probably are much higher that he will hear the prayers for lower gasoline prices. Although he seems not to mind us paying $8/gallon here...

Date: 2008/06/06 03:10:01, Link
Author: Quack
Humans are apes, but apes are not human(s). Maybe human rights' should be relabeled 'apes rights'?

Date: 2008/06/09 11:46:06, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 09 2008,07:41)
fuck fuck fuck fuck fucckitly fuck fuck

My point with the " :angry: " was that I was using a word that I wouldn't have used if he hadn't thrown it out there.

If Louis has jumped off a cliff would you have done the same? :) No doubt you would, then simply blamed him for it.

I just love the lady, I love her more than I love Ray Martinez.

Date: 2008/06/09 16:07:26, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Louis @ June 09 2008,14:14)
Quote (Quack @ June 09 2008,17:46)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 09 2008,07:41)
fuck fuck fuck fuck fucckitly fuck fuck

My point with the " :angry: " was that I was using a word that I wouldn't have used if he hadn't thrown it out there.

If Louis has jumped off a cliff would you have done the same? :) No doubt you would, then simply blamed him for it.

I just love the lady, I love her more than I love Ray Martinez.

Ewwww surely it's not possible to love RayRay? Even Mother Martinez tried to eat him at birth/spawning as the runt of the litter.


Guess I was a little dizzy in expressing myself - the love that I feel is more like thankfulness for the entertainment.

Except in the case of Ray, the fun went out of it long ago. Maybe we could get a laugh or two if his paper ever sees the light, but hopes are dim, i.e. nonexistent.

Date: 2008/06/18 10:32:30, Link
Author: Quack
Seriously, I recently heard about a project about investingating the brains of homosexuals and lesbians with MR imaging, and comparing the findings with the brains of people of more conventional sexual preferences.

The findings so far seems to indicate that the brains of homosexuals have some similarities with lesbian brains - and vice versa.

IIRC, this research is of course being done in Sweden.

Date: 2008/06/18 10:49:29, Link
Author: Quack
Oops, I got on t.o. newsgroup and found a more comprehensible post about it there, by Advocaat.

Date: 2008/06/28 03:30:33, Link
Author: Quack
My personal opinion is that God gave us, as part of being created in His image, the ultimate ability to restore paradise.

Well then, not very intelligent of God to also give us as part of being created in His image, the ultimate ability to restore the planet to primal conditions. Or just to vipe out all life. Or just a little genocide here and there. All just like God used to do. Yeah, verily we are Gods!

Looks as if that is the more probable outcome rather than restoring paradise - if there ever was a paradise here. Must have been before man entered the stage.

Or maybe there is a twinkle of hope, - the compulsory teaching of ID. No more sin, war, crime on Earth! Hallelujah!

Date: 2008/06/28 03:38:18, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (bystander @ June 28 2008,00:47)
Is there a psychiatrist/psychologist in the house. I would really like to understand the Ftks of the world.

My 2 cents: The irrational mind is beyond comprehension. Where faith walks in, rationality walks out.

Date: 2008/07/04 03:14:05, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 04 2008,03:03)
DS puts on his lawyer cap      
Clearly Comer, through her advertisement of Barbara Forrest’s lecture, using her employer’s computer network to broadcast it, and using her government email address and title to lend strength to the advertisement, violated a clear and constitutional government mandate regarding how employees are to conduct the government’s business.

What I would like to know is, what if instead of "Barbara Forrest's lecture" the email had been about, say, "William Dembski's lecture"?

Date: 2008/07/04 03:25:50, Link
Author: Quack
That's the sad transition everyone goes through with Paul. He's superficially nice and pleasant so you give him the benefit of the doubt at first. Slowly you realize he has to know his claims are BS, yet he keeps doing it, and he's just as dishonest as the rest of them.

That's one of the problems when dealing with people - it is very hard to see what is lurking behind the mask. Snake oil salesmen, politicians, wife-beaters - and IDers?

Date: 2008/07/04 09:35:58, Link
Author: Quack
If I hadn't read it I wouldn't have believed it was in print.

Date: 2008/07/05 08:10:47, Link
Author: Quack
This may me off topic and eligible for the BW, but with respect to Paul and Kurt Wise:

It is real, real sad - if Kurt Wise, and many with him had not been led astray by fundamentalism, they would have realized that true religion is not incompatible with science. These quotes from St. Augustine are well known but may deserve repetition:      
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

The thing itself that is now called the Christian religion was with the ancients, and it was with the human race from the beginning to the time when Christ appeared in the flesh: from then on the true religion that already existed began to be called Christian.

To make a long history short: God the creator of the universe is a myth. God is spirit - in our soul. Jesus, the dying-and-resurrection godman is a myth. And a powerful symbol - for a force in our soul, for spiritual rebirth. That is what death and resurrection is about, not the nonsense of the Gospels.

St. Paul knew, but his knowledge has been corrupted by skilfull editing.

Date: 2008/07/06 15:59:18, Link
Author: Quack
Interesting thread. Seems it has a purpose - and that is not about ID.

Date: 2008/07/06 15:59:18, Link
Author: Quack
Interesting thread. Seems it has a purpose - and that is not about ID.

Date: 2008/07/09 11:00:29, Link
Author: Quack
We have a saying around here: An idiot may ask more questions that a hundred wise men can answer.

I guess that about rounds it up as far as Ftk is concerned. it is pretty obvious that there is something fundamentally wrong with her cognitive apparatus. What it is I can't say, expect it is a symptom often found in connection with advanced cases of religionism.

I offer for evidence this clip that I made at UcD before reading this thread:

After a new vital organ evolved, you have to wonder how the organism survived before it had that vital organ, because without the newly evolved vital organ, it’s dead, isn’t it?

Words fail me.

Date: 2008/07/09 11:15:17, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 24 2008,10:12)
I was granted the golden mop to this forum on November 6, 2007.  As a comparison, we've banned two commenters since then.

Here's an updated score card since then:

AtBC - 2:


David Mabus

Uncommon Descent - 35 (that we know of):


Stanton Rockwell





digdug24 and Bugsy




Carl Sachs and Tedsenough









Cloud of Unknowing (AKA Turncoat, AKA Tom English)

Thom English (again)


Leo Stotch and even his ghost, for good measure.




Gerry Rzeppa


Jonathan Sarfati





I maybe don't count as banned - It was just that since none of my short comments posted over a couple of years ever showd up, I began posting little pieces of dreck to see if I could wake them up, and after quite some time I finally got my hearts desire fulfilled: instead of "If you are not Dizzy ...", I got "You need to be logged in to comment"

Date: 2008/07/09 13:51:31, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,13:30)
EDIT:  *not* from PZ's faction.  Dang...that's a real screw up there.

Yes, it is commonly known as 'Freudian slip.'

Date: 2008/07/10 04:40:51, Link
Author: Quack
FTK said: From what I understand, there were as many scientists supporting the theory as there were against it....even from the start.

Whether true or not, that is irrelevant. The point is:

That is how science works, and that is how it should work!

There may be even better examples, what comes first to my mind though is the well known case of Dr. Semmelweiss. Even if Semmelweiss, AFAIK, did document impressive results of his simple procedure, it was not accepted by his peers. It nevertheless eventually got accepted, because facts are hard to circumvent. Ftk doing her best to ignore facts doesn't make them go away.

Date: 2008/07/11 03:35:32, Link
Author: Quack
Another example is mentioned in “The First Chimpanzee” (John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas, 2001):
One of the regulators that is known, or rather inferred, controls the development of the bones in a chicken's leg. The limbs of all vertebrates with a more recent evolutionary origin than the fishes are built on the same sort of plan, the pentadactyl limb, but with modifications. Horses, for example, have only one, enormously elongated, toe, instead of the usual five. And chickens, like other birds, have a very reduced fibula, the smaller bone alongside the shin bone, as you will know if you have ever paid attention to eating a drumstick. Along with the reduced fibula the chicken also has many of its ankle bones missing, though this wouldn't be so obvious to the casual chicken-leg eater. It turns out that, by a variety of surgical manipulations on the chicken foetus in the egg, one can persuade a developing chick to grow a much sturdier fibula and also develop some of the normally missing ankle bones. Chicken DNA contains the information to build the 'normal' limb; so why doesn't it? Probably as a result of a very slight change in a regulator gene. The mutants never grow an ankle without a fibula, but once the fibula contacts the ankle region the bones there develop. The interpretation of this is that the presence of the fibula somehow induces the ankle bones to form, and that at some stage in its past the structural genes for the chicken's leg came under the influence of a new regulator that controlled them in a different way. The effect was to reduce the growth of the fibula, which in turn modified the ankle. The structural genes themselves are still there, as the experimental birds show, and what happened in evolution was that they got switched off.

It is referenced as “Cited by Pere Alberch, S.J. Gould, G. F. Oster and David B. Wake, ‘Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny’, Palaebiology, 5: 296-317, 1979”

The text continues:
Chromosomal mutations, then, can have a powerful effect, and what is more they crop up in the space of one generation. The major problem that they pose for the animal carrying them is that it will surely have a very hard time finding a mate.

That was 30 years ago!

Date: 2008/07/11 11:48:32, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 11 2008,10:08)
Quote (Ftk @ July 11 2008,09:54)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 11 2008,09:32)
FtK, have you considered actually studying the issue, then you might be better equipped to evaluate?

lol...luv, you have no idea as to the depth of studying and outside conversations I am involved in regarding the arguments your pals put forth.  

Nuf. said.

I've learned over the years that it doesn't matter what evidence is put forth if you're conversing with a group of  people who have closed off their ability to remain open minded because of their philosophical beliefs.

Sorry, let me be a little blunter, luv. You're simply not equiped to evaluate. I think you could be, if you put in the time.

I don’t know here to begin. Nothing you say makes any sense. And the “depth of studying and outside conversations I am involved in regarding the arguments your pals put forth.” suggests that you are not even making any attempt at studying the subject. IMHO, if you really were serious about studying and learninga little about the ToE, it would be a good idea to actually read some relevant literature, instead of wasting your time here and elsewhere about “arguments your pals put forth.”

Take the age of the Earth. Do you have any idea about what the evidence is? There are some excellent books on geology available – you could even take a 100 years old geology book and find plenty of evidence, from a time even before radiometric dating methods could confirm what geologists already had understood at least by the middle 19th century!

A person who tries to convince scientists that s/he knows and understands anything about science would not resort to being ‘open minded’ about the age of the Earth. That is at least cowardly; probably other things as well. Either science is right; the geological column, an established fact already 150 years ago, the fossil record and all – and they are many – methods of calculating, estimating and determining the age, not only of the Earth itself, but also objects found, observed and studied, shows without the slightest reason for doubt, that the planet is, guess? More than 4 billion years old!  

The age of the Earth and the solar system also fits very nicely with everything we know about the universe and its age. So what is your problem? Can’t you even find out what the facts are? What facts about the age of the Earth do you chose to disregard or claim are false – and what are your reasons for that?

What people like you are completely unable to understand is that the entire body of scientific knowledge assembled by mankind over the past 200 years, all the theories, all the methods, experiments, they all point to an unavoidable conclusion: The Earth is about 4.6 billion years old, and life has been on this planet almost all of that time. Life has been evolving ever since it started, and science knows of no reason why that could not happen without divine intervention.

Are you really so competent in the fields of physics and chemistry that you can rule out natural causes for not only abiogenesis, but also for evolution? I do not think you are, have not seen anything that can make believe you are anything but very confused.

How far from the truth am I when I believe that you, like Kurt Wise, have 1 – one reason why you reject science? Except Wise is a little more honest, he admits will be the first to accept the scientific evidence for the age of the Earth, but he nevertheless will  be a YEC, because that is how he reads the Bible. Interestingly enough, he even told his (IIRC, college) teachers that - before he possibly could have known much about the scientific evidence for the age of the Earth. That is how fundie bias works.

EDIT: Seems I must have done something wrong, my reply is of course directed at Ftk, but the quote boxes just doesn't seem right. Will take better care next time.

Date: 2008/07/11 11:56:16, Link
Author: Quack
So what is this open mindedness about the age of the Earth about? You just reject science when it is in conflict with faith, is that it?

Date: 2008/07/14 16:24:58, Link
Author: Quack
lol...luv, you have no idea as to the depth of studying and outside conversations I am involved in regarding the arguments your pals put forth.

Wow, this lady really *knows* stuff, uh?

Oh yes, I'm convinced, she even can quote Luskin!

it may be that she is no threat to me, but I consider people like that a threat to the world, if you get what I mean.

Date: 2008/07/14 16:39:47, Link
Author: Quack
Not found worthy to post at UcD, I just wonder here:

Is Dave saying that

1. As the planet gets hotter, it will evaporate more water.
2. More water will transport more heat away from the planet to be radiated into space.
3. Because of 1) and 2) the planet will get colder, problem solved?

Date: 2008/07/15 02:21:46, Link
Author: Quack
I am confused, but Ftk is not? Well, then she might perhaps help clear my confusion, even if she can't help herself:

What kind of creationism is ID? Is it Paley reboxed, Dembski , Salvador, or Behe's God of the Bible? I am confused - did God do it, or are we talking aliens from outer space?

If it is not creationism, what is it then? I want to know, I do not understand! Have anybody written a book presenting the solution to the riddle? The Discovery Institute?

Why are all the I-ists beating around the bush? What do they know? How many kinds of ID are there? Who is the designer? Was there more than one? Is the designer dead or is he/they still alive? Is all of the evidence for evolution irrelevant? Help!!!

If Ftk is sooo interested and fascinated with things she understand nothing of, why doesn't she buy the book(s) and do a thorough study instead of dragging her groundbreaking discovery here?

So she found a book interesting. Hint

Edit: typos.

Date: 2008/07/15 08:48:50, Link
Author: Quack
But you do have to look at the evidence with an open mind,

I may not have Ftk's magic way with words so my attempt may not quite match what she would scream at the top of her web-voice, but:

"Why, I am as open minded as can be, heck, I even believe in common design! Which of you morons can match that?" And so forth...

Date: 2008/07/17 11:30:05, Link
Author: Quack
I had a dream tonight. Seriously, no kidding: I was at a place, looking like university surroundings. People assembled around a table. I approached, found they were scientists. I apologized for butting in, went around to the other side, bookshelves there. A librarian busy there so I could not get at the books.

That’s all, but I guess the story told is as clear as water. It just occurred to me; a person like Ftk could never have a dream like that…

There are so many books I would have loved to read…

I don’t think she digs jazz either; I am just now listening to “Shakin’ The African” with Don Redman… (Recorded 1931)

Date: 2008/07/18 03:58:13, Link
Author: Quack
I sometimes get this eerie feeling, that some people have an uncanny knack of entirely missing the point(s). But as always I may be wrong, while insisting that I am right until proven otherwise.

Date: 2008/07/18 11:57:19, Link
Author: Quack
We've all seen you guys throw around the crank/liar/insane label often enough to know that you'll work at destroying her reputation as a journalist if she questions your theory.

Really? So we are a "we" now, huh? "We" haven't even been able to destroy your reputation as a crackpot yet...

Unable to see the difference between not having a clue, and just questioning "your theory"?

Is it too much to ask that people invest some time and effort to study 150 years of work by thousands upon thousands of scientists?

Who do you think you are, singlehanded to invalidate 150 years of science, without even looking at the evidence? Not to mention that when it is staring you in the face, you still don't see it.

Date: 2008/07/19 08:38:07, Link
Author: Quack
Dembski has a good pedigree: one of his Ph. D. advisors at U. Chicago was Leo Kadanoff, a renowned theoretical physicist and applied mathematician, …

Kurt Patrick Wise is an American young earth creationist with a degree in paleontology from Harvard University where he studied under the supervision of Stephen Jay Gould

What use are good schools, when (see my sig.):

Date: 2008/07/22 06:51:32, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (stevestory @ July 21 2008,21:55)
Quote (afarensis @ July 21 2008,19:42)
Having watched this thread from the beginning, I have no illusions about FTK.

You know who FtK is? She's Ruth-Anne Girolamo

That explains it; she will remain unconvinced until hell freezes over.

Date: 2008/07/23 03:05:28, Link
Author: Quack
The "dude" might not be sure what he's found but you are right? Whatever it is it's not a transitional fossil as they don't exist, right?

Please, Ftk, please don't let us down, I am dying to read your reply. You know, don't you?

Date: 2008/07/23 09:11:29, Link
Author: Quack
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

What I find interesting is that I am supposed to not believe in God's own Words

Would appreciate some evidence that the bible (that's what you are referring to, isn't it?) is "God's own words."

It isn't even "The Word of God", how could it be? Ref. St. John.

Date: 2008/07/25 03:14:26, Link
Author: Quack
Well, isnt every species a transitional anwyay, genetically speaking? AFAIK, there is something called point mutations, accumulating at a steady rate. They are use as a molecular clock, helping us determine the genetic distance between species. Correlating this with known date markers, they enable us to calculate the time elapsed since species shared a common ancestor.

Won't future generations be genetically different, speciation or not?

I don't know anything about genetics but it seems to me there must be some interesting possibilites there.

I suppose those who are working on untangling all the mysteries of genetics have some thoughts on this.

Date: 2008/07/27 07:17:06, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ July 27 2008,05:51)
Hmm. When more than one crank magnetic man assembles to a single webpage, the crank magnetism factor inreaces exponentially. Thus, UD is reaching critical mass with each new member. It already has pretty much every "scientific controversy", now that vaccines are on the table. Add the UFO stories & biblical prophecy discussions to the mix and the end is in sight.

With oral galvanism and anal magnetism the list should be complete.

Date: 2008/07/28 05:54:12, Link
Author: Quack
No new posts at t.o. since 25th, anybody know why?

Date: 2008/07/28 06:08:44, Link
Author: Quack
I suppose this is nothing new, but since we now have this Baumgardner thread, just for the record:

Interview with Baumgardner

Date: 2008/07/29 11:26:00, Link
Author: Quack
Seems you guys don't have proper copies of the Bible. In mine I find: "I wrote this Bible all by myself and your copy/translation is endorsed by me. Yours truly, Yahweh. (Countersigned by Moses.)

I see lcd has one of those too.

P.S. I have not found anyone able to verify the signatures for me yet, so my faith have a tendency to waver at times.

Date: 2008/07/30 03:14:47, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Alan Fox @ July 30 2008,01:22)
it's the abusive and repetitively boring nature of your posts that is at fault

To me this looks like just another case of the own-foot-shooting these guys are famous for; I find UD one of the most boring and annoying sites around. But it is true to form; see the splinter in your brother's eye.

Date: 2008/08/02 05:19:08, Link
Author: Quack
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin]

I respect PZ for his science but don't care for militant atheism. It serves no purpose and may be lumped with other expressions of militant idealism; they defeat whatever purpose that might be their aim.

Date: 2008/08/03 04:27:16, Link
Author: Quack
His only response was to smugly point out that I couldn't find any errors in his math, therefore he was correct...

Edited to add: Actually, this mode of thinking (whilst antithetical to most sciency types) is probably very easy to maintain for many people.

Well, while IANAS i still lay claim to being a rational person, and my take on this simply is math like


Since this means that C depends on whatever values I assign to A or B, I can get any value of C that I desire. The result will be just another example of GIGO.

How can "we" teach "many people" this simple fact? I believe schools may have something left to teach.

As a parallel to this, I just heard a news report about increasing reluctance to agreeing to organ donation from younger people in Sweden; they think they need their organs in the hereafter.

Edit: removed superfluous and erroneous word.

Date: 2008/08/05 16:28:19, Link
Author: Quack
I find it rather unpleasant, both WRT colour scheme and blog format Contents? I might just as well stick my tongue out the window.

Date: 2008/08/07 03:57:46, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (lcd @ Aug. 06 2008,20:16)
Just a note, as I can't edit my posts.

For the humor impared, when I put things in Italic Caps that means I'm being purposely sarcastic and trying to be funny.

Fine, but to avoid confusion, use  Italic Caps only.

Date: 2008/08/07 10:13:27, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (lcd @ Aug. 07 2008,07:10)
It's called faith.

I don't have evidence that you'd consider to be so for why I believe and think the way that I do.  What I'm looking for is science evidence that will back up my faith.

So yes all you ATHEISTIC EVIL NAZI-MARXIST WANNABES I'm looking for evidence to give to more than a few people I know and teach them a few things.


Just what is it you want to teach? Faith or facts?

Date: 2008/08/08 08:31:12, Link
Author: Quack
1:  I have noted with considerable distress that the science is mostly from non creationist sources.

Well, nobody expects science from creationist sources! Do you expect a Christian to worship Beelzebub?

2:  ID is a big tent that I fear has many issues, notably keeping many different faiths tied in under the guise of, "We don't need to know (wink, wink) who the designer is".

Which tells you?

3:  I am not looking for evidence to bolster my faith in God or His Word in our world.  I think that if others who don't have faith see God's hand in things then hopefully this world will be a better place.

Hoping in vain, faith in God has not improved the world much in historical times, so why now?

4:  I am looking for Positive Evidence FOR not Negative Evidence against something.  I am very aware that evidence one thinks disproves one thing does not bolster their own ideas.  Only evidence for one's position bolsters your idea.

It might be a better idea to study the evidence FOR what you are AGAINST. No evidence has ever been found for what you are FOR. That might be your clue; it doesn’t seem very probable that you will find it here nor anywhere else. The closest you may get is UcD, Paley’s, Dembski’s, Behe’s books, publications by the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International. If that should not be sufficient your last hope would be a visit to the creation museum might bolster your ideas. Please go ahead, they might convince you and you’d have peace of mind for the rest of your life. That’s what you want, isn’t it? All you may get here can only disturb your peace of mind!

I believe it is the attitude expressed by creationists that triggers the responses they don’t like.
It so happens that science today is a non-religious project; absolutely devoid of religious overtones. No trace of supernatural forces working in the material world. Sorry, but that’s the only conclusion that we can draw.

So we leave God, the Bible and all that stuff out of the discussion. That also means that creationism is not an option. Its level of importance is on a par with that of angels, demons, fairies and all the rest.

What’s left then is science, facts, fact-finding and interpretation of things that we do know and have good reasons to believe true; we have yet to find evidence of divine intervention in mundane affairs.

Talk science, and I would expect more agreeable responses might come your way.

Date: 2008/08/08 14:44:02, Link
Author: Quack
Hutu's and Tutsi's inspired by Darwin too? He must be rotating in his grave!

Date: 2008/08/11 16:37:50, Link
Author: Quack
I hope I can post this here on the BW:

I was approached by a lurker here, both with a PM and an email:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:45:35 -0500 (CDT) wrote:
> Email Generated by Ikonboard
> Quack,
> This email has been sent from guiguysjohn via Ikonboard.
> (
> -------------------------------------------------
> I have put together a short presentation on creation and
>I am wondering whether you might be interested in
>reviewing it?
> Thank you,
(name deleted)
> -------------------------------------------------
> Please note, Ikonboard cannot be held responsible for
>the content of this email

To which I replied:

From: ROLF <>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 2:49:04 AM
Subject: Re: Creation - A Historical Reality

Hi, I am sorry to disappoint you. I have some trouble listening to Youtube since my ears are not quite what they used to be. As a radio operator way back in my army days I was very good at interpreting what was said under difficult conditions, but now the high frequency/treble response is not so good.

A transcript would have been fine, but in this case I wouldn't even bother with that for the simple reason that your message is just the same tired old message that we hear from creationists all the time.

We have the bible, it is available for anyone to interpret according to his personal preference. When you have faith, nothing else matters. My slogan is: Where faith walks in, reason walks out.

One of the Bible thumpers favourite gotcha's is "Were you there?", to which I can only reply: Were you there when the bible was written?

The evidence for evolution is good enough, the Bible just is not relevant for science. There are so much creationist stuff out there alredy so you cannot possibly have anything new to say. You might as well put the Gettysburg speech, the declaration of independence, the constitution, Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream Speech or whatever on Youtube, it wouldn't matter.

So long, be happy you have a faith and can die with a smile on your lips.

And got this follow up:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 04:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
(name deletedet) wrote:
> If my scientists had put something together which
>violated the laws of fossilization I think I would want
>to know more.
> Here's the script.
> Have a nice day.
> (name deleted)
[the transcript deleted]

To which I replied:

Hi (name),
I'll gladly oblige; just scanning the document I found a glaring error:

The C-14 method is not used to date anything older than 50.000 years!

It is based on the fact that while C-14 is created all the time in our atmosphere by solar radiation, as soon as a tree or anything else dies and stops absorbing anything from the atmosphere, it's C-14 level will begin to drop at a rate determined by the half-life of C-14. This means that after about 50k years, the amount of C-14 left is too small to provide reliable data.

And for calibration, a number of methods have been employed that have enabled science to establish the reliability of the method. Whatever you have been told; I am a firm supporter of science and have no reason to think that scientists are not ("not" was inadvertently left out in my reply) really doing their best to ensure that the results of their work is as accurate as possible.

In addition, there are always a pack of other scientists at your throat if you miss something or make an error! There are laurels to be had for any scientist who can prove another fellow scientist wrong, mistaken or in error.

So please, do not make the common mistake of assuming scientists are stupid, ignorant and just interested in proving whatever they believe is true; They are constantly testing themselves and their theories!

I am not a scientist but I have been interested in science ever since I was eight years old and learned about the first 'live' coelecanth found in 1938 - a fish that had been thought to have been extinct for 50 million years. How I wondered how they could know or assume it became extinct 50 million years ago! But it did not for a moment occur to me to doubt that the species really had existed back then.

And nobody had told me anything about fossils or the age of the Earth yet - but I found out when I bought my first science book at 13, from money earned in my first job.

I am 78 now and think I know what I am talking about. And my brain is as good as new, or even better, stuffed with knowledge I didn't have at birth!

I forgot the main point: Radiometric dating is an important tool for dating object back millions or billions of years. Google if you need to know more. You will find answers to ALL the questions you may have, try the talkorigins archive. Creationists are making all kinds of accusations against the t.o. archive, but it is accurate as far as representing mainstream, peer reviewed science!

May this day have nothing but joy in store for you!



I hope he will follow my advice and ask for enlightenment on this board!

Date: 2008/09/06 11:14:11, Link
Author: Quack
A marvellous bit of venting, that. POTW surely?

Not that my vote count much, but a loud bravo! to Jack!

Date: 2008/10/09 04:43:48, Link
Author: Quack
Funny, as I woke up this morning, my brain started doing it's usual routine: Thinking. This time, it started thinking about how it seems the typical creationists, YEC's or ID'ists have on thing in common: absence of introspective capability.

It then went on to investigate various specimens, beginning with Dembski, Behe, Ray Martinez, Luskin, Salvador, moving on to more general reflections on the mental habitus of the crowd at UcD - and drawing conclusions based on our knowledge of the psyche of people like Emperor Nero, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mugabe, or Bokassa. Guess Haile Selassie and the last Shah of Iran also made a short appearance.

But mental aberrations are not reserved for celebrities of all sorts - they can be found not only in palaces but in the poorest shack as well. Although I think they are more common in the former.

Bottom line: It is not so much about what you believe, it is more about why you prefer to believe in crop circles, abductions by aliens, the "Roswell affair", scientology (I have read the "Bearded Messiah").

So much for having a brain that never leave you alone...

Date: 2008/10/10 06:25:06, Link
Author: Quack
It just struck me; hypothyroidism may still be one of the under-diagnosed ailments, and one that AFAIK is more prevalent in women.

My wife was not quite herself for a long time before the doctor found out; and I have come to suspect that was what troubled my mother for many years too; you should have heard her fits of rage. (Aimed at my father who may have deserved it, but why broadcast it for the entire neighborhood?) That she also had goiter points in the same direction, doesn't it?

I am a determinist; where there is smoke, there is  a fire.

Date: 2008/10/13 15:38:29, Link
Author: Quack
Glass-Steagall law was replaced by another law under Bill Clinton's presidency.

U.S. financial business spent several hundred millions of dollars in lobbying for the replacement of Glass-Steagall.

The purpose was to remove the distinction between investment banks and regular banks, and several fusions ensued.

The effect was that the new giant banks could lend far more money without increasing assets.

Voices were raised warning about the consequences that we see today.

I do not believe in a free market.

Edit: changed 'more more' to 'more'.

Date: 2008/10/13 15:46:57, Link
Author: Quack
OTOH, looking at life as if it is just the end result of a series of fortunate accidents is the ultimate dead end IMO.

How can we discriminate between phenomena that are the result of a "series of fortunate accidents" and phenomena that are NOT the result of a "series of fortunate accidents"?

Is the distinction detectable, how, and why?

Date: 2008/10/14 11:12:19, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (raguel @ Sep. 15 2008,12:17)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 14 2008,16:39)
OTOH, you Darwinists and your simplistic examples of evolution teach us nothing.  Everyone knows how evolution works, but you've gotta get past the 8th grade explanations about microevolution.  

I swear, at every lecture I've attended, Darwinists have talked about mice, moths, ice fish, finches....good grief, what the heck does that tell us?  We already know that microevolution is fact.  We're looking for the meaty stuff.  You know, the *facts* about *macro*evolution and the empirical evidence backing up those facts.

That's because,outside of paleobiogeography, morphology, genetics,evo-devo, and ERVs, and the consilience of evidence thereof, evolutionists got nothin'.

What is this micro vs. macro thing some people are complaining about?

If you slice the path of your car going from LA to Chigago thin enough, you will find that it moves only a millimeter or even less at a time. but nevertheless, in due time you will get to Chicago anyway! That is quite some macro movement - executed in micro steps, just as we find in evolution...

Date: 2008/10/14 15:17:45, Link
Author: Quack
I hope this quote from "The Jesus Mysteries" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy is brief enough that I may use it:

"Mystical Jews understood the Exodus as an allegory of spiritual initiation. The Jewish people start off as "captives" in Egypt, are "called out of Egypt" by Moses, and are finally led as the " chosen people" to the promised land by the prophet Joshua. Here then are the three stages of initiation we have already found in both Gnosticism and the Pagan Mysteries: the initiate is first a "captive" (a Hylic), then is baptized to become one of the "called" (a Psychic) and finally is initiated to become one of the "chosen" (a Pneumatic). Someone was regarded as "captive" while identified with his body and blind to his true spiritual identity. Egypt was seen as a metaphor for the body and to "come forth out of Egypt" was seen as symbolizing transcending identification with the body. The miraculous crossing of the Red Sea was understood as a metaphor for baptism by water. A baptized initiate was regarded as one of those "called" to make the spiritual journey."

Date: 2008/10/15 02:21:47, Link
Author: Quack
I'm predicting they'll never find the answer.

Seems to me science has a rather impressive track record of finding answers to questions and problems deemed 'improbable' ever since Aristotle. Who/what  says that has now come to an end?

Date: 2008/10/15 14:13:36, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 15 2008,12:59)
Oh dear.  My comment observing that the article didn't use Obama's middle name seems to have disappeared.  I'm sure I pressed "submit".

It has happened to me a couple of times too, but I cannot swear that I didn't click Preview instead of Submit.

Date: 2008/10/21 11:09:11, Link
Author: Quack
It is the mood of an angry identity group. The group could be vegans, transgendered people, the losers in a war, members of an impoverished ethnic group …

I can't help wondering what losers in what war that might be...

All right, we better look out for the transgender fascist movement lest they stage a putsch.

Date: 2008/10/22 05:40:53, Link
Author: Quack
The world is in such a bad state even today, that we really should take stock and begin rebuilding today. But we know that nothing will happen, wars, international competition for resources, shaky economical systems will be with us for the foreseeable future.

That's the way it is. But maybe, before worldwide famine sets in, maybe some sense eventually will find it's way into the minds of the world's leaders and a reconstruction may begin.

Worldwide famine? Heck, several billions even today are even lacking reasonable access to fresh water, acceptable sewage and waste handling, and I don't know the numbers of people suffering malnutrition.

IMHO, the single most effective measure would be to create a new monetary system. Prof. Dr. Margrit Kennedy wrote an interesting book about this, but it doesn't seem that anyone is interested.

Let's face it; man was and is an animal; his natural habitat is "the jungle", living in flocks of some 200 people, in constant struggle with neighboring flocks for territory and resources.

We are not made for civilization, and man-made systems and institutions cannot solve the problem because our instincts and behavior is that of a "jungle animal".

Just an opinion, I won't mention it again.

Date: 2008/10/22 06:00:49, Link
Author: Quack
I really wonder how long the secular paradise we have here in Scandinavia will survive. With constant, and probably even increasing immigration from remote cultures and religions, I believe we eventually may reach a condition where a dramatic shift may take place.

But it is not considered good form to discuss such matters, it is all being labeled racism byt the fundies, do-gooders, and enthusiasts for a "colorful" and  "multicultural"  community.

It is a fact that immigration so far has not been handled well. I don't know much about the subject, but I suspect that Switzerland is one of the countries that have been able to stay clear of the problem. And Finland, for some reason it looks like they haven't got their share of immigrants and asylum seekers.

I remember the good old days when we had only one asylum seeker; Leon Trotsky. He wasn't even allowed to stay - but in the end it would not have mattered, the GRU (Wasn't that before KGB?) wold have got him anyway.

Date: 2008/10/22 16:27:42, Link
Author: Quack
I'd tend to agree, but I don't see this as an excuse for fatalism and I don't see this as an excuse to make no effort to change things. The one thing does not follow from the other. It's the classic political non sequitur of the lazy and inept.

I'd disagree that the problem is insoluble by man-made effort, simply because we've solved many problems that way and have a demonstrable track record of success (and failure). It's still early days!

I'd very strongly agree that the currently existing, popular  man-made systems are inadequate for the task.


Agreed. I am not a fanatic about anything and yes, we may eventually come to grips with what i have termed "man's predicament." But we cannot know for sure; maybe our jungle legacy always will be our nemesis. But let's not despair; future generations may find  new ways. But I really believe the planet cannot sustain a 6+ billion population in the long run.

Date: 2008/10/22 16:29:17, Link
Author: Quack
I'd tend to agree, but I don't see this as an excuse for fatalism and I don't see this as an excuse to make no effort to change things. The one thing does not follow from the other. It's the classic political non sequitur of the lazy and inept.

I'd disagree that the problem is insoluble by man-made effort, simply because we've solved many problems that way and have a demonstrable track record of success (and failure). It's still early days!

I'd very strongly agree that the currently existing, popular  man-made systems are inadequate for the task.


Agreed. I am not a fanatic about anything and yes, we may eventually come to grips with what i have termed "man's predicament." But we cannot know for sure; maybe our jungle legacy always will be our nemesis. But let's not despair; future generations may find  new ways. But I really believe the planet cannot sustain a 6+ billion population in the long run.

Date: 2008/10/23 03:05:52, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 22 2008,18:28)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 22 2008,04:00)
And Finland, for some reason it looks like they haven't got their share of immigrants and asylum seekers.

I would assume they're all frightened off by the language.

PS: But they're missing this!

Ah, the Finns! They are a strange lot, with an unintelligible language with a lot of loong words, and a peculiar tango culture; people come together to do the tango - but that is all there is to it - as far as I have understood, there is nothing social about it, just the tango, and that's it.

But I am impressed by them, they really know how to manage a country! Obama, look to Finland!

Date: 2008/10/23 03:10:51, Link
Author: Quack
No details are given as to an actual evolutionary pathway,

Missing those pathetic details that even Dembski doesn't care about?

Date: 2008/10/23 03:59:19, Link
Author: Quack
Guess I am a fatalist too; we have no guarantee that man will be anything but a short intermezzo on the planet. The planet, so to speak, might be better off without him. And ultimately it will all come to an end anyway.

But it would be great if we all would realize that the best thing we can do in the meantime is eat, drink and be merry (doing science included), and do our best to give every soul on the planet a chance to do the same - without ruining "our habitat".

Date: 2008/10/24 03:34:54, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 23 2008,21:18)
What got me thinking about that stuff was another tard festival, one which i have less energy to post in detail like last week, but where a relative was making up the the current financial crisis was Bill Clinton's fault, and fannie mae and freddie mack were 90% responsible etc.

The lawmaking that made it possible was done under Clinton's presidency; but I believe Milton Friedman was the #1 public enemy responsible for laying the groundwork for both this and many other of the world's problems today. I also think Kissinger and some other prominent names deserve 'dishonorable mention' wrt the state of the world today.

Date: 2008/10/26 04:55:45, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 25 2008,19:00)
He is right that all the research is being done by the evolution side. IDers haven't proven able to do any.

Not able? It is more like not even interested.

Date: 2008/10/30 08:09:14, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 30 2008,03:11)
I'm bored out of my mind. There's nothing on the internet. So I pop over to YoungCosmos. Of course there's nothing new there, but I did grin at this bit:

YoungCosmos Discussion Forum

The discussion forum is a place for users to post topics of interest to them and to collaborate on long term projects. In a sense, this is the heart of the YoungCosmos mission to foster the conception and execution of cutting edge projects.

how's the 'heart' of YoungCosmos doing? When was the last post?

Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:55 am

Long Term Project FAIL.

What? No edges to cut?

Date: 2008/11/05 05:00:50, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (dnmlthr @ Nov. 05 2008,03:52)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 05 2008,09:12)
If your brain couldn't change, you'd be brain dead.  Err..

Aha! Take that atheist darwinist nazi neuroscience! Waterloo!

Creationists may perhaps not be brain dead, but seeing how they are unable to change their mind, doesn't that suggest they are mind-dead?

Date: 2008/11/07 03:55:22, Link
Author: Quack
The Old Lady is a mean tough bitch but she is dependable (or so we think....  nudge nudge wink wink yer free ticket outta here son hold on to it).

Buhuuuu, I once thought I was so smart, telling a creationist that "science is a demanding mistress", only to find when googling the metaphor today that it quite commonly used.

But anyway, I just love my mistress even though I have not given her all that I could and should have...

WRT Daniel I have tried to make my own analysis of his appearance here, there is something Ftk'ish about it, and I may eventually post it if I find it good enough.

I just wonder, I try to be critical about what I try to say, but it seems to me that some people just are letting it slip out the other end?

Date: 2008/11/08 16:17:31, Link
Author: Quack
it explains these similarities (I'd argue) better than the proposed evolutionary models.

May I chime in? Daniel, please, please do not stop at "I'd argue", please do argue, I am dying to learn what exiting news you have that finally will convince science - and me too, that Darwin and all the rest are wrong, have always been wrong, will never be right.

That ain't asking too much, is it? The ball is in your park now.

Date: 2008/11/10 04:35:05, Link
Author: Quack
i think this tells us all we need to know about Daniel:

"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

His position then seems to be
a) much of what we hold for true isn't so. That applies especially to evolutionary theory, but not to the bible.

b)The question of God is a scientific question; we have to search the answer by science.

Another clue is his declaration:  
I am definitely unmotivated

He is not interested, his only motive is to have his faith bolstered.
Which, I believe, is what drives most creationists.

While I am at it:
Natural selection has always been the Achilles heel of the ToE anyway: when something (such as the Krebs' cycle) is revealed to be the best of all possible solutions, it is said to be the work of selection, but when something isn't the best possible solution (windpipes, eyes, etc) it is also said to be the result of selection.  So everything whether it works right or not, is explained by selection.  Convenient...  

It seems he has not understood the basic fact about natural selection: It can only work through what is available for selection; it may perfect, less than perfect, or even poor, but still workable.
Sickle cell anemia comes to mind. So what's his point?  (Just rhetoric, the point is goddidit.)

Date: 2008/11/11 16:28:51, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (steve_h @ Nov. 11 2008,15:47)
I wonder if Barry the lawyer has ever wondered why the legal system that employs him exists. It seems to me that fear of judgement and punishment by other human beings plays quite an obvious role in keeping religious people as well as atheists in line

Which leads to the obvious question: Why do we all, atheists as well as believers judge and punish other people?  why are we not indifferent nihilists? How many atheists are nihilists?

And what about animals? They have no 'God', but they definitely are capable of moral behavior.

Date: 2008/11/12 04:56:53, Link
Author: Quack
Try reading for comprehension Bill.  My assertion is that it is impossible to fully explain the origin of any complex biosystem.  Apply details, fill in the blanks, consider the biological context and consequence of each proposed accident and the whole theory breaks down.

My layman's take: Don't we see a similar 'problem' at the atomic/molecular level? AFAIK, QM have not yet found answers to all the questions that we have; but that does not prevent physics and chemistry from working just the predictable way we have come to expect.

R. B. Laughlin in "A Different Universe - (reinventing physics from the bottom down)") make an interesting observation: "We also know that while a simple and absolute law, such as hydrodynamics, can evolve from the deeper laws underneath, it is a the same time independent of them, in that it would be the same even if the deeper laws were changed."

Date: 2008/11/14 03:50:31, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 13 2008,20:23)
Quote (Richard Simons @ Nov. 12 2008,22:27)
Who has ever claimed an accidental mechanism?

If it's not accidental, then what is it?

I understand that Daniel doesn't care replying to anything I write.

But I have to point out to him that by asking the questions that he do, he displays a sadly wanting knowledge and understanding of evolutionary theory.

It has been said that 80% of all questions are statements; in Daniel’s case it is more like about 100%.

The position he takes here is that science is all wrong; 150 years of evolutionary research is wrong, resting on false assumptions, badly conceived mechanisms – like the mechanism – while it doesn’t necessarily explain everything – of RM&NS.

And nothing could be simpler, even kids understand it. But of course, if you are not satisfied with a simple explanation, you have to go to the sources and really learn a little about genetics. And natural life. Why some individuals, or populations, are more successful than others in terms of leaving healthy and successful descendants.

As expressed by Vincent Sarich: I know my molecules had ancestors, the palaeontologist can only hope his fossils had descendants.

Daniels position is clear: God did it, and that’s it. While it may be good religion to believe that life originated with divine intervention, we have no scientifically viable grounds for thinking that. We have yet to learn anything that precludes natural causes.

But this debate is not about abiogenesis, it is about the causes and mechanisms of the observed biodiversity, the more or less gradual process of development from ‘primitive’ to more advanced species. We know a great deal about the geological and biological past of the planet and all that we know, and data from all our sciences point unequivocally to the conclusion: Life today is the result of a continuous process that had it’s beginnings more that 3 billion years ago.

The evidence for common descent and nested hierarchies is overwhelming – but of course a problem for anyone who dearly wants to believe in a god.

People like Behe or Dembski have tried to make a case for Divine intervention but with no success outside of circles that need a crutch for their faith.

I believe Daniel also is stuck with a strict reductionistic view of nature. But aren’t we done with reductionism? There is more to nature than meets the eye; but that doesn’t mean that a god is pulling the strings. Principles of self-organization that we do not understand are at work everywhere around us.

To quote R. B. Laughlin again:    
Since collective instability is emergent, it is reasonable to ask at what scale collective principles of organization begin to matter in life. … There is nothing preventing organizational phenomena from developing at small scales, but it is not generally possible to prove their existence because they are not yet exact. … There is considerable circumstantial evidence that both stable and unstable emergence occur already at the stage of individual proteins.

In November 1988 after the Nobel Price announcements the Swedish ambassador in Washington invited to a black-tie dinner. There, in his answer to the question “Is Einstein relevant any more?” Professor Laughlin said  “Even this room is teeming with things we do not understand.”

If Daniel had enough faith in the Bible he would not have to ask his questions, he would be at peace with God and the world. Instead, he is doomed to keep groping for confirmation and never will get the answer he so desperately is seeking.

Date: 2008/11/18 09:01:04, Link
Author: Quack
Wow, this really is the bathroom wall! (Started smoking in 1943, quit smoking in 1964.)

Date: 2008/11/18 16:13:22, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Nov. 18 2008,12:18)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 18 2008,07:01)
Wow, this really is the bathroom wall! (Started smoking in 1943, quit smoking in 1964.)

1943? Had they even invented tobacco by then?

A war was going on outside and tobacco was heavily rationed but in mysterious ways some trickled down to us from the Germans, I still remember reading from the cigarette boxes - this was in the days when flat cigarettes still were in vogue:

Warum ist Juno rund? Aus gutem grund ist Juno rund.

Besides, there were always the option of collecting German cigarette butts in cafe's.

When we could not get our favourite, a pack of Brinchman Stolz and roll our own...

Still kicking... Upgraded from Win2k to XP the other day, maybe Vista soon too. Or maybe Ubuntu.

Date: 2008/11/21 10:49:42, Link
Author: Quack
I found this via the link provided by Daniel very interesting but I just don't understand why there isn't any mention of God there?

[Edited for clarity]

Date: 2008/11/23 04:20:14, Link
Author: Quack
You don't have a clue what I believe about the bible (or anything else).  Don't make assumptions.  If you really want a sense of what I believe, go back and read all my posts in this forum.  Don't just breeze in mid-conversation and pronounce judgment.  It makes you look foolish.

I have no intention of going back to read all that Daniel has written, when all he's ever said can be distilled into

1. God did it.
2. Science will prove that.
3. Scientists do not know their stuff, he knows better, and they should adopt his point of view. And become believers like him.

I've finished half of the abiogenesis papers now and I must say that the thing that strikes me most about this subject is, quite frankly, the silliness of it all.

That looks like real foolishness to me. I sometimes (i.e. often) find it too difficult to write in English and this is one of the cases so I will leave it there.

Date: 2008/11/24 08:21:30, Link
Author: Quack
As Reed wrote:        
Life is adaptable. This is a well observed fact.

Right. Looking at how we find life everywhere we look on this planet ought to be evidence enough. When we consider how climate, temperatures and everything else on this planet have been undergoing constant changes as well as catastrophic events all through billions of years, without such adaptability it should not have been like that.

The truth is the current theory is powerless when it comes to explaining how any feature evolved - except in the most general sense.

"That is the truth" is a very strong statement. That is the truth. It is the truth that it is bad form that reflects unfavorably on someone who uses that expression instead of just saying it like it is, like "I believe that..." which would be much closer to the truth.

In my opinion, it is true that the current theory is very powerful when it comes to explaining how features evolved, even if it does not spell out each and every step involved. We know a great deal about how nature works and do not subscribe to the distrust of nature to the level of reductionism that the writer seems to adhere to.

It is however true and a fact that from believing that everything in the world was the works of gods, observation and scientific thinking have gradually replaced faith in gods with the understanding that both the universe as well as this planet and everything on it seems to be explainable as the result of the forces of nature. We may call them 'god', but they nevertheless are what they are: miracles of nature.

We have learned the real causes of thunder and lightning, rainbows, the sun's diurnal journey across the skies, the real nature of, and the movements of planets and stars. The heavens used to be seven perfect spheres and any thought of the Earth not being at the center of the world was a deadly sin.

The simple mechanistic view of nature that lies at the bottom of the creationist view that nature somehow is dead, soulless matter that just “is”, simply is untrue. The fact is that even if we know a great deal and understand a lot, there are still all kinds of mysteries all around us. Nature is far more 'alive' and capable than creationists are able to fathom.

I believe Daniel needs to reposition himself and realize that incredulity is not grounds enough to replace the theory of evolution with 'goddidit'. It also looks as if he makes little distinction between abiogenesis and evolution. To me it seems reasonable to keep the two subjects apart. We know how evolution works and have enough evidence. We think we understand how abiogenesis is possible and how it may have worked even if we have no direct evidence.

I also am of the opinion that it would be better if religion and preaching would be kept separate from the discussion of scientific issues, even when the platform is one of incredulity.

I also hold that even if I am only a fly in Daniel's ointment, he will have to suffer my presence here. I understand science much better than he does, and when it comes to religion I don't think he ever will reach my level.  

I have quoted Professor  Robert B. Laughlin before, and I think perhaps it might do Daniel good to read “A Different Universe":        
The idea that the struggle to understand the natural world has come to an end is not only wrong, it is ludicrously wrong. We are surrounded by mysterious physical miracles, and the continuing, unfinished task of science is to unravel them... In passing into the age of emergence we learn to accept common sense, leave behind the practice of trivializing the organizational wonders of  nature, and accept that organization is important in and of itself – in some cases even the most important thing.

Will we find, when unraveling more of the yet to be unraveled physical miracles that they are caused by God, or will we learn more about the wonders of nature?

Allright, I can't tell Daniel anything about the Krebs cycle and things like that but even so I think maybe words of wisdom is more like what he really need even if he doesn't understand that.

I do not see myself as part of the discussion between Daniel and science; I am an outsider looking at what I perceive as an absurd debate. It migh be better if Daniel would stop telling science how he thinks it is; there lies 150 years of science behind the current theory and it is rather unlikely that he should know better. All he can ask and hope for is that science eventually may help him to a better understanding.

He won't get an answer to his problem with God's place in the picture from science. The question of God is a question about spirit and not about the physical world. That is the lesson history has taught us.

The problem with monotheism is that it has equated the spirit in our soul we have named 'God' with whatever caused the origins of the universe and the physical world as we know it.

Do I detect a condescending tone?        
Listen carefully Bill:  Pointing out that intricate organization which is so far beyond the capabilities of nature that it requires intelligent agency

So you say – but I believe I already have addressed just that unfounded assertion.

Date: 2008/11/29 05:58:23, Link
Author: Quack
We are not done with debating "the controversy" yet, are we?
Seems God works in mysterious (or maybe not so mysterious) ways?

News from Carnegie Institution for Science
Webpage of Robert Hazen, on evolution of minerals
American Mineralogist, abstract

Date: 2008/11/29 07:25:55, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (JLT @ Nov. 29 2008,05:24)



4:37 am

Denyse is a Roman Catholic Christian journalist based in Toronto, Canada.

JLT thinks that speaking of yourself in third person is rather strange.

Especially when the person is one dimensional.

Date: 2008/11/30 08:09:01, Link
Author: Quack
I suggest Daniel ask Behe for the answers ho won't get here. Behe has the education Daniel is lacking, he believe God is the designer and needs no convincing. He may want to add Daniel's arguments to his own. Behe knows Intelligent Design. Here is Behe in something I believe i found in the archives of the ARN ID-forum many years ago:

From a transcript made at the DDD3 conference in 2002:

Question from the audience: I’d be interested in hearing you tell us a little bit about what your theory of intelligent design is, as opposed to what evolution isn’t.

Behe replies: Well, that’s a great question, and I know folks on the other side who are sceptical of intelligent design often get frustrated, but I try to be as conservative as I can and I don’t go out beyond what the data can support because I think overreaching is the bane of theories of design. You say that flagellum looks designed so everything is designed, or that everything that looks complex was designed, or something like that.

I think the short answer to your question is, for all of those things, I don’t know.

There not enough data. For the elephant, we have primelephus, the ancestral elephant of the Asian and African elephant, and mammoth. Well, could that happened by random mutation and natural selection? My instinctive answer is sure - it sure looks like it. It doesn’t look like any big deal.

The more careful answer, the actual answer, is I don’t know - cause I don’t know what’s involved in making one versus the other. I don’t know what molecular changes are necessary to make the small anatomical differences in those different species.

Suppose one believed that those things could have happened by natural selection, but maybe the origination of mammals needed some extra information - how would that have happened - how would the designer have done that? Would it have been, say, information embedded into nature at the big bang, or whenever nature started, or might it have been manipulations along the way, or some sort of input along the way?

The short answer is “I don’t know.”

Date: 2008/11/30 16:09:11, Link
Author: Quack
Isn't the development of a complete, complex body from just a single cell an example of what chemistry alone can accomplish without any outside help?

OK, the first cell in body development is special, but it nevertheless is just a cell, a descendant of the first cells ever to inhabit this planet some 3 to 4 billion years ago.

Is it really that difficult to understand how the forces of nature have caused some modifications to be incorporated in the descendants of the first cells?

Who knows all the possible pathways of evolution and can say with conviction that none of them are viable? Danny!

Date: 2008/12/01 04:51:29, Link
Author: Quack
Can we rule out that God in his infinite wisdom and knowledge, when creating the universe and already knowing the future just created the universe, leaving it to unfold just as he knew it would? With the result that the world we know  today just is the result of natural processes; that God already from the beginning knew what the result would be?

How can we put any limitations on what God can or can not do? Is he not capable of creating an universe that fulfills his dreams without his continued tinkering with it?

Date: 2008/12/01 10:28:01, Link
Author: Quack
Of course, that's not what Daniel and the IDiot Crew are proposing.

Right, my point is just that I can't see no reason why the alternative I am suggesting can be ruled out. That is, if one is religiously inclined and want that kind of God in his life.

I believe that there are lots of true, dedicated Christians who are very comfortable not only with their God, but also are at peace with the world, science and the theory of evolution.

Maybe not all of them, but I also think many don't even bother about the hereafter. They are more concerned with the here and now which AFAIK is the only time we will ever have. Isn't that what eternity (as a religious/psychological term) is all about?

WRT Daniel and others like him, we won't reach them with any argument. They will have to sort out their problems by themselves, but Pavlovian reflexes are not easily unlearned. They know what they have and are frightened of the void that letting go of ingrained faith would leave.

Date: 2008/12/07 05:38:08, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 07 2008,05:01)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 07 2008,10:49)
Clive asks a question      

I have to ask, why do people record our comments and post them on that website you linked?

Anyone?  Anyone?  Bueller?

We do it for the LULZ.

I had a real good one too!

I remember having come across this statement a couple of times:

"If you gotta know, you never get to know." Guess it applies to this case.

On a more serious note: US creationism export?

Date: 2008/12/07 09:29:14, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 07 2008,07:46)
God watched my little boy poop in his pants this morning.  That bastard didn't try to do anything to stop it either.  He never does.

Why would he? If you want to make a good shitter (or a good creationist,) you better begin early. Lessons learned early in life are hard to unlearn.

With our two daughters, long before they were one year old, my wife used to put them on a potty oftentimes when they were taken out of bed for feeding or whatever. They soon got the idea and did what they were supposed to do.

So, IIRC (that was about 50 years ago) they both were able to go without diapers before 12 months old.

But those same two daughters, when they had children of their own found it  easier to let such things sort themselves out - which they eventually did.

Date: 2008/12/09 11:52:19, Link
Author: Quack
Asked whether the Bible was literally true, Bush replied: "Probably not. No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it."

"The important lesson is 'God sent a son,'" he said.

According to my sources, we are all of us the sons of God.

Date: 2008/12/09 17:02:39, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 09 2008,14:06)
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 09 2008,10:52)
Asked whether the Bible was literally true, Bush replied: "Probably not. No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it."

"The important lesson is 'God sent a son,'" he said.

According to my sources, we are all of us the sons of God.

Does this mean that God is a DNA-based organism? ;)

Do we know any other organism capable of doing the lab work required to create life? :O

Date: 2008/12/10 01:39:29, Link
Author: Quack
I've tried to draw attention to aspects of physics that Daniel - and creationists in general, seems to be absolutely unaware of. Nor interested in. That figures, knowledge creates problems for creationism.

As far as I have been able to find, all creationist arguments resolve into the god-of-the-gaps 'theory'. That situation is going to last forever. As has been pointed out so often, each new discovery creates two new gaps.

But anyway, especially for Daniel: Link

Date: 2008/12/11 04:30:47, Link
Author: Quack
I suppose that to Daniel I am just an alley cat among the ermines. But he’ll have to suffer my presence here anyway.

Paley’s watch

If you find a body, you won’t for a second think that it was made. You know already that it was born, after having grown from an egg, a single cell.

You know that is the process whereby all bodies are made. And you understand that the process must have been repeated over and over again since the first body was ‘made’. But wait, isn’t there something called genetics? Descent with modification?

I predict: Bodies have not always looked the way bodies look today. Test: We study the past; dig up remains of bodies from times long before this. (We actually did, my prediction confirmed.)

All life is equipped with genetic coding and mechanisms for interpreting the code, rebuilding itself and propagating the code. Watches are not genetically coded. Watches are not cellular. Watches are manufactured. (manus – the hand, facere – to make.) Are bodies manufactured? More predictions: You won’t ever find copulating and reproducing watches.

Daniel must be happy and content now that he have had his say and have got his faith that theology beats science affirmed.

I just want to know how we may benefit from coupling (again) the tools of science with theology.

Meanwhile, everything I learn about biology confirms my faith in God.

Great, the opportunities for confirmation of your faith (did it need confirmation?) today are greater than ever. Why don’t you begin by reading the books that have been recommended for you? My recommendation would be “Endless Forms Most Beautiful” by Sean B. Carroll. My heart overflows with love for the Creator whenever I read it. Am at about my fourth reading now.

Date: 2008/12/11 04:35:21, Link
Author: Quack
Slow down young Jedi what about Heddle?

Oops. I am afraid Heddle has only been sighted at the periphery of my kaleidoscope. Maybe I will shake it up again.

Date: 2008/12/13 09:54:07, Link
Author: Quack
It's the same Ray, and he's still posting to t.o.

Wow! Before reading that, I thought it looked like a real good parody... Well, Ray is a parody.

Anyway, he isn't that much of a newbie; he's been banned there before. This might be fun!

Date: 2008/12/15 12:25:38, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 15 2008,11:26)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 10 2008,19:21)
Meanwhile, everything I learn about biology confirms my faith in God.  Paley was right - you can learn a lot about God by studying his creation.

your god evidently loves beetles, it sure made alot of them.

your god evidently could not decide how old the people it created would live, as after breeding age they tend to fall apart a bit. bit of a short term memory problem perhaps?

your god evidently likes to see people suffer, especially children and babies.

your god evidently is a fan of cancer, 1 in 3 people will get some kind of cancer.

your god is therefore inept.

I rather think his God is insane; in the news today that during the last ten years, 1000 new species have been found in the Mekong River region. How many more are still waiting to be found around the planet?

He must be obsessed; every spot on this planet should have not just life, but species galore, even kilometers down in the rocks. No wonder he had to take a rest after six days of creation!

Date: 2008/12/15 16:04:12, Link
Author: Quack
Main difference is, the Japanese soldiers managed to keep their honor and integrity.

They had it to begin with, difference is they never had.

Date: 2008/12/18 05:23:47, Link
Author: Quack
take some time and learn how nature built intricate organization into things.  Then come back and make an informed argument.

While the recommendation is not addressed at me; I hope Daniel will be kind enough to tell me where and how I can learn how nature built intricate organization into things.

At present, I am stuck with what people like Nobel laureate Robert B. Laughlin (A Different Universe) and others write about how the real world behaves, but from what you write it seems that we should not listen to science, so where is your recommended starting point for the study of nature, and to learn a little about how nature actually works?

Or is the idea that we cannot learn how nature works, since there is God operating in the universe, doing things that we cannot detect? If that is what you say, can we ever learn anything about it, or are doomed to for ever admitting "We do not know anything, God works in mysterious ways"?

Will I get a reply?

Date: 2008/12/18 16:12:05, Link
Author: Quack
The fact that you are beginning to characterize such a falsification as impossible lends credence to my assertion.

We are quite familiar with that kind of arguments; they are Ray Martinez's main mode of arguing against evolution.

Date: 2008/12/20 07:43:29, Link
Author: Quack
The level of discourse at UD is distressingly juvenile (that's also often true of the discourse here, but at least you guys do it intentionally)

I don’t find it “distressingly juvenile” here. I find it rather refreshingly juvenile. Revealing the position of people who can afford to express their sense of humour and confidence in what they are doing because they know what they are doing. A relieving attitude in such stark contrast to the deadpan, humourless but involuntarily comical façade of the largely faith-based expressions of ID-ism.

(Isn't man actually an immature ape, still able to monkey around?)

Lack of humour is a sign of stupidity.  

WRT  the subject of grue/bleen I better not express any opinion.

Date: 2008/12/22 10:16:44, Link
Author: Quack
OK, so he isn't Dembski. But do we know that he can't be "Mike Gene"? I see too little of what I'd expect to see as background?

Popping out of the blue, a full fledged blog/newsgroup junkie?

Date: 2008/12/22 16:11:58, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Missing Shade of Blue @ Dec. 22 2008,14:51)
Yes, but what is your shoe size?

There is a reason I didn't mention this. I'm ashamed. I'm a size 18, which means I can only wear clown shoes.

On the bright side, though, you know what they say about guys with big feet... That's right, if our arms fall off, we can still pick our noses.

My oh my, you even got humour! That bodes good, too bad I am too lazy or too dense to engage in the debate. A belated happy solstice to you too!

Date: 2008/12/24 09:26:18, Link
Author: Quack
FWIMBW: Let's assume that it is true that evolution works by extinction of the less fit. In the absence of predators, poisons, dangers - and abundant supply of food, mating partners and so on +++ - everyone is fit to survive. Until disaster strikes or the inevitable bottleneck occurs.

Isn't that what the records show?

Date: 2008/12/25 05:45:14, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 25 2008,00:20)
Davey weighs in on the Lengthgate scandal:





10:56 am


Your comments far, far exceed the average length here. You claim that “serious and responsible” responses require that length.

By implication you are saying that people who make responses in tens or hundreds of words instead of thousands are not serious and not responsible.

In point of fact you are the irresponsible party unwilling to muzzle yourself for the sake of almost everyone else who has the common courtesy to not spam the comments here with such long winded bloviation. Get over yourself.
KF replies:    
blah, blah blah ...
blah, blah, blah ...I am actually only intervening because of a recent crisis on the site with implications for the wider Design movement.
KF = Savior of UD

KF need not worry as long as it about just the "wider Design movement" as long as it is not about the theory and research of ID. ( Is this where I should add "Snicker, giggle"?)

Date: 2008/12/25 13:30:45, Link
Author: Quack
(I hope I am not derailing the thread. ;) )

I actually wrote an essay this morning in an attempt to pull the discussion over into the realm of reality, but when I finished off by writing those same words, I pulled back...

Date: 2009/01/01 09:12:47, Link
Author: Quack
Somebody (investors, stockbrokers/real estate brokers …?) ran a car into one of the state owned liquor stores in Oslo the night before New Years eve and got away with the store’s supply of the best quality magnum champagne bottles – priced at up to 27000 NOK ($3500)/bottle.


I suppose they are addicted to the stuff, gotta have it, job or no job…

Date: 2009/01/02 15:41:57, Link
Author: Quack
myself am no scientist.  As far as formal training, I'm more than ignorant.  What little I know has been self taught. I spent a lot of time on the newsgroup sharpening my views, but my positions are not set in stone.  I have not yet decided what I think really happened in the "history of life" on this planet, but I am convinced of one thing: whatever happened was by design.

As one non-scientist to another - maybe you don't read the right books? My experience as a 78 year old man is that creationist sources are absolutely unreliable. To quote a bona fide creationist and scientist, palaeontologist Kurt Wise: (From the t.o. archive)

... another honest statement by young-earth creationist Wise is pertinent here:
"Most creation science is garbage" (quoted in an interview in Hitt 1996).
Wise has expounded:
"This gets me in a lot of trouble with a lot of creationists, ... the material that's out there is—uh, I'll hold back and be nice—garbage. It's really atrocious" (quoted by Mayshark 1998).

And oh yes, whatever you might think, ID is creationism. If you have I sincere interest in learning what science actually says I'll gladly suggest further reading for you; books written by scientists for the general public, but strictly factual and IMHO, very interesting, entertaining, good reading.

I don't expect that reading such books will change your mind about creationism but you might perhaps realize that the chances of ID ever becoming an alternative are very slight indeed.

I have done a lot of thinking about why ID is bogus but I have yet not been able to write down the results - I am not a good writer, and find it beyond my capability to do it in English and I probably also would find it too difficult in Norwegian.

Date: 2009/01/06 02:10:47, Link
Author: Quack
I've pointed out that - while it certainly would take the knowledge of God to make front-loading successful, that doesn't mean that all of that information must be present within a front-loaded genome.  All that is necessary is for the genome to have some kind of switches and mechanisms to deal with various environmental challenges.  I used the example of the immune system in response to this.  The difference between this and selectionist evolution is in the mechanism for evolutionary change (prior to selection).  This proposes a designed evolutionary mechanism while selectionist theory proposes a chance-based mechanism.

I presume that in order to conceive of front loading as successful that it has to have a goal. What would that goal be, and how would the front loaded hardware be able to handle the problems of extinction, say , with the path to homo sapiens being terminated at any of the many bottlenecks in its evolution?

What is wrong with  
a chance-based mechanism
- considering that apparently random mutations have been observed without any sightings of God's hand?

Where do you think this massive attempt of yours at replacing 150 years of solid science with what essentially is creationism repackaged leads? What's your goal?

Even as a non-scientist I have no problem seeing that you are leading us down a blind alley. IMHO; a better place for your ideas would be Telic Thougths where you can join forces with Salvador Cordova; together you might reach the critical mass required for your hypothesis to weigh enough to make an impression.

Date: 2009/01/08 04:36:04, Link
Author: Quack
In all editions of Origins after the third, Darwin wrote:  
The periods during which species have been undergoing modification, though very long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which the same species remained without undergoing any change.

Edit: Source of quote: Gribbin & Cherfas, "The First Chimpanzee", 2001.

Date: 2009/01/08 15:36:20, Link
Author: Quack
Ejaculatio præcox?

Date: 2009/01/10 05:34:39, Link
Author: Quack
I've tried and tried but I give up every time; I realize words are of no use. I guess we only can say
"... The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

R P Feynman

and that's that.

Date: 2009/01/10 08:35:45, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 10 2009,06:09)
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 10 2009,11:34)
I've tried and tried but I give up every time; I realize words are of no use. I guess we only can say        
"... The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

R P Feynman

and that's that.

True. I wonder if someone's used that in their signature yet. It would seem a relevant and pithy quote....


P.S. D'oh!

It's so damn appropriate; I couldn't resist. I wanted to make my point very clear so I left out the first part though, but now maybe is the time to emphasize what I left out:
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself

But of course there's a place for magic in this world, like in Las Vegas.

BTW, I've enjoyed few books as much as "Classic Feynman"
My wife kept asking all the time while I was reading it "What's so damn funny?"

And while I am at it, not in any way wanting to compare myself with Feynman, but I was struck by our parallel "careers", starting as a kid with chemistry, moving on to radio and electronics, and later to office machines.  :D

Date: 2009/01/11 04:44:21, Link
Author: Quack
There are many kinds of replies that could be made WRT front loading, I picked this one at random (WTF, random?) Isn’t frontloading just another word for the Theory of Everything? According to Bryan Appleyard in “Understanding the Present”:    
Applied with superhuman patience and determination, they* could predict that a particular snowflake would fall on a particular blade of grass or that you would be reading this now.

(*they = the equations of The Theory of Everything that provide a mathematical model for the entire history of the universe which, according to Hawking, would enable us to “know the mind of God.”

I expect a warm thank you from Daniel for this...

Date: 2009/01/11 05:02:52, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (khan @ Jan. 10 2009,09:39)
Quote (Aardvark @ Jan. 10 2009,09:45)
ftk has updated her blog with an admitted c & p from Creation Safaris (?).

Is there some law that requires creationists to have unintelligently designed websites?

Yes, I think the 'court jester law' is true; whatever they say or do; court jesting will kick in spoiling their act.

(Hope my attempt at metaphoricism works.)

Date: 2009/01/13 05:49:51, Link
Author: Quack
I came here to challenge and to have my views challenged and so far, it's been productive for me.  I've brought my own philosophy into sharper focus through our exchanges here.

That's what I have thought all the time, you didn't come here to learn. Heaven knows you could do with some learning. Your barrage of quotes and references is no substitute for honest study of the facts of evolutionary theory. Has the age of the Earth been resolved yet?

Date: 2009/01/15 03:14:43, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 14 2009,18:51)
Andrew Sibley: For God’s sake, have Charles Darwin’s theories made any difference to our lives? - It is the bicentenary of Charles Darwin’s birth but creationists and scientists alike may spoil the party

A number of interesting points come out of this article by Bryan Appleyard.

No, they're just the usual rehashed ID arguments, complete with glaring contradictions.
Do you feel better or worse for the news that a gibbon is your close cousin? Do you even believe it, deep down? Some folk certainly don’t... All Darwin said was that random mutations occurred in organisms.

Common Descent is much, much more than "all Darwin said was random mutations".
All Darwin said was that random mutations occurred in organisms... He knew nothing of genes ...

Darwin didn't know about genes, so he didn't know about random genetic mutations.
... and he had not shown how perfection emerges.

There is no perfection in biology, but a tradeoff between various constraints.
And, finally, although Darwin showed micro-evolution – most famously in the variations of the forms of the beaks of Galapagos finches – his leap to the conclusion that this proved macro-evolution (species transforming into other species) was a leap of faith.

No. It was a well-reasoned scientific theory that led to  generations of work largely confirming and extending his original insights.

And, of course, Hitler Hitler Hitler.
This reached its deathly climax, via the work of the German biologist Ernst Haeckel, in Hitler’s statement of intent, Mein Kampf.

I get a distinct feeling this Appleyard fellow isn't quite as smart as he thinks. Pretending to understand science, he wrote "Understanding The Present" ('An Alternative History of Science') - a verbose critique of science, ambiguosly hailed by James Lovelock with "its' a fine book as well as easy to read." I am at a loss for words.

Date: 2009/01/15 03:22:12, Link
Author: Quack
Michael Behe: It’s pertinent to remember here the central point of The Edge of Evolution. We now have data in hand that show what Darwinian processes can accomplish, and it ain’t much.

"And it ain't much" - I just love how Behe always reveal how he ain't doing science, he is doing Göbbels.

Date: 2009/01/16 05:09:56, Link
Author: Quack

The majority are usually just empty headed sheep anyway. The majority just loves pablum. Always has, always will.

You said it, you eat it; US majority have chosen creationism.

Date: 2009/01/17 03:37:16, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Nils Ruhr @ Jan. 16 2009,14:39)
Behe has kicked Miller's ass

Miller will never recognize his own failure, since he's too proud (dogmatic).

Since I don't know quite how to properly "fix it for you", I just have to point out that in my opinion, it should rather have read "Behe will never recognize..."

IANAS, but my initial reaction to DBB when I first read it in 1996 was a strong sense that here way a guy that I was not prepared to believe.

History has proven me right; unless I am too dogmatic, science has shown why Irreducible Complexity and Complex Specified Information are little more than fancy terms designed to impress the gullible.

Behe struck me as someone more like being on a mission than a scientist. And we know that he is; he has made it clear that he thinks the designer is God. Wishful thinking is probably not the best approach for doing science. But then we know that Behe is not doing proper science as we know it, his definition of science includes things like astrology.

This passage from p233 of DBB forever etched in my mind stands out as a prime example of the sort of kitch/camp Behe is capable of producing; making me very suspicions about his entire enterprise:

The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell - to investigate life at the molecular level-is a loud, clear, piercing cry of "design!"  The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. The discovery rivals those of Newton and Einstein, Lavoisier and Schrodinger, Pasteur, and Darwin. The observation of the intelligent design of life is as momentous as the observation that the earth goes around the sun or that disease is caused by bacteria or that radiation is emitted in quanta. The magnitude of the victory, gained at such great cost through sustained effort over the course of decades, would be expected to send champagne corks flying in labs around the world. This triumph of science should evoke cries of "Eureka!" from ten thousand throats, should occasion much hand-slapping and high-fiving, and perhaps even be an excuse to take a day off.
But no bottles have been uncorked, no hands slapped. Instead, a curious, embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. When the subject comes up in public, feet start to shuffle, and breathing gets a bit labored. In private people are a bit more relaxed; many explicitly admit the obvious but then stare at the ground, shake their heads, and let it go at that.
Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling discovery? Why is the observation of design handled with intellectual gloves? The dilemma is that while one side of the elephant is labeled intelligent design, the other side might be labeled God.

Date: 2009/01/17 09:25:13, Link
Author: Quack
Recently, at the Post-Darwinist, I have received many posts from Darwinists who protested my mentioning the fact that the recent school shooting in Finland was driven by social Darwinism. Some of them have resolved never to read my blog again as a result.

What? Darwinists who are not tardoholics?

Date: 2009/01/17 16:32:23, Link
Author: Quack
It's true. When she wrote about Pekka Eric Auvinen for the first time I left a neutral comment on her blog. Then she wrote some more about the issue. I wagered it best not to express my thoughts any further, as they are anything but productive. I haven't visited her blogs since.

Right; the nausea can be overwhelming.

Date: 2009/01/17 16:49:31, Link
Author: Quack
What really boggles my mind is why you all remain so snooty in the face of your utter failure to even comprehend how evolution works.

Do you? I'll elaborate: Just what is your comprehension of evolutionary theory? I am not asking you to believe what science says, but what does it say? Have you studied some books that might give some insight in the current standing of our knowledge? Evolutionary theory rests on data from so many fields of science; it takes a little more than the incredulity of a clueless creationist to overturn it.

The overview of evolution as you see it that you are presenting tells it all.

Date: 2009/01/18 09:29:27, Link
Author: Quack
If using STOVOLD, no. If using the Swedish STØVÖLÐ,then of course yes.

FYI: Ø: Norwegian and Danish, not Swedish
      Ö: Swedish, German, and ?

Date: 2009/01/20 01:54:31, Link
Author: Quack
It all just seems incredibly planned to me.

Really, All of it?

Date: 2009/01/22 06:38:33, Link
Author: Quack
Can Daniel identify his God? We don't get much help from the Bible, it says things like        
And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?

And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM

Interestingly enough, the Bible identifies one god by name: Yahweh. But the context tells us that he is just a tribal god, the warlord of the Israelites.

Aside from all that, people just assign whatever characteristics they like to their particular mental image of God, violating the principle of not making images of God.

I see the spirit of God everywhere; what I don't see is God like a magician; some super version of David Copperfield.

Somebody once told me that he had read Kurt Vonnegut referring to God as "God the utterly indifferent" and I think that is as good a description as any.

But none of that is of any help identifying Daniel's god...

Date: 2009/01/22 15:00:54, Link
Author: Quack
It's a matter of his level of knowledge versus ours.  We can understand some of it, but we'll never understand most of it.  It's above our level.
If we can reconstruct a completely natural pathway for the origin of some intricately organized system, God is no longer required.

Upon reading this; I immediately went into Eureka! mode:

His god of course is the supreme one, our God of the Gaps.

Date: 2009/01/25 09:09:03, Link
Author: Quack
RB said

If I dare offer my opinion:

Every action taken by man is an expression of the tendency to remain and stay alive. That extends across the entire spectrum, from copulation to suicide.

Copulation is obvious - even if it may not actually contribute to the survival of the perpetrating couple; it has the potential of propagating their genes, and that is survival.

At the other end of the spectrum we may wonder about suicide, but the connection is: Suicide in most cases is the solution to a more or less existential problem. The problem is effectively solved, albeit with the undesirable side effect of also terminating that particular life, a fine example of the truism that you can't both eat your cake and keep it too.

But that's life.

When people's behaviour doesn't always seem to correspond with the formula it is because we cannot read people's minds, we have no means of determining the causes of any particular act. Man is not guided by his genes and instincts only, we are the victims of heavy conditioning and indoctrination whether we like it or not.

It is pretty obvious that someone like Denyse is absolutely incapable of understanding subjects of this complexity - they require a mind with at least a rudimentary capacity for subtlety. (I am not satisfied with the wording but it is the best I can manage right now. Maybe I should have hit Escape right now...)

Date: 2009/01/26 12:44:36, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 25 2009,09:57)
 On this view, there is no necessary contradiction between explanations at the individual, cultural, and evolutionary levels; all may, and oftentimes must, operate simultaneously in human behavior.

I agree. Not much disagreement between us.

Date: 2009/01/27 10:49:43, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 27 2009,08:34)
*See! It happens all the time.

OK, as long as it isn't just to take a leak.

Date: 2009/02/02 03:55:30, Link
Author: Quack
It is my contention, Bill, that only God can build such systems.  Only an omniscient being could take into account all the variables necessary to make a living organism from earthly chemicals.  Your silence - and the silence of science - confirms my contention.

Well, alright then: Case settled. You are convinced, what more can you possibly ask for? No need to ask here, you already know that in your heart, don't you?

You also should know that you never will convert one single scientist to share your superstitious faith in the occult and supernatural.

Your faith has been confirmed now, hasn't it? Science has not been able to meet your challenge. Be happy you've got faith, religion, God and all that. And leave scientists to go their own way towards oblivion, hell, eternal fire or whatever - they don't deserve better, do they?

I note however that so far you have not been able to show any foundation for your faith in knowing definitely, without a trace of doubt, the limitations to what natural processes may lead to - except your faith.

May your God be with you  - I know mine is with me!

Date: 2009/02/07 05:06:43, Link
Author: Quack
I could be wrong.  It's possible that there is no God and that all life accidentally appeared through sheer luck and coincidence.
I'm open to that possibility, but it's going to take a heckuva convincing case to make me switch to that position.

That's a creationist’s narrow-minded view. May this layman suggest that the world is not ruled by "sheer luck and coincidence" whatever that is supposed to mean but rather works according to what is commonly referred to as natural laws.

To qoute Robert B. Laughlin again:
Nature is regulated not only by a microscopic rule base but by powerful and general principles of organization. Some of these principles are known, but the vast majority are not. New are being discovered all the time. At higher levels of sophistication the cause-and-effect relationships are harder to document, but there is no evidence that the hierarchical descent of law found in the primitive world is superseded by anything else. Thus if a simple physical phenomenon can become effectively independent of the more fundamental laws from which it descends, so can we. I am carbon. But I need not have been. I have a meaning transcending the atoms from which I am made.

I may be wrong but I believe Daniel needs a huge dose of general science that he is not prepared to take. He will have to live with both his doubts and his convictions. They go hand in hand.

Date: 2009/02/11 04:57:04, Link
Author: Quack
I wish I could express my opinion using a lot of words but I find that too difficult and time consuming so I'll limit myself to just one simple, basic observation that I believe those two leaves of the same tree, Daniel and RFJE ought to consider:

The theory of evolution is like an onion. You need to burrow from the outside to get to the core. I believe that's the gospel truth about evolution - you'll never understand it if you start with complex subjects like cell chemistry - not to mention the origins of the first cell, aka abiogenesis.

Assuming that you and I are just results of biochemistry, then what chemical process took place in you to motivate you toward science?  I am completely sincere, this is an honest question?

The question may be sincere and honest, but it also is completely absurd. IMHO, it shows however that you have a lot of homework to do before you know what you are asking for. You just are not ready. We all need to learn to crawl before we learn to walk. I've been crawling for 70 years but I can do some steps too...

Another point: A honest and sincere quest for the truth about evolution requires an open mind, where God and religion is put aside. As long as God stands in the way, no comprehension is possible.

So my best advice is, leave God out of your thinking when you study scientific issues, let them speak for themselves without intervention from God. Can you do that?

OTOH, the Holy Spirit of Truth is a fine companion, trust it! Speaking of spirit, do God, or spirit, really move atoms and molecules? Or are they obeying the laws of nature - about which we still have an awful lot to learn? About which we never may know all we would want to know. Will we ever be able to untangle the sobject of Complexity? Who understands quantum mechanics? Maybe it is a bit premature to proclaim the ToE invalid? What is God, is 'he', or rather it,  a tinkerer, messing with everything in the world, or is it more like a spirit pervading the universe?

Anyone who really knows, please speak up, show us the evidence.

The creationist's problem is not so much about science as it is about psychology, religion and philosophy. And then some.

Well, I managed a few words more than I though I could...

Date: 2009/02/11 10:11:55, Link
Author: Quack
The bigger question even than that is "HOW is the mind a product of the physical and chemical processes of the brain?".

Don't we know darn well from a lot of experience that 'the whole is more than the sum of its parts', and that that is more true than ever when we are talking about the human brain; the most(?) complex organ in the universe?

Date: 2009/02/11 10:30:12, Link
Author: Quack
I wish I could have shown the cartoon I saw many years ago in an American magazine - I even cut it out and hung it over my desk; the drawing shows a man lying on the sidewalk, obviously a salesman having been thrown out from a shop or office, the bubble addressing the man in the doorway: "I'll drop by next week" or maybe "See you again next week" or something like that, whatever would be appropriate American idiom.

Edit: improving text.

Date: 2009/02/11 15:42:39, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 11 2009,14:27)
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 11 2009,10:30)
I wish I could have shown the cartoon I saw many years ago in an American magazine - I even cut it out and hung it over my desk; the drawing shows a man lying on the sidewalk, obviously a salesman having been thrown out from a shop or office, the bubble addressing the man in the doorway: "I'll drop by next week" or maybe "See you again next week" or something like that, whatever would be appropriate American idiom.

Edit: improving text.

I think that would be "Screw you later, fuck you very much!"

I may have been unclear - I did edit the text to make it clearer, and I trust the reason that image entered my mind and got posted here and not anywhere else is clear as well...

Anyway, you demonstrate the huge effect of a few well placed improvements.

Date: 2009/02/13 04:06:20, Link
Author: Quack
Daniel, whether you have been less than respectful and polite or not towards RB, Louis and the rest here, maybe you should consider the fact that your entire approach, with lengthy quotes, sermons and some rather dubious/irrelevant statements are by themselves a gross insult that expose ignorance not only about evolution but also a confusion stemming from your expressed goal: To have your faith and religious beliefs confirmed.

If you had faith you would not need confirmation from science. something like 'Doubting Thomas' comes to mind.

You are reaching for the moon but it still is 300.000 km away.

Have you listened to suggestions about what you should read?

The first thing you should know and understand, if you want to  engage scientists in debate is to leave your god out of it. Is that too much to ask?

I know they couldn't care less, nor is it relevant. Nor are your motives, the only thing that counts is: Do you want to learn? Do you want to understand? You ought to know by now that you won't get the answer you desperately are seeking here.

You have been treated with much more respect and patience than I think you deserve, even more than you have shown yourself. Your entire collection of postings is an insult to science and its representatives.

See, all you ever might obtain is an understanding of what science knows, what it says - but that would not solve your problem.

As a Gnostic, I can only laugh at your problem, I don't even feel sorry for you. Humility is not one of your Christian virtues, is it? Reminds me of Ray Martinez. Had English been my language I might have taught you a real lesson.

But words are wasted on you.

In his preface to "The Wisdom of Insecurity" (1954), Alan Watts wrote:

This book is written in the spirit of the Chinese sage Lao-tzu, that master of the law of reversed effort, who declared
that those who justify themselves do not convince, that to know truth one must get rid of knowledge, and that nothing is more powerful and creative than emptiness - from which men shrink. Here, then, my aim is to show - backwards fashion - that those essential realities of religion and metaphysics are vindicated in doing without them, and manifest in being destroyed.

Date: 2009/02/14 09:39:01, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:40)
I'm not here to have my faith confirmed.

Allright, I got it wrong then? I borrow from Pauli:"Your ideas are so confused I cannot tell whether they are nonsense or not."

In any case, you have written so much that you have made me confused.

If it is not too much to ask, what exactly is it that you hope to achieve here?

Date: 2009/02/15 05:24:20, Link
Author: Quack
I regret not having saved the threads where I engaged Mike Gene at ARN, it must have been at least ten years ago. IIRC, I asked him about ID research to which he replied that he did not consider that science (as commonly defined?). Or something like that. He also said that he was busy developing tools for ID research.  It is of course impossible for me to recall exactly what was said; but the above is at least the impression that I am left with.

Seems to me he’s made little progress.

Date: 2009/02/21 02:38:54, Link
Author: Quack
I've consistently said that we'll never figure out how God did it.  What part of that is hypocritical?

OK, if that's what it is, the case is settled, so why are you still here?

To persuade science that your assumption is the one and only solution?

So therefore we should begin worshiping your God?

It is getting pretty boring, can't you at least let us (or at least me) know what; what exactly are you selling here? That you are not on a buying spree is obvious, but again: What is it that you want to sell to the world, or what is your gift to the world?

If it is just: Science cannot answer, never will - but I, Daniel knows: God did it (but I don't know how, I just know it in my heart because that's the way it's got to be! If it isn't, I have a huge problem!), we already know that. Is that all there is to it?

Be a Christian and offer your other ear, patience is a Christian virtue, isn't it? Walk another mile with me, won't you, like the Lord said you should?

Date: 2009/02/21 16:22:29, Link
Author: Quack
RFJE, seems you are on my turf now.

It would take years to teach you so I'll just let you in on something you also seem to be unaware of: The Bible is full of myths; Adam and Eve is but one of them; Jesus Christ is another.

But, and this is what so many people resist: The myths have a meaning (Well, Adam and Eve was just the only explanation they wrer able to come up with) but many other myths like paradise, the tree of knowledge, the fall and many others have a hidden meaning; that's why they are myths.

Only with the aid of a proper interpreter may the real meaning of the myths be realized. OK, when one has learned what to look for and knows what lies behind one may decipher the mytsh by oneself.

But literalism have closed the door to understanding of scripture form people. That started about 2000 years ago.

As for Jesus Christ, it is one of the most powerful symbols that mankind have in its possession. The first expression of that myth that we know about was made by the Egyptians - the Osiris myth.

As you should know, Osiris was a dying and resurrecting god-man, in the same way as Bacchus-Dionysus, Attis and a host of others. They all share the same fate - to die and to rise again, and when they all happen to perform that trick at or around the time of winter solstice, do you think that's just a coincidence?

Precession of the Equinoxes have shifted the time of celebration from 6th January to 24th December. That shows the myth is of very ancient origins.

I've got to stop, I only have to point out that religion is not about a physical, or even spiritual life after death, but about life here and now, in this lifetime. It is not possible to cover the subject of 'eternal life', what that actually means here.

WRT God, God is a name given to a reality, but the reality of God has nothing with the creation of the universe, planets or life to do.

That is quite another 'god' that we need not bother with.

What matters is God as the highest power in our soul. "The Kingdom of Heaven is within."

That's about all true theology I can offer this late in the evening, my bed is waiting.

I suggest you begin yuor studies with "The Jesus Mysteries" by Peter Gandy and 'Timothy Freke, tehn you may continue with Jesus and the Lost Goddess by the same authors, and even one of their latest, "The Laughing Jesus", I haven't read that one yet.

You might also find Albert Schweitzer interesting. And much more.

Also Carl Gustav Jung - he said he didn't have to believe in God, he knew God existed. I don't know what Jung thought about evolution but I suppose he didn't bother one way or the other.

Jung got the idea about archetypes from the Gnostics; I am a gnostic. The Gnostics seems to have been enemy #1for the early Christian literalists...

Good night.

Date: 2009/02/24 03:35:02, Link
Author: Quack
he is basing his argument on "natural science", while I am basing mine on theology.

That about settles it, doesn’t it? Next candidate, please.

But before you leave, is it too much to ask that you reply to my plea here?
I believe it was a honest question that deserve a honest answer; you are quite good at demanding answers yourself.

Seems you have plenty of time for your wild crusade here, you could give me five minutes too? Maybe we should discuss theology, you and me? Isn’t that a subject much closer to your heart than evolutionary science? Which besides also, if I have understood you right, is a much more important and relevant issue? Albright, you have got theology sorted out beyond any doubt; but you ought to be aware that just as you never will be able to admit that science may be right because that would mean the death of your God; there are just as valid, yeah, even more valid reasons for serious doubts about your theology – and those doubts have been researched and documented at large by researchers that I consider more reliable and much more knowledgeable on the subject than you.

Let’s start with the bible – to begin with its origins, like who wrote what, for what reasons.

Has it never occurred to you that theology is about the poorest thinkable foundation for scientific enquiry?

But I know you are unable to answer, just as I never get any replies from Ray Martinez at t.o.; his arguments are transparent to me.

Date: 2009/02/24 07:36:02, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (CeilingCat @ Feb. 24 2009,06:07)
Dembski Gets Tough!
ETA If you want to see an annoying web site, go to

A "great" read indeed - but I am certain Dembski will top that with his festschrift.

Date: 2009/03/03 02:24:21, Link
Author: Quack
- it's not about evidence or stories.  I've experienced the reality of Christ - that's enough for me.

That's enough - for what? Evidence that the symbol of Christ really is a powerful symbol that one may realize, like St. Paul obviously must have experienced, he is quite clear when referring to "Christ in me" - or evidence for the inerrancy of the Bible?

But, what if conclusive proof was found, showing that the Jesus story is a fabrication, modeled after the many accounts of dying-and-resurrecting godmen, accounts that  we know were created as symbols, used as symbols, worshiped as symbols and never believed to be accounts of historical events - until literalism raised its ugly head ~2000 years ago?

Would that lessen the value, the effect or whatever of St. Paul's experience - or yours, or the experience of the millions of people who have had and still may have the same experience?

Prove me wrong, prove that if if it could be shown that the Jesus story is 'only' a myth, then your experience would suddenly be erased?

The point is: "Salvation" does not depend on the historicity of Jesus!

I believe theology might be better for you than the science of which you obviously have a lot of study - with a will and an intent to really understand - to do before you know what you are talking about.

Theology has the obvious advantage for people like you that every man's opinion is as good as the next man's - theology is not science, therefore you can make it into what you want it to be. That's that what you want with science, isn't it?

When will you realize that you are barking up the wrong tree here?

Date: 2009/03/03 02:33:46, Link
Author: Quack
With a daughter suffering Parkinsons Disease, I have some interest in the same subject. I am impressed by the work being done by dedicated scientists to devise workarounds to the hindrances put up for stem cell research. But the effort might have been put to better use.

Date: 2009/03/03 02:50:56, Link
Author: Quack
I get the gist although I have nothing to contribute. But why doesn't Dembski weigh in here? (Substitute your response here.)

Date: 2009/03/03 11:05:29, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 03 2009,05:53)

Meanwhile, in the Oklahoma Daily Reports on Dembski-Ruse debate thread, the fabled R. Martinez offers up his own definition of science:          
The recognition and inclusion of God is the definition of genuine science while the exclusion of God is the definition of pseudo-science or anti-science.

Just another day in the Tard Patch.

Ah, Ray Martinez! I don't know if his promised 'paper' ever will be 'published', probably not in my lifetime. But I would have loved to watch the response it would get at talkorigins; there he has revealed that (IIRC) two thirds of the paper will consist of definitions. !!!!!!!!!! (He's also promised to deliver quality work, that's why it is taking so long.) :p

Date: 2009/03/04 11:41:46, Link
Author: Quack
Daniel you are asking for detailed in the extreme evidence for things that you know we have no complete direct answer to and you have been told that many times now.

Why don't you lower your sights a little and chose a target that lies right before your eyes: The evidence - or lack thereof, for Noah's flood? Or is your faith flexible enough to survive a global no-flood past, to the extent that you don't care one way or the other? You are not afraid that you'd run into even greater problems there, are you?

You realize that if there was a flood, there still must be lots of evidence available? You are a virtuoso at digging for quotes, it shouldn't take you long to come up with conclusive evidence for the Flood, seeing how you have beaten all opposition to your take down of the theory of evolution;-)

Date: 2009/03/04 14:41:02, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2009,13:42)
I *heart* Jan:

in the comments:

Don't You Believe It (no name):

You can believe your false, so called Science, liberal THERORY all you like. I bet you even look more and more like the monkey you are or think you came from! I bet you think the universe was created by Darwin himself. LOL! Keep your own FALSE, garbage OPINIONS to yourself and the idiots like you that believe it! Jerk off!

She had me at "jerk off!"

I barely resisted the temptation to post a reply about getting her photo first to see if it would be worth it.

Date: 2009/03/07 08:22:26, Link
Author: Quack
I think you may have found your calling Quack.  Perhaps you should be the one to finally prove that Jesus never existed!  (Good luck with that BTW).

That would be just as hard as it would be (or rather, is) for you to disprove evolution.

I could be flippant and dismiss the subject with  “Don’t have to, it’s already been done” but I’ll be modest and just say that while there is a tremendous amount of evidence for evolution, there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus. Not even the Turin shroud is evidence for that.

One may say it possible that Jesus existed - but that also means saying it is possible that evolution is true.

We don't want no double standards, do we?

I've already acknowledged the power of mankind's symbol(s); to learn more about that I suppose it might be helpful reading Ernst Cassirer; he is often referred to as the originator of the term "The Symbol Animal".

Given the religious-political climate around Jerusalem 2000 years ago there may well have been many Messiah characters and other religious crackpots around at the time; scriptures provided a rich foundation for that.

I have not been able to find en English or German version so I make an attempt at translation from the back cover of my version of Schweitzer’s Gesichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung:

The Jesus of Nazareth that acted as Messiah, propagated the morals of the Kingdom of God, founded heaven on Earth and then died to fulfil his mission, has never existed.

This may be from the same book, he wrote many:

The study of the Life of Jesus has had a curious history. It set out in quest of the historical Jesus, believing that when it had found Him it could bring Him straight into our time as a Teacher and Saviour. ...
But He does not stay; He passes by our time and returns to His own. ...
He returned to His own time, not owing to the application of any historical ingenuity, but by the same inevitable necessity by which the liberated pendulum returns to its original position. ... Jesus means something to our world because a mighty spiritual force streams forth from Him and flows
through our time also. This fact can neither be shaken nor confirmed by any historical discovery. It is the solid foundation of Christianity.

I see no reason to believe that this ‘spiritual force’ depends on the eventual historicity of Jesus.

As a lover of extensive quotes you may appreciate this one, from “Christendom or Psychology” by Arne Duve, (Oslo 1966), a book that I’ve translated to English (somewhat roughly, being difficult to translate for a number of reasons, more or less for personal use,):

(Whether one agrees with it or not - it really is very interesting, I believe it is worth reading!) As far as I can tell, Arne Duve is the first to note the fascinating parallel between the characters Joseph and Jesus. I believe it was because of his profound knowledge of the human psyche, man's symbols - and scripture as well as relevant literature. His profession was Child Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis in the Depth Psychology tradition, more like Jungian than Freudian as far as I can tell.)

 The other Messiah-concept in particular related to the Northern kingdom, was the expectation of the Anointed as the Son of Joseph – Messiah ben Joseph – a concept that soon disappeared from official Judaism *)

But just this version must have found its way into Christendom, possibly via some mystery sect. It is worth noting that Jesus is said to stem from the heathen Galilee – from the Northern kingdom.
 Many parallels can be found between the legend of Joseph and the life of Jesus – traits that are too numerous for them to be just a coincidence.


Jesus had 12 apostles, and later the 70 disciples were sent out – something that goes back to the cosmic heroes of the Zodiac, the tribes of Israel, the “elders” of the nation, and the number of peoples. When Judah falls away, Matthias is first chosen in his place – later, Paul arrives as the 13th. Jacob’s sons counted 12. When Jacob went to Egypt with all his house, there were 70 souls altogether. Joseph’s two sons, Manasse and Ephraim become included among the brothers.  When Joseph dies, the number becomes 13. Also here, two are added to the original number – and the sum is the same, 13.  
 Joseph was an interpreter of dreams – of symbols – One-who-reveals—secrets as he also was called. Jesus often spoke in parables and images that he translated and interpreted. Both had insight into the world of symbols.
And they became themselves symbols.


Joseph was sold for 20 shekel of silver – as suggested by Judah. Jesus was betrayed by Judas – the Greek form of Judah – for 30 pieces of gold. The different numbers probably are significant for succeeding steps of development. Joseph and his work is in the domain of the soul and the material world – corn was his means of liberation. Jesus and his world are at the spiritual level. Thought – spirit – has become conscious road to salvation and decisive reality. This is underscored also by Jesus, according to legend, being placed in a manger. Corn – the plant – is replaced by Man.

*) See: Das alte Testament in Licht des alten Orients by Alfred Jeremias, Leipzig 1930.

Joseph was thrown in the empty well that became the entrance to glorification. Jesus was placed in an empty crypt at Calvary, the name of the roof of the skull covering the brain. Jesus and his lore therefore lie entirely on the level of spirit. Man’s consciousness and soul have become alpha and omega.
Both Jesus’ birth and death are connected with the name of Joseph, since the crypt belonged to a Joseph of Aramitea, Joseph and his father both went to Egypt – as did also Jesus and his father. This heavy emphasis on the Nile-country expresses a unity between Judaism, Christendom, Egyptian mystery religion and the monotheism that had its origins in Egypt. We may remember that Joseph was married to the daughter of the high priest in the city of the Sun – Heliopolis –On.


Joseph was preferred before his brothers by his father. Among other things, he was given a royal robe. Jesus for his part stood in a particular and loving son-relationship with his heavenly father. Also the robe of Jesus was particular. It was without seams – woven as one piece – the symbol of spiritual coherence and unity of the soul. The robe of Jesus did not look like the emperor's – his kingdom was not of this world.

Joseph went obediently to his brothers in Sikem, even if he knew the dangers – a parallel to Jesus trip to Jerusalem. For both of them, blood was used as evidence for their death; Joseph’s bloody, torn robe was shown to his father. And blood and water flooded out of the wound of the Saviour.

In Reuben’s speech of defence one may recognize Pilate. Ruben, as the oldest of the brothers should have been in command in the same way as Pilate had command over Jesus – as representative of the Roman Empire.
Joseph resisted the temptations of Potifar’s wife – a theme being the main motif of a very popular and widely read Egyptian story.

Nor Jesus did not fall when tempted by the devil. But it may be noted that the temptation facing Jesus was of an entirely different character – spiritual values were at stake.


Both Joseph and Jesus were imprisoned and accused of crimes of which they were innocent. The one was imprisoned for 3 years; the other spent 3 days – a number probably related to the cycles of the moon. It takes 3 days from the smallest no to the newest new. In the prison, Joseph met pharaoh’s cupbearer and baker. One was released to freedom; the other killed and hung on a tree. We recognize the two bandits on the cross – one would be going to paradise. That the cupbearer was to survive must be because he represented wine – the spiritual principle. In earlier times it was thought that there was a spirit – spiritus – that cause the particular effect.
  On the other hand, the baker symbolise the material – corn must perish. Further development would continue with the great successor to Joseph.

Both Joseph and Jesus begin their work at 30, probably as an expression of maturity. For both of them, debasement and suffering became the starting point and the road to glory. Joseph also was called Zofnat- Paneah, - the World’s saviour, a title also applied to Jesus. The two saviours both were thought to be dead. But death was not real – it was of a symbolic nature. “Death” was a necessary prerequisite for the ensuing glory.

Joseph was of a forgiving nature; he did not repay his brothers evil. It was also the principle of Jesus to break the power of evil by meeting it with love and understanding.
Joseph’s identity was long held hidden from the brothers until he gave himself away to them. It also lasted long before Jesus revealed to them his identity – as Messiah.


There is in the legend of Joseph also an element of a consciously arranged accusation – leading to “arrest” – “trial” – and clarification with a consolidation of the house of Jacob with joy – a parallel to what took place at Jesus’ death. We refer to the account of how a silver beaker was placed in the bag of one of the brothers at his departure from Egypt.
The travelling party was apprehended – ransacked  - the whole party was returned – with the ensuing result.

Dr. Hugh Schonfield – well known Jewish historian- who also have written the books “The Jew of Tarsus – a Life of Paul” – “Saints against Caesar” – “The authentic new Testament” (Schonfields own translation of the new testament) – “The Secrets of the Dead Sea Scroll” and “The Bible was right” , shortly before Christmas 1965 threw a lighted torch in the religious debate with the book “The Passover Plot” – or “The Easter Plot”.
Schoenfeld has ever since his younger days and throughout a long career as researcher been occupied with Jesus and his relationship with the religious and social conditions in Palestine at the beginning of the current era.
Sconfield makes the supposition that Jesus, being from “heathen land”, Galilee was a person deeply and seriously worried about the salvation of his people from fall and destruction. The land was occupied by the Romans who ruled with iron, blood and crucifying.
He studied the religious scriptures very thoroughly, and by and by, he came to the conclusion that he was the Messiah intended to save his people. He knew all that had been predicted about him in holy scripture and therefore could proceed according to that.
Schonfield is of the opinion that Jesus – who also had learned from the Essenes and other sects, - particularly the Nasarenes, - made a carefully prepared plan for action – to culminate in death on the cross – which he intended to survive according to a careful thought out plan – of which incidentally the apostles were not informed so that he had to rely on helpers outside of apostolic circles.

The plan was carefully made such that Jesus calculated that court proceedings and crucifying would be executed in a way that would ensure he would hang on the cross only for a few hours- because the next day would be Sabbath. The law required the bodies to be removed by then.
This execution method was preferred by the Romans, and it was not by itself fatal. Death came after a prolonged time because of pain, exhaustion, thirst and hunger. It all went according to plan. Schonfield assumes that Jesus by a helper was given some kind of anaesthetic from the sponge that he was given, so that it would seem like he was dead. The story tells that shortly thereafter, he gave up his spirit.
After having been taken down, he should be taken care of by his helpers - so that he might survive. In this manner Jesus thought that the prophecies would be fulfilled – they do not say that the Messiah necessarily should die – but that he should be spared death.
But the plan failed on an important and unforeseen point. A Roman soldier not being convinced that Jesus was dead, pierced his side with a lance – and his life could not be saved.
Schonfield seems strangely enough not to have been aware of the parallels between Jesus and the Legend of Joseph, - but the moment of the fake accusation seems to support the supposition about a connection – perhaps the way Schonfield suggests.
The clear parallel between these two saviour-characters that nobody before seems to have been aware of – becomes clearer with the continued study of the Dead Sea scrolls. The British scientist John Allegro, lecturer in the Old Testament at the University of Manchester and member of the 8-man team working on the translation of the scrolls, in January 1966 made a statement that the study of the scrolls may lead to the conclusion that for instance the apostles are not historical persons – but rather mythological characters signifying among other things positions of office in the sect of the Essenes – for instance the one entrusted with the handling of money.
Judas is in John XIII, 29 described as the one carrying “the purse”, i.e. the keeper of the money. In Aramaic, this is “ish sacariob” – the name Iskariot is easily recognizable.
There now seems to be sufficient grounds for the view that the gospels also are a framework around the central secrets of existence with the Jesus-figure and the Christ-impulse at the centre.
As a curiosum, it may be mentioned that in 1883, an exhibit of three ancient parchment scrolls found in a cave by the Dead Sea, was shown in the British Museum. The find was however considered a forgery, and nobody knows what happened to these scrolls.


All the common elements that I have mentioned show that traits from the legend of Joseph must have been used in creating the mythical framework around Jesus. They share too much in common that it may be just coincidental.
The symbols of the latter version are to some extent been applied in a new manner in another setting – another aspect. Evolution has progressed to a new level, with emphasis shifted from the body-soul sector to man as a spiritual being. Corn therefore no longer serves as the means of salvation. The mission of the character of Joseph has come to an end. The new saviour of the world should work on the level of mentality.
A discontinuity in time had arrived, when man should realize himself as a being of spirit.
The cupbearer – representative of the spirit  - shall satisfy the possibilities of man – therefore he was given free. One character has retained his function quite unchanged, namely Juda – Judas, the one who sets suffering in motion – the prerequisite for realization, liberation and the new life. In this respect, man can hardly be expected to change. The greed for money – materialism – even then it resulted in suffering.

What is the status of the project of release of man’s possibilities as a thinking being? For the time being, it looks bleak. But the situation is difficult, even impossible to judge for us who live in the final phases of a cultural cycle.
The world is in the melting pot and writhes in pain – a new way of life is in the process of being created. The reason why development have been sidetracked to where it is today, have been caused, as repeatedly mentioned before not lest the dominance from the natural sciences, causing the building of culture to skew. We all may think we understand the utility of them (the natural sciences), the practical consequences can be felt and seen. The funding authorities may get immediate and profitable results from their investments. And last, but not least: Science only to a small degree clash with morals, way of life and cultural pattern – in contrast to the laws governing mans psychic dynamics and development. Even the smallest sign of breach of conventions, accepted views and personal symptomatics are met with fierce resistance of formidable dimensions.
The victory of the natural sciences was a given when the church had nothing to counter with, except for religious dogma and letters that had been made alpha and omega in the religious life. Under this banner, religion was condemned to lose. Evolution most likely would have been different if the Church had upheld the ancient’s insight into the dynamics of the soul and its connection with the inner aspect of religion. The Church instead – due to its lack of spiritual power – had to resort to fire and burning as long as that worked.
If the Church had retained the inner truths about man, it might have said: It is all to the good with science and research, in all fields. The more we can learn, the better it is. But it is the truth about man’s inner reality that alone is of importance and by which everything else needs to be judged.
But this, the Church could not do – because it had no inner coverage for it’s use of symbols and imagery-speech. And the results were inevitable.

That was just scratching the surface...

Date: 2009/03/07 08:38:09, Link
Author: Quack
Don't anybody worry; I am going to stand back and let science rule but I just had to get it off my chest...

Date: 2009/03/10 04:02:47, Link
Author: Quack
Hooray for the edit button, especially when it works...

Date: 2009/03/13 04:04:41, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,18:04)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 11 2009,17:17)
I'll believe in any god you can provide evidence for

No you won't.

Try me!
Of course you can argue that this is all psychosomatic - that you can always believe anything if you want to bad enough.  But I promise you, the experiences you'll have with God will erase any doubts.  You just have to be willing.

Your experience is not mine; mine is not yours. The point is: just what does the experience mean? Oh I see, it means just what you think it means...

I seem to remember cases of murderers claiming "God told me to do it."

Why can't you accept the simple fact that science knows nothing about God; that we can do as much science as we like without ever running into a conflict with God?

Date: 2009/03/13 09:36:53, Link
Author: Quack
Something I want to know is why are most of what was written on Jesus appear about 100 years after his supposed life ended?

That one is easy; it had to wait until nobody was around to spill the beans.

Date: 2009/03/14 06:21:41, Link
Author: Quack
If Jesus was a made up symbol, that would certainly be a clue.  If, however, he was an historic person who really said and did the things attributed to him, these parallels would be very hard to explain.

You said it, but you are free to try...

Date: 2009/03/15 13:47:18, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 15 2009,13:37)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 15 2009,14:28)
Quote (Richard Simons @ Mar. 14 2009,18:54)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 14 2009,13:36)
I can be proven wrong at any time.  

No you can't, because you will never accept that the detail is sufficient.
Isn't that what it's all about JAM?

No. A large part of science is about making testable predictions and then trying to disprove them yourself.

None of this depends on me.  I'm no scientist, nor am I qualified to decide whether a proposed pathway would work or not.  This is why I said that the test is "to provide a road map (one that passes the test of peer review)".  I've said repeatedly that any proposed pathway - in order to meet my challenge - must be able to convince the actual scientists most familiar with the matter.  These are the people who will tear it apart and expose its weaknesses - not me.


I am speechless - I wouldn't have believed it hadn't I read it.

Date: 2009/03/17 04:31:45, Link
Author: Quack
Don't know if relevant but I seem to remember a report about perfectly healthy mice being born even after portions of junk DNA being removed.

Date: 2009/03/17 09:43:25, Link
Author: Quack
I recently read a creationist interpretation and probably a scientific response as well, on this subject:

but I can't remember where.  May have been PT, AtBC, UcD or t.o.

Link anyone?

Date: 2009/03/18 04:10:40, Link
Author: Quack
Denial reminds me of Behe in Dover.

Being that bad, there is no hope....

Date: 2009/03/22 10:33:52, Link
Author: Quack
The "first review" was obviously skewed.  The Face on Mars was used as an example of something that looks designed at a distance but upon closer examination fails the test.  It is the direct opposite of what we find in life.

As is your opinion skewed.

You fail to see the difference: We KNOW that if we find a face on Mars, it’s GOT TO BE DESIGNED, somebody would have had to MAKE it there. Because we KNOW about faces, have known for a long time, we have a lot of experience with faces; they are very common here on Earth. (You don’t mind some caps, do you?)

OTOH, we do NOT know anything about designed enzymes. Therefore we have no reason to believe they are designed. NO previous knowledge or evidence about DESIGNED enzymes. Therefore, since we know nothing about designed enzymes in nature the only option available is that they are not designed.

But we are always willing to look at evidence. You got some to show?

Date: 2009/03/24 06:26:52, Link
Author: Quack
I don't think science is your cup of tea; As I've told you before, theology might be a more rewarding pastime for you:
Elaine Pagels: Much of what passes for "historical" interpretation of Paul and for "objective" analysis of his letters can be traced to the second-century heresiologists. If the apostle were so unequivocally anti-Gnostic, how could the Gnostics claim him as their great Pneumatic teacher? How could they say they are following his example when they offer secret teaching of wisdom and Gnosis "to the initiates?" How could they claim his resurrection theology as the source for their own, citing his words as decisive evidence against the ecclesiastical doctrine of bodily resurrection?”

It seem you have a lot to learn, not only do Pagels point to something of great importance; my skepticism about the historical Jesus is not my own invention; it is older than the Bible itself and have many 'precursors':
In the fourth century an anonymous author tells us that Christians and followers of the Mystery godman Attis were both struck by the remarkable coincidence between the death and resurrection of their respective deities. This gave rise to bitter controversy between the adherents of the rival religions. The Pagans contended that the resurrection of Christ was a spurious imitation of the resurrection of Attis and the Christians that the resurrection of Attis was a diabolical counterfeit of the resurrection of Christ.

The Megalensia was a spring festival in the Mysteries of Attis which, like Easter, lasted for three days. During this time the myth of Attis was performed as a passion play, just as the story of Jesus was performed as a passion play in the Middle Ages.
It is a completely remarkable fact, however, that Paul says nothing at all about the historical Jesus! He is concerned only with the crucified and resurrected Christ, whose importance is entirely mystical. Paul makes it clear that he never met a historical Jesus. He writes: "Neither did I receive the Gospel from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ." Paul doesn't mention Jerusalem or Pilate either. Indeed, as we shall explore in more detail later, he declares that Jesus was crucified at the instigation of the "Archons" or "rulers of the age" - demonic powers that are talked of by the Gnostics!

Date: 2009/03/24 09:44:29, Link
Author: Quack

How many bits, or bytes? Or slabs?

Date: 2009/03/25 04:21:02, Link
Author: Quack
Not that any of that has anything to do with reliability of evolution theory, since rock formations (whether formed by erosion or deliberate sculpting) are built from outside; since living things reproduce themselves any analogy there is too weak to be particularly useful.

Right, many aspects of manmade or "Intelligently Designed" vs. natural objects are of a nature that makes the design inference quite weak - if at all applicable. But creationists put a lot of effort into such speculation; at t.o. a Sean Pitman has been going on for years about a perfect cube of some sort and how to determine if designed or not - or something like that. I find it totally uninteresting and irrelevant.

Besides, from our experience with Intelligent Design we know that telltale signs of both the production process and the identity of the designer-implementer seems always to be present.

Crystal skulls

Date: 2009/03/26 07:19:00, Link
Author: Quack
So ID utters "design" upon confronting complex biological phenomena, but, unlike the sort of causal story we can infer for Stonehenge on Mars (creatures not unlike ourselves, with a history not unlike our own is the causal story we would infer), ID has nothing to offer - absolutely nothing - when asked for the causal story for biology it is labeling "design." ID offers absolutely zero - because it knows absolutely nothing - when asked for specifics regarding the designer or designers, about the design process or processes, about the "handlike" processes that convert designs into actual objects, or about the origination of those processes. So ID claims an analogy to human design as a causal story in biological origins, but utterly fails to supply even a shred of an account of an actual causal story analogous to that we know so well in human design. Absent even a pretense of  a causal story or mechanism, "Design" as used by ID (and Daniel here) is utterly scientifically empty.

What remains is just one and only one option: Magic aka good old religion. But besides faith - do we have any evidence, any reason to really believe that any god with unlimited magical powers are involved? There are reasons, too many that says no! For the foreseeable future, the matter is settled.

Date: 2009/03/30 15:51:09, Link
Author: Quack
When I read Daniels sig, I read: There is little hope of advance living by assumptions about what is true.

"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

And after seeing him quote Dawkins on that, isn’t it kind of funny to see him bypass science with his assumptive statement of faith:

When we look at a flagellum, we see a God-designed motor.

Why bother with science, just look at a flagellum through Daniel’s eyes.

Date: 2009/04/02 06:37:19, Link
Author: Quack
it is an instant, intuitive mental process whereby we just say essentially "Yeah, I can believe that".

Intuition, or wishful thinking?

Saying "Yes, I can believe that" seems to belong in the second category.

Intuition, Daniel style:

'Flying Spaghetti Monster' -- Yeah, that I can believe in!

Date: 2009/04/03 03:25:07, Link
Author: Quack
The thing is, the human brain is predisposed to find patterns where sometimes there is none. It is a very useful evolutionary trait, But in some cases such as Denials, it is just a handicap.

Right. I even have been able to make that observation all by myself;-) Last winter, each morning at breakfast looking out my kitchen window I was staring straight at a forked oak tree. And lo and behold, a the fork - where I had thrown some twigs and whatever from the garden, i could have sworn I saw the corpse of Lynx staring at me, head and front legs clearly visible. And it stayed there, every morning I could see the same sight. I had to tell myself what I knew it was, but my brain kept telling me otherwise.

It didn't end before I went out and disrupted the pattern to give the poor creature (and my eyes) some rest.

Date: 2009/04/03 06:39:42, Link
Author: Quack
I once had a link to a display of evolutionary relationships. It was circular, starting at the center with branches outwards to the periphery. It was possible to zoom in on details.

Anyone got the link?

Date: 2009/04/05 12:24:45, Link
Author: Quack
The truth is - it's easier to reconstruct a hypothetical natural pathway to a detailed face on Mars than it is to reconstruct a hypothetical natural pathway to the first living cell.

It hurts like hell. I won't request pathetic detail, but you owe us an overview at least as detailed as what we have so far WRT abiogenesis. If I read you right that ought to be fairly easy. Fair enough?

But why bother, we are not into abiogenesis but origins of species - for which we have very detailed, accurate and well documented evidence, evidence that even Behe agrees with? All right, he needs the good old god of the gaps to make his dream complete but that's his (and your) privilege.

When can you have your first draft ready?

Date: 2009/04/06 03:46:46, Link
Author: Quack
That's because you stop just where science proper begins. Begin the actual science, and you find, once again, that the hypothesis that a supernatural designer gave rise to life generates no testable entailments subject to empirical test such that the hypothesis is at risk of disconfirmation. Specific hypotheses with bearing on the natural OOL can and do. That is why science may be applied to the latter, and not the former, independent of any biases and expectations that may also be informing or distorting the thinking of the investigators. The scientific method has everything to do with the success or failure of efforts to construct a natural account of OOL, and nothing to do with the success or failure of your theological assertions.

I know what goes through my mind when I read that; I am afraid it is wasted on Daniel. Surprise us, Daniel. Reading it ten times over, slowly, may help.

Date: 2009/04/07 12:10:33, Link
Author: Quack
So it's like locking, a very binary state of affairs. A door is locked, or it isn't. There is no quasi-locking. It is deterministic and has an explicit mechanism that is not random. A door might might 'stuck' or 'unstuck', but this is different and stochastic.

As binary as pregnancy, or how about being semi-pregnant.

Date: 2009/04/09 02:42:41, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 08 2009,22:27)
daniel when in the hell are you going to talk about the flood?

until then, we all know you see god in every shadow and corner.  yawn.

go stand on a street corner and preach to people who haven't heard it all before.

what makes you want to post the same old crap over and over?  seriously?

I believe we all want to know why, and that we ought to be told why, and alos what you are hoping to achieve here?

Are you selling your religion? Is that it? Want to convert us? Your God better that ours? Your religion better than mine?

You strike me more like someone clutching at a straw to save his faith and his God.

BTW, we find nothing made by supernatural forces on this planet. All life that we know is descende from previous life, it is an (almost) endless regression. At no point do we detect signs of outside intervention, just life living its life.

Wheh all other arguments have been excercised a thousand times over, we still are left with the question: Why is God such a damn poor designer? And cruel too. (Even) atheists have more compassion.

That are questions you should devote more of your time to. What you have done so far is just wasting both your and our time.

These words of a Gnostic teacher contain infinitely more wisdom than all that you have said here so far:
Omitting to seek after God, and creation, and things similar to these, seek for Him from out of yourself, and learn who it is that absolutely appropriates unto Himself all things in thee, and says, 'My God, my mind, my understanding, my soul, my body.' And learn from whence are sorrow, and joy, and love, and hatred… And if you accurately investigate these points, you will discover him in yourself. (Moimonides)

Read it again, meditate on it.

ETA: infinitely

Date: 2009/04/11 02:57:02, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 10 2009,14:57)
More Louis

Thanks, at least fifty years since I last heard that funny-lovely song. And don't miss the Louisianian comment.

Date: 2009/04/11 02:59:29, Link
Author: Quack
Sorry, overlooked the page rollover. Better use the post for something useful: This is more like what I dig these days:

Gene Krupa having a good time

Date: 2009/04/11 03:11:02, Link
Author: Quack
BTW, I'm not arguing for a system of design detection with all of this.  I'm pointing out that design is intuitively inferred by anyone who can infer a plausible designer.

Is there any field of human thought where we cannot apply this method? Just infer whatever you find plausible and whatever becomes intuitively inferrable.

A great intellectual tool for any scientist whenever he is up against a problem.

Like questions about QM, chaos, fractals, complexity, self-organization, no more problems...

Date: 2009/04/12 04:16:09, Link
Author: Quack
Every single person who espouses ID, has already accepted the possibility of an entity capable of producing life on this planet.  We who have done so, can infer means, motives and causal histories for that designer - you cannot.

All right. (yawn)

Every single person who espouses X has already accepted the possibility of Y. We who have done so can infer Z – you cannot.

Replace X, Y and Z with whatever you fancy. I fancy the FSM, Daniel fancies the lunatic god Yahweh. Leave science out of it; isn’t it fantastic how God has prepared the world for us: anything is possible – you just gotta have faith.

I have asked before but don’t expect an answer: Why is Daniel here, what’s his goal, what’s the purpose? He might as well attempt converting us to solipsism.

How I wish for him to accept our challenge: The Flood. What’s he afraid of? Be a good boy, Daniel, please tell: Do you believe in The Flood? You espouse ID; aren't you gonna espouse The Flood too?

Date: 2009/04/13 04:21:32, Link
Author: Quack
I attach even more importance to the spectator than to the artist

Seems to me that has been said before:

The eye of the beholder

Date: 2009/04/13 04:30:07, Link
Author: Quack
I once had the opportunity to ask  this guy his opinion about Chip Arp's theory, and his reply was that the results from the COBE project had falsified it.

Date: 2009/04/14 03:20:07, Link
Author: Quack
And I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around your apparent belief that the scientific method is the only means to discovery.

You can show examples of discovery by the other method?

Date: 2009/04/18 02:22:08, Link
Author: Quack
My argument has always been that such pathways will be found to be unworkable when looked at closely.  Calling that an "infinite regress" or "moving the goalposts" is a dishonest attempt to negate the crux of my argument.

Looks like an argument about the future to me. Now, isn't it a fact that (leaving aside the dubious Biblical predictions) predictions about the future are among the most difficult predictions that can be made?

Don't you think it would be prudent to direct your effort towards predictions about the present, and even more rewarding, the past?

Like that flood you know. Seems we are quite a crowd here queeing for a first view. Be a good sport, don't keep us waiting much longer. It seems to me that if that matter could find a satisfactory solution, many other issues might be laid to rest too.

Date: 2009/04/20 05:01:22, Link
Author: Quack
Why are you all so intent on changing the subject?

You have already made it clear that as far as you are concerned, evolution is a closed book. There is nothing more there, never will be. I presume you stand by your predictions?

What naturally follows then is a debate about matters that have at least a theoretical chance of being resolved.

And honestly, isn't the flood one of the subjects you'd love to prove; not just relying on 'seen from above it looks like...'?

Date: 2009/04/20 07:44:25, Link
Author: Quack
Has O'Leary ever actually denied being a drug addicted child molester who gets sexual pleasure from wearing dirty underwear?

Well, I guess this denial about covers that particular urge:

I have never discovered evidence for the existence of any selfish genes,

Date: 2009/04/21 11:09:51, Link
Author: Quack
Hmmm I'm thinking that this Mulberry bush circling is amusing someone. I'm not sure who though.

Looks rather as if someone is about to lose his temper, though. Ultimate insults to an all-powerful creator must be painful to a sensitive mind.

Date: 2009/04/22 03:39:53, Link
Author: Quack
Is it possible that Daniel is desperate? He desperately believes in an all-powerful creator, and unless I've got it wrong, that should guarantee him a seat in the celestial harp band.

So what more is there to do? "Go thee out and make all the world my disciples"? We have the churches and child indoctrination for that.

Daniel, the burden is not on your shoulders. Jesus took care of that, you sins, past, present and future are forgiven. It is never too late to repent.

Science does not have the answers you crave. You gotta live as best you can with your faith, doubts and uncertainty. Are you not satisfied with the answers you find in the Bible?

You have been asked this a number of times but I have yet to see an answer: What are you doing here, what is your purpose? If you know, please don't keep us in the dark any longer! But maybe you don't even know yourself? Got lost on the way?

Have you tried prayers?

Let's ask "What's the problem?" and take it from there.

Date: 2009/04/22 15:52:33, Link
Author: Quack
Daniel, you won't get the answers you need to save your soul here. I recommend Ray Martinez at, he may put your troubled mind at rest.

Alternatively. you might consider my earlier, sincere recommendation to meditate on the words of Monoimus:

Omitting to seek after God, and creation, and things similar to these, seek for Him from (out of) thyself, and learn who it is that absolutely appropriates (unto Himself) all things in thee, and says, "My God my mind, my understanding, my soul, my body." And learn from whence are sorrow, and joy, and love, and hatred, and involuntary wakefulness, and involuntary drowsiness, and involuntary anger, and involuntary affection; and if you accurately investigate these (points), you will discover (God) Himself, unity and plurality, in thyself, according to that tittle, and that He finds the outlet (for Deity) to be from thyself.

You want peace of mind? Science is not the way! At leat not for you. Nor is faith without Sophia.

Date: 2009/04/23 02:59:34, Link
Author: Quack
Poor Daniel. Happiness lies at the end of the rainbow.

Robert B. Lauglin:

 We often ask ourselves nowadays whether evolution is an engineer or magician – a discoverer and exploiter of preexisting physical principles or a worker of miracles – but we shouldn’t.   The former is theory, the latter is antitheory.
  Since collective instability is emergent, it is reasonable to ask at what scale collective principles of organization begin to matter in life. The question turns out to be impossible to answer crisply because emergence at intermediate scales are inherently ill-defined.

There is considerable circumstantial evidence that both stable and unstable emergence occur already at the scale of individual proteins.

The idea that the struggle to understand the natural world has come to an end is not only wrong, it is ludicrously wrong. We are surrounded by mysterious physical miracles, and the continuing, unfinished task of science is to unravel them.

Daniel, we cannot help you unless you state your problem. What is the problem?

Date: 2009/04/25 09:35:49, Link
Author: Quack
Watch out, boys - I hope you wear protective gear down in the tard mines; seems to me it runs thicker than ever before. I wouldn't have believed it hadn't I seen it.

I know it could drive me insane; in the future I'll have to content (entertain?) myself with what you bring back here.

Date: 2009/04/26 09:07:49, Link
Author: Quack
Indeed, Daniel should accept that his conversion to Christianity is totally provisional subject to actual evidence for the ghost or whatever it was of Jesus Christ entering his body while he was wide awake and presumably in broad daylight with onlookers who ....erm ....we can't exactly call reliable witnesses.

I think you hit the nail right on the head there.  I asked ‘what’s the problem’, but he won’t tell. Having followed him from the bathroom to his own abode here, it has become increasingly clear in spite of his denial that he is seeking confirmation of faith. He is on a quest for absolute certainty; thirsting for certainty at a level that science, i.e. nothing ever can satisfy.

(Louis:) Hence, again, why I have since-a-dawn-a-time been banging on about Denial's major malfunction being a complete lack of understanding of basic philosophy.

Right. And after having repaired that, on to Sartre, Kierkegaard, Swedenborg… Tao Te Ching, Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads – anything as long as it would keep his mind off science…

Isn’t his basic problem that of learning how to live with uncertainty?

Date: 2009/04/27 11:24:52, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (k.e.. @ April 26 2009,14:26)



Sigh, guess you're right. Anyway, essentially, IMHO they don't say that much more than Monoimus, but I think they are great.

Date: 2009/04/29 11:08:40, Link
Author: Quack
all that could really be asked of him is to become honest and rational.

Gotta view the situation from his position; we might just as well ask him to grow a third arm.

I don’t know, maybe I should feel sorry for him. While evolution by now is settled science(TM Daniel Smith), he now has dug himself so deep into his hole, i.e. Hell, that I am afraid the chances of escape are very small.

Doubts about faith have the very unsettling property of returning every time one thinks one has escaped a particular demon. In this case, the demon is identifiable as God-of-the-gaps.
Luke 024:045 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

I don't think anything short of a guru can help him.

Date: 2009/05/02 09:03:41, Link
Author: Quack
With France as a welcome diversion on this thread, here’s what I have to offer:

I spent two months in Paris in 1957. Working for NCR, I was sent there to learn a new machine – a
veritable accounting machine. Basically a mechanical device, but upgraded with electronics to handle ledger cards with magnetic stripes to store account balance. Full of relays and switches.

I was young and quick to learn, I believe I knew almost every detail of the machine. Except I didn’t like it, the card handling gears had some ugly mechanisms, IMHO working near the limits of what could be of any long-term reliability. With repairs requiring a major disassembly.

Be that as it may – it was quite an experience, with the training school located right on the Champs Elysees, staying at a hotel on one of the side streets. The Parisian atmosphere still lingers in my mind.

The only thing I regret is, I wasn’t aware that my idol Sidney Bechet (whom the French, from what I have read, adored as God) was playing there at that time!

Date: 2009/05/03 04:05:37, Link
Author: Quack
I've been thinking about taking my arguments elsewhere for some time now.

This place is starting to bore me.

Homesick for the Bathroom Wall?

Date: 2009/05/03 11:10:35, Link
Author: Quack
IIRC, 40 days it took to flood the Earth, but many more days had to be spent sailing the waves.

Date: 2009/05/03 14:29:37, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 03 2009,11:19)
Quote (Quack @ May 03 2009,18:10)
IIRC, 40 days it took to flood the Earth, but many more days had to be spent sailing the waves.

Poor, poor goats...

And the lamas, that figures...

Date: 2009/05/04 02:21:57, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (sTARTERkIT @ May 04 2009,00:55)
Ah, but ice is water in a straight jacket.

SSSSoooooo, water by any other name.............

Try again.

yeah but how does the water KNOW to be ice.  if that ain't proof of the god of the bible i don't know what is!

Seems to this old totter that Dembski is on to something akin to the principles that makes
homeopathy work!

Date: 2009/05/04 02:36:50, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 03 2009,16:37)
Quote (rhmc @ May 02 2009,18:35)
why is daniel so afraid of theoldman's questions?

I don't read oldman's posts.  I've explained my reasons for this several times.  He knows that but just keeps on posting anyway.  Same with Louis.

What? Do you not don't read my posts?

Date: 2009/05/04 02:43:19, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Rrr @ May 04 2009,01:58)
Quote (Quack @ May 03 2009,11:10)
IIRC, 40 days it took to flood the Earth, but many more days had to be spent sailing the waves.

Impressive! Even more so than Paris, 1959. Provided, of course, that you do remember correctly...

Ahhh, nothing like a goat on the waves...

Date: 2009/05/04 08:58:36, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (sTARTERkIT @ May 04 2009,05:55)
By the way, what 'model' are you?

Homo sapiens sapiens, sapient.
"If only you had the faith of a mustard seed, you could say to the mountain: 'Fall into the sea', and it would obey you".

Show us.

Date: 2009/05/04 16:25:24, Link
Author: Quack
The extensive research that Richard Feynman did on ants showed how they created paths that got improved by continued use.

We find similar processes in the brain too, with the paths forming closed loops. Just replace the sugar with religion, creationism or whatever aberration you prefer.

By prolonged use the paths/loops become hardened, requiring more energy than available to break.

I believe we have empirical support for that theory.

Date: 2009/05/05 05:02:48, Link
Author: Quack
Dammit, you've made me want to go and read ANOTHER book now! ;-)

You’re welcome;-)

The problem nowadays is finding books one [I]want to  - and enjoy[/I ] reading, after Ian Fleming, Tom Clancy (ugh), - and SF, whodunits, suspense, in fact most fiction has lost its attraction.

One alternative is reading the same good books again, and again, but it is not possible to keep that going forever.

BTW, I said ‘aberration’ just to be controversial…

Edit: snipped irrelevant comment

Date: 2009/05/05 09:05:31, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 05 2009,06:51)
Quote (Quack @ May 05 2009,12:02)
One alternative is reading the same good books again, and again, but it is not possible to keep that going forever.

It is, actually. I've been hooked to Terry Pratchett for 10 years, and that's the only thing I'm reading now (in the novels category, of course, I'm not THAT closed).

I think the one I've read most is Jingo (about 12 times). I have almost the full discworld series (lacking only 4 books that I will order soon), and it's entertained me for 10 years now. I can feel another decade will pass by, and I still won't be bored with Pratchett's genius!

Thanks for the tip. I didn't even know he existed, but I have the bad habit of looking for American authors only, imagine that!

I made a quick Google and believe there may be something there, will give him a fair chance!

Date: 2009/05/09 16:22:27, Link
Author: Quack
I came here to point out the fact that the atheists here do not know how life came to be, do not know how life evolved, and ignore its obvious design.

OK, you knew it, you told us. But why all the questions? And what about your accusation which seems very similar to Ray Martinez's thesis: Anyone who accept evolution is by deafult an atheist?

Now that you've done the Lord's work you may wash your hands and enjoy your well earned peace of mind. No more doubts, pure joy of ultimate certainty.

Date: 2009/05/10 04:42:42, Link
Author: Quack
The Denial's goodbye post is a poignant document of intellectual bankruptcy.

It reminds me of an image that has stuck in my mind since 1949: it may be enjoyed between 1:20 to 2:20 here

Date: 2009/05/10 14:25:32, Link
Author: Quack
Characteristic of the philosophy of symbolic forms is a concern for the more “primitive” forms of world-presentation underlying the “higher” and more sophisticated cultural forms — a concern for the ordinary perceptual awareness of the world expressed primarily in natural language, and, above all, for the mythical view of the world lying at the most primitive level of all. For Cassirer, these more primitive manifestations of “symbolic meaning” now have an independent status and foundational role that is quite incompatible with both Marburg neo-Kantianism and Kant's original philosophical conception. In particular, they lie at a deeper, autonomous level of spiritual life which then gives rise to the more sophisticated forms by a dialectical developmental process. From mythical thought, religion and art develop; from natural language, theoretical science develops. It is precisely here that Cassirer appeals to “romantic” philosophical tendencies lying outside the Kantian and neo-Kantian tradition, deploys an historical dialectic self-consciously derived from Hegel, and comes to terms with the contemporary Lebensphilosophie of Wilhelm Dilthey, Henri Bergson, Max Scheler, and Georg Simmel — as well as with the closely related philosophy of Martin Heidegger.
from here with my bolding.

Date: 2009/05/11 04:06:12, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 10 2009,20:03)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 10 2009,19:28)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 10 2009,19:19)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 10 2009,10:26)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 09 2009,12:10)
In conclusion, the atheistic position, as it has been expressed here, is one characterized by narrow mindedness, cowardice, a lack of knowledge, willful ignorance and extreme bias.  Add to that a healthy dose of judgmental egotism and you'll accurately describe the average atheist posting here.

i can haz explanation?




anyone needs me i'll be at the bar.  trying to forget this entire thread ever happened.

Skål, slainte, or whatever.

I was looking for a way of saying it in a roundabout manner, therefore my reference to Cassirer:

Characteristic of the philosophy of symbolic forms is a concern for the more “primitive” forms of world-presentation underlying the “higher” and more sophisticated cultural forms

Date: 2009/05/11 11:16:05, Link
Author: Quack
Yer well you wood woodn you :)

Keep it simple the chilren r reedn

My fault, the connection was not easy to see, this one might have been better.

I just wanted to make it cryptic to tease you know who.

There I go again...

Date: 2009/05/12 03:15:18, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Texas Teach @ May 11 2009,20:31)
Question for the group:

Does Daniel's departure count as a flounce out?

a) yes

I did not come here to debate the flood.  

I came here to point out the fact that the atheists here do not know how life came to be, do not know how life evolved, and ignore its obvious design.

I've come to the conclusion that you atheists hide behind science because you know that it cannot test for God.  You pour over the books to reinforce your belief that life is just a cosmic coincidence.  You think that science has eliminated the need for God, yet science has explained exactly nothing regarding the origins of life.

d) all of the above

Please show your work...

I had to Google:

Flounce: To move with exaggerated or affected motions: flounced petulantly out of the house.
1. Unreasonably irritable or ill-tempered; peevish.
2. Contemptuous in speech or behaviour.

Spike Jones was "King of Corn." Maybe Daniel's masterpiece has earned him a proper title too?

Date: 2009/05/13 06:20:55, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 13 2009,02:44)
Your safe you'll be relieved to know StephenB is is not not Oarstrayien

Apologies all round for the false suggestion. With the missus away, I've gone off the rails a bit!

I thought you really had (gone off the rails with the missus), until I read again and found it was not anyway

Date: 2009/05/14 03:27:09, Link
Author: Quack
Where can I find the relevant pages at TT and maybe other sources of input by Chunkdz, Wesley and maybe others in the current controversy?

Date: 2009/05/16 03:02:53, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (chunkdz @ May 13 2009,15:26)
Hey, Wesley, when's the last time you took the time to point out the faults of your herd of  attack chimps? Spetsnaz

Had to fix it.

Date: 2009/05/17 12:03:06, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Louis @ May 17 2009,04:52)
Quote (sparc @ May 17 2009,05:22)

{Puffs chest out proudly}

Why yes, yes I am.


I wonder, what part may masturbation have had in the evolution of man? Psychology-wise, it means satisfying oneself by the work of one's own hands.

I once learned that the reason the Poles were such good craftsmen - that was way back in the 50's with Poland behind the Iron curtain - was because they had few inhibitions against doing it.

Nowadays we have had opportunity to experience that indeed, they are very good and esteemed craftsmen.

The sexual theory of Freud is well known and I believe that basically all our psychic energy is sexual. The 'harnessing', differentation of that energy is what has made man the cultural creature that he is.

Date: 2009/05/24 03:58:08, Link
Author: Quack
A worthy companion for Ray Martinez - it's all about science!

Date: 2009/05/29 09:13:50, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (nuytsia @ May 29 2009,07:53)

In regard to the synthesis of RNA article, I found this comment on the Nature page interesting.
What is most promising is that it may lead us to be able to show, definitively, that man did not in fact ascend or evolve from apes [as I had always found odd] but rather we evolved along a seperate, but similar strain of the same... for lack of a better term, primordial ooze. Like the other prehistoric beasts, some went inland and some went back to the seas, and others still made for the trees. This is a wonderful study and I hope to read more.

WTF?  ???

There goes common descent down the drain - or maybe the 'tree of life'?

Ed. modified statement.

Date: 2009/05/31 13:33:21, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (k.e.. @ May 31 2009,10:33)
All the best old boy.
Have a Guinness on me.


Quack quack, burp

Date: 2009/05/31 14:42:14, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 31 2009,14:09)
Quack's first tivo appearance (at the end of the clip).

I'll buy the second Guiness, Quack!

I am all smiles!

Date: 2009/05/31 15:27:46, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (FreeSpeachFan @ May 31 2009,15:10)
Uh, guys, I came here with the intention of trolling. I admit that, but I think I was too obvious, what with the overblown language and the misspelled username, and after making that first post I started feeling guilty anyway. Please do not judge this failed troll too harshly when he asks if it's too late to switch over and become a 'serious' (or whatever you non-troll users call yourself) member instead. I am indeed Swedish, but I have nothing but disdain for Creationism and variations thereof (and my name isn't "Crister Wimblen," for the record).

Anyway, this forum has provided me with endless hours of entertainment over the years (it also introduced me to the word "tard"). Why I decided to troll it, I do not know, but perhaps a reasonable explanation is that I am really bored at the moment.

No hard feelings, I hope? If I am banned, I definitely won't complain. Hell, if I had a forum, I'd ban all trolls, even those who repent.

Naughty boy!

You made me PM you beause I thought we had got a mad Swede here. Good creationists are hard to come by, I thought we had made a scoop!

Men OK, jag förstår att du är - eller var - 'bored' - Jag hade önskat att du var 'for real'...

Date: 2009/06/01 05:02:37, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Louis @ May 31 2009,14:54)
A birthday you say? Quack you say? Well stap my vitals and call me Cyril!

Happy birthday Quack! I'll stand you a Guinness or two too!


Tnx ya all fer the kind offers, guess I'd have some problem downing all them Guinnesses!

Remember on my first visit to London, went to a pub with a couple of colleagues to have a goodbye drink. I ordered a pint of Guinness, the barkeeper making a strange look at me, asking A PINT? I didn't know what to say or do except with a blank face replying yes thank you, a pint - as if that was my usual lunch-hour drink.

I've never ordered a pint of Guinness since then...

Guess you'd never catch me revealing embarassment. Just one of the tactics I've developed in order to get along.

As far as I remember, I never downed all that pint...

Guess it is about time I learned for certain, are pints of Guinness something only visitors from outer space would order?

Reminds me of a cartoon, a couple of strange looking guys in an American bar, ordering "Coca Cola, Reg. U.S. Pat. off."

Date: 2009/06/08 05:00:17, Link
Author: Quack
Makes me wonder, what’s the toughest – being a scientist, maybe even doing science, mining the tard, or just surviving the after hours?

The way rag is being chewed, it just makes this innocent bystander curious.

Big question: Why is there no creationist counterpart to AtBC?

Date: 2009/06/09 16:10:21, Link
Author: Quack
And there is no one more broken down by age and sex than the average AtBCer.

I may not fit the description but nevertheless...

Date: 2009/06/13 10:44:29, Link
Author: Quack
Wonder what they will say (or maybe Scandinavia (with not only academic freedom but a fair amount of all kinds of freedom - even to the extent that nobody cares whether you ever go to church or not) already has been written off) when they learn that Sweden is about to reform/replace the dated marriage institution and rituals with gender neutral marriage.

I couldn't care less. (Except I think it is a good idea. Gay-ness most likely won't disappear from the planet.)

Born in 1930, I grew up in a town named Trondheim, Norway (population 60.000 back then). A florist owned a shop aptly named Iris, and he was known to all the town by that name. Although married to a woman, all the town knew he was gay.

Many homo jokes and sayings attributed to him were circulating and his homosexuality was a non-issue.

(Edit typo fix.)

Date: 2009/06/21 16:17:22, Link
Author: Quack
Only bother when I can really zing JHud.


Date: 2009/06/26 15:21:39, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 26 2009,11:56)

The parable about Sodom and Gomorrah comes to mind; one just soul among the population would save them but God couldn't find one.

Are the chances any better that  he will find one cdesign proponentsist agreeing to anything Steve Long wrote?

Ed. typo fix.

Date: 2009/07/03 16:32:26, Link
Author: Quack
It is really quite sad even though it is a source of perpetual amusement - they are so blinded by ideology (aka creationism - ID) that reality simply stays below the level of consciousness.

Date: 2009/07/05 03:37:40, Link
Author: Quack
Goodbye Darwin
Finally a true independent and honest view of science's and religion's theories about Darwinism, evolution and the origin of life. -- Dr. Collin Patterson, Chief Paleontologist, Brtish Museum of Natural History.

Product Description
The first book in the history of mankind to challenge on scientific, philosophical and plane common sense grounds, at the same time and inside the same book, both the scientific theories as well as the religious teachings about the origin of life and human beings. The only book not backed or proded by any scientific or religious interest group.

I was intrigued by Dr. Pattersons positive review since I found the book so bad – not just badly written, but idiotic and downright silly, that I threw it in the garbage. My reaction was: Why would any publisher publish such crap?

So I thought I better do some googling, and I got this Candy for CMI

I can’t find the words to express what I think, but I believe something bad must have happened to Dr. Patterson’s brain somewhere along the way.

Date: 2009/07/05 07:03:09, Link
Author: Quack
I found a review that I didn't see the first time at Amazon, it says it all.

Thanks for clearing up on the Patterson story, nobody in his right mind would write what is attributed to Patterson at Amazon.

And yes, it is the worst book I've ever read! It went straight into the trash can - while I still keep both DBB and even "Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or Creation?" from the Watch Tower on my shelf here.

But creationists have no shame, the CMI article is dated 2005/2006.

Date: 2009/07/05 14:15:50, Link
Author: Quack
Are all those grammatical errors from the book?

Don't know, but indeed at Amazon!

BTW, googling Patterson brings up a lot of stuff, even at T.O. Archive and an interesting one from ARN's Paul Nelson

ETA links

Date: 2009/07/06 02:49:14, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (didymos @ July 06 2009,02:37)
Whoa, how'd I miss this model of clarity?



9:25 pm

A good way to define nothing would be to say; whenever you think there could be a way for a thing to come from nothing, that “way” isn’t allowed, logically, empirically or anyway. So just keep trying with that formula and see how far you can go. Whenever you think you have a way, just remind yourself that it isn’t allowed. Because nothing’s definition means it isn’t allowed.

Alternate Lamarck:  There is no such thing as nothing, 'cause nothing nothings nothing or something or whatever and know what I mean.  Shut up!

Link works, but "Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here."

Date: 2009/07/08 04:14:25, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 07 2009,14:16)

But HERE, you won't be banned here unless you do something extraordinarily stupid, like threatening to hack the server (DaveScot). You will NOT be censored. Your posts will NOT be held in moderation queues. They will NOT "disappear" or be altered by mods. Language won't get you banned, ideas won't get you banned. Arguing all day and night for years won't get you banned, regardless of the rhetoric you bring to the table. You can bring your ideas to the fore and win intellectual victories. That IS what you want, correct? The ability to demonstrate the superiority of your ideas without fear of being "expelled," and using your victories to show the kind of peer-review you can withstand, right?

So why not bring those finely-wrought incontrovertible arguments of yours to this forum?

We could even arrange an agreement on mockery and language use. Nothing more than what is allowed at UD, say.

Makes me think of the definition of Sadism: Being good to a Masochist.

But I am afraid the first thing that would have to go would be the ‘Clivebaby’. Are you prepared to let that go?  (I’d hate to see it go, but some sacrifices have to be laid at the altar of science.)

Date: 2009/07/20 03:02:08, Link
Author: Quack
This is now literally Biology 101.

To measure the complexity of the DNA string just as one measures the complexity of a word, sentence, paragraph, line of code, module or program one calculates the likelihood of the sequence of symbols, or in the genome, the DNA sequence to assess its likelihood.

It may be just me, but I wonder if complexity really is eligible for measurement. But with FCSI being like biology 101, I thought maybe I could find the formula for calculating FCSI. But what I got was this and I don't know what to think any longer

Date: 2009/07/20 07:39:03, Link
Author: Quack
Quack, me duck (an affectionate and courteous form of address from where I spent my formative years),

How cute of you -

But actually - in case somebody have not guessed, my nom de guerre is just my subtle way of saying "I don't pretend to be anything but just me."

Date: 2009/07/26 15:38:34, Link
Author: Quack
So that's what I was doing for so many years, writing recursive code, using subroutines and in general honing programs to make them as short as reasonably possible? Improving programs by lowering the amount of CSI? Where did all my effort go? Into a black hole?

Remember back in the 1980's when memory was at a premium, I rewrote in Assembler language and replaced the BCD-real (Binary Coded Decimal Real Numbers) routines of the MT-Pascal compiler we were using, to reduce memory usage. Improvement by reduction of CSI, is that how evolution works?

Date: 2009/07/29 06:35:09, Link
Author: Quack
There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a... fraid.

Date: 2009/08/02 03:31:33, Link
Author: Quack
....Any one here a Salman Rushdie Fan?

Read "Shame" (?) many years ago, thought he might be worth watching but verses was boring - never got  through it. Sic transit. No more Rushdie for me. Kurt Vonnegut it is, but not all of his work is up to Cats Cradle or Sirens of Titan either. What the world needs today is not Kerouac but Reza Aslan.

Edit, typo fix.

Date: 2009/08/02 09:35:56, Link
Author: Quack

Now I have to find out who the fuck is Reza Aslan.

That was the idea

Date: 2009/08/02 09:51:51, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 26 2009,20:46)
oooh boy you won't BELIEVE teh stoopid in here.

WTF is this about?

Seriously, are anyone taking that seriously AD 2009? I believe I have to believe people can believe anything they want to believe - but I already knew that, and yet...

Date: 2009/08/03 09:46:25, Link
Author: Quack
the universe ever accidentally generating a specifically sequenced 100 amino acid protein by accident

Semantics, anyone?

Date: 2009/08/03 15:29:07, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Aug. 03 2009,10:15)
Quote (Quack @ Aug. 03 2009,09:46)
the universe ever accidentally generating a specifically sequenced 100 amino acid protein by accident

Semantics, anyone?

It's not so much semantics as it is a logical breakdown--the argument assumes its own conclusion, and the tards can't process the line of reasoning deeply enough to understand it.

Besides what the argument is supposed to say, the double accident somehow didn't (doesn't) look quite right but I suppose that's not worth elaborating on - it is bad enough anyway...

Date: 2009/08/08 03:28:07, Link
Author: Quack
What about OS version?

Date: 2009/08/10 03:12:21, Link
Author: Quack
I confess being a cynic...

Date: 2009/08/16 04:30:43, Link
Author: Quack
All I can say is that if you knew the health care we  enjoy here you'd all be green with envy. Retired, me and my wife with medication like statins, thyroxine, metoprolol and Losartan/Valsartan.

They are expensive, but my wife with only the basic pension gets it all for free; mine is subsidized.

I won't tell you more: everything is not glorious here either, but ...

Date: 2009/08/17 16:31:52, Link
Author: Quack
I am skeptical of our government's ability to lower costs of health care by managing it, but we do survive with government run streets and highways and government run fire departments and government run police and military.

None of my business but I seem to remember some tv news here about how the US army is outsourcing ever more of its 'business'? I don't know the names of all the different areas of business within an army but I suppose that in principle, anything can be outsourced except legitimate army soldiers are needed to pull the trigger?

Date: 2009/08/18 03:19:02, Link
Author: Quack
Defence money has always been magic.

Off topic, but while we are at it - read a story many years ago about Pentagon procurement - hammers at >$100 apiece. (Gold plated and numbered, with certificate?)

Date: 2009/08/19 04:24:49, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Lou FCD @ Aug. 11 2009,08:37)


Big-ass pitcher plant discovered in the Philippines.

"The plant is among the largest of all carnivorous plant species and produces spectacular traps as large as other species which catch not only insects, but also rodents as large as rats," says McPherson.

Link is doubled, fixed here

Date: 2009/08/19 06:13:12, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 18 2009,19:46)
Quack, posted 8/18/09 2:19 AM

Defence money has always been magic.

Off topic, but while we are at it - read a story many years ago about Pentagon procurement - hammers at >$100 apiece. (Gold plated and numbered, with certificate?)

How do you think they pay for stuff that they don't want listed on the official records? ;)


I leave that one to Ollie North.

Date: 2009/08/19 06:22:03, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 18 2009,19:47)
Ultimately, says Monton, we shouldn't get caught up debating whether or not ID is science. The most important question is whether or not the claims are true (73).

That part I'm inclined to agree with. It should be sufficient to point out that nobody's described a pattern of evidence that follows as a logical consequence of the concept that nature was deliberately engineered to be the way it is*, and that's pretty much the first thing a proposed hypothesis has to do.

*(That's what I take "I.D." to mean, even though it's proponents generally ignore what would be the important aspect of their own model if that model was actually useful in understanding anything.)


Are you saying:

How can we answer the questions, as long as the claims doesn't make sense? (Unless you believe they are true)?


Edited for clarity.

Date: 2009/08/23 03:15:08, Link
Author: Quack
My 2 [ASCII 9B]: Persona

ETA ¢, thanks Wikipedia...

Date: 2009/08/25 16:31:29, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (KCdgw @ Aug. 25 2009,11:11)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 25 2009,10:38)




10:30 am

Dave Wisker,

You have a tendency to just cite papers as proof of something. Many of us do not have access to these papers and when we do the language is so specific to the discipline that it takes too much time to invest to decipher what is actually being said. When I asked for a layman’s account of your recommended theory of stereochemistry as the origin of the DNA code you presented a rather vague theory that was very interesting (a couple codon strings bind with the corresponding amino acid) but hardly anywhere near a proof of anything.

shorter jerry:  i don't know shit but i won't let that stop me from claiming nonsense

I love it: evolutionary biology is so easy even a tard can refute it! Just don't cite papers on evolutionary biology-- dey is cunfyoozlin.

I can't contain myself, I just love it too!

It brightens my day, it is free, and keeps flowing from an (almost) eternal well!

Doesn't get much better than this! And best of all, how true!

Date: 2009/08/26 00:43:08, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 25 2009,20:16)
A researcher in Canada wants to manipulate developing chicken embryos to resurrect ancient dinosaur features.

Goody; research somebody can sink their teeth into!


Another case of thunder thievery - S-F coming true?

Date: 2009/08/26 06:39:00, Link
Author: Quack
And then I remembered Dembski.

Dembski programs in Ada too?

Date: 2009/08/27 10:47:26, Link
Author: Quack
Admittedly, a fall not far enough to crack an egg.

Believe it or not - I have in mind writing a defense of Dembski.
No, it will not be about ID. It will be about a Grand National jockey, too late realizing his mount is a camel. What's he to do? Pretend it is a stallion and hope the race never ends.

Date: 2009/08/31 03:00:15, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Raevmo @ Aug. 31 2009,01:25)
Seems like I was silently (or preemptively) banninated from nullasalus' thread.

I enjoyed how he declared himself with lots of fanfare and self-importance to be no longer a Darwinist. Who gives a shit?

Seems to me like comments are silently closed on that thread?

I just went there to point out that the "the Darwin hypothesis is a minority viewpoint" hardly can be construed as anything but a creationist's denigrative refusal to refer to "the theory of evolution" and is in fact talking about evolutionary theory. I have always thought the ID assumption was the minority viewpoint?

Date: 2009/08/31 07:57:04, Link
Author: Quack
Jefferson bought a cheap Bible, cut out all the parts he didn't like or thought were BS (the entire Old Testament and a lot of the New).

You really had one smart president there...

Date: 2009/09/01 06:50:50, Link
Author: Quack
I have often advocated a boycott at UD by ID critics as the undiluted stupidity of commenters like Gordon, upright biped, BA^77  et alis would stand out more starkly without sane commenters giving the impression that there are ID arguments worthy of rebuttal.

Why not try an experiment on a smaller scale? I suggest nobody responds to nul's threads or comments. And, since, as Oleg points out, he is congenitally unable to concede points, the saving of wasted time is also a bonus!

I've often been thinking similar thoughts. It would be an interesting experiment to leave the UcD and TT crowds to themselves for, say a month or so and see what would happen. I believe we might get some laughs out of that too. (After all, the purpose of UcD is to "serve the ID community.")

Date: 2009/09/01 17:07:17, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Sep. 01 2009,12:06)
Disco Institute added the Dembski & Marks paper to their ever escalating list of "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design."

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, Vol. 39 (5):1051-1061 (September, 2009). (PDF, 359KB)

Now the list has 41 items.

Yadda yadda, but what is The Theory of Intelligent Design ??? I don't hear ya?

Date: 2009/09/02 02:13:54, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 01 2009,17:55)
Quote (Quack @ Sep. 01 2009,15:07)
Yadda yadda, but what is The Theory of Intelligent Design ??? I don't hear ya?

Pre-Dover: An unknowable entity did unknowable things at unknowable times for unknowable reasons in an unknowable manner.  This is scientifically valid.

Post-Dover: Goddidit.  This is scientifically valid.

Ah, now I see! It is like Behe has been saying all the time?

Date: 2009/09/05 03:34:13, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 04 2009,23:56)
haha TARD

you may be able to get this guy here.  seems like a live one

I don't have much respect for people with blogs so ugly I don't care to read them...

Date: 2009/09/07 05:43:39, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (MichaelJ @ Sep. 06 2009,18:01)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 06 2009,09:49)
If the blind-watchmaker thesis is correct for biological evolution, all of these artificial constraints must be eliminated. Every aspect of the simulation, both hardware and software, must be subject to random errors.

Of course, this would result in immediate disaster and the extinction of the CPU, OS, simulation program, and the programmer, who would never get funding for further realistic simulation experiments.
Someone propose the following thought experiment to Gil:

Create a simulation that runs on a virtual machine. I'm sure he understands the concept. The virtual machine includes the OS, hardware drivers, and programs. All of this will reside in memory, but this is the only feasible way to run his kind of simulation.

To make it possible, the virtual machine would be somewhat less complex than Windows. Perhaps a few thousand bytes. I think the early Apple and Radio Shack computers implemented Basic in under 4K. I think you could easily make a VM that requires much less. A VM would consist of an interpreter and code, and both would be subject to mutation.

Since abiogenesis is not the issue being explored, the starting VM would be a self replicator. It would divide, producing imperfect copies of itself. The division and mutation process could affect both "children."

The VMs would exist in a sea of memory, perhaps a turbulent sea that sloshes around, separating the individuals so replications don't always sit on other individuals. Although this could happen. Perhaps individuals need a virtual membrane.

My first thought is that something like this has probably already been done. I don't follow the details of the various simulation programs, but I'd be surprised if someone hasn't tried this.

My second thought is that Gill wouldn't accept this, because the "real" OS isn't affected.

It does remind me of an related project. The GAs are based around machine code. You started with a population random byte arrays and the processor attempts to read the byte string as instructions.

Usually you have a target (such as finding the square root of a number loaded into a register) but you could mix this with another game from the eighties "Core War" where each individual attempts to kill the other members of the population by moving around memory and putting stop codes in other individual's code. You would change the code by putting in random mutations.

In this scenario you don't need to code the reproduction code as the programs should develop the ability to reproduce to protect the "genome" against being killed by competitors or by random mutations

IMHO much too sophisticated and not edible to GD, a machine emulating a machine?

When I try to visualize an entirely mechanical computing machine instead of the sophistication of electronic devices with operating systems and no means of actually observing their operation, I see a machine that would eliminate all of the objections people like GilD might come up with?

A mechanical device hard-coded to run just the program it was built for. (Or a little more flexible by using a punched tape loop to store the program?)

Date: 2009/09/08 11:50:39, Link
Author: Quack
It would eradicate much of my cynicism regarding the human species.

Arthur Koestler didn't see much hope, I am afraid I don't either.

Date: 2009/09/08 16:49:21, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 08 2009,13:23)
Quote (Quack @ Sep. 08 2009,17:50)
It would eradicate much of my cynicism regarding the human species.

Arthur Koestler didn't see much hope, I am afraid I don't either.

Oh I don't know. I'm an optimistic cynic. After all I could be wrong. In fact it's quite likely I am.

Mind you, if I'm right then it really is advisable to start drinking heavily.......soon.


What more to say then but SKÅL!

BTW, Sweden has a rich tradition of debauchery (hope that is an appropriate term), and libertinism made immortal by a character named Bellmann; his songs about careless life with lavish amounts of wine, broads, strumming the zithar and maybe other joyful things of which my limited command of the English language makes me recognize only as images in my poor bourgeois soul...
Guess this should be bumped to the BW.

Date: 2009/09/09 11:15:56, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 09 2009,10:32)
Interesting (but surely hopelessly biased) profile of Densye's best friend here.

Creationist martyrs of all countries, unite!

Date: 2009/09/09 11:42:53, Link
Author: Quack
This is too good for the Wall but I know no other place to advertise the good news:

As you may know, there isn’t any run to the churches here in Scandinavia. A broadcast on Swedish Radio recently explained why

Christendom has won!  We now are “Cultural Christians”, i.e. we may not know the Ten Commandments but we know when we break them.

I don’t think I need broach the subject, I only hope it is contagious.

Date: 2009/09/09 16:20:52, Link
Author: Quack
Yet another outlet for IDCists to dissipate their energy (as opposed to doing science):  A blog "satirizing scientism" that's about as funny as syphilis.

Pox on you, evoswine!

Date: 2009/09/11 08:00:19, Link
Author: Quack
Funny, the Greek characters I typed in MSWord displayed properly in preview but came out as ?????'s in the submitted post.


Date: 2009/09/13 04:33:55, Link
Author: Quack
I am afraid you have painted yourself into a corner you can't get out of without, well, you know what I mean.

I agree with what was said here, but I had been hoping that there would be some agreement about eligible topics. My chin dropped however at reading          
Sincere thanks to all who provided input regarding topics.

Is this what you wanted?

ETA: At my "fairest in the land" ritual, my mirror gasped "as fair as ever, but what in the world happened to your jaw?"

Date: 2009/09/15 05:26:12, Link
Author: Quack
Okay, I think I get it now.  There's a "FL debate thread" AND an "FL peanut gallery thread."  (Good grief!!)

Well, I've already started posting on the peanut gallery thread, (and probably will do some more posting there too, btw!), but I will use this thread for the main focus and debate.  

In this main debate thread, I will focus on civility and such.  In the peanut thread, I reserve the right to go freestyle and say inflammatory and impolite (but non-profane and not-too-insulting) statements on occasion.

FL  (Floyd Lee, aka Mellotron)

I don’t think I will bother with the “debate” on the FL thread. Theology takes far too much time and effort, and Christian literalism’s 2000 years history have set an incomparable precedent. Funny how many words Christians have spent on convincing the world of the bible’s truth, literal or not.

I however expect to take a peek sometimes, and maybe even make a comment, but I think I’ll use the gallery only.

But FL, I have a plea:

Please stick to your “own” thread. I don’t see any reason for you to have some sort of sanctuary of profanity here in the gallery for you to offer “inflammatory and impolite” statements. The sort of statements that I presume soon would get you silenced on most creationist forums like ARN, Uncommon Descent, or Telic Thoughts. I hope you as a self-declared Christian understand why I find your wish to use the gallery in the way you have indicated a rather hypocritical behaviour.

It has been my experience that creationists, i.e. Christian apologetics most often refuse to meet at fora like AtBC, or As expressed at TT by another Christian, Salvador Cordova: AtBC is a cesspool.

Seems Christians are afraid of becoming contaminated.

What company this man kept:
The Son of Man came eating and drinking and you said, 'Look, he is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.'

Date: 2009/09/15 11:48:13, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (BWE @ Sep. 15 2009,10:34)
Christianity can be a defined in a number of ways too. I am a buddhist/christian/atheist. I see them all as compatible. I somehow think this is about biblical inerrancy. Is it? Otherwise, what is it about?

To me,  it is not just about inerrancy; it is also about sects, cults and denominations, and a plethora of interpretations.

Date: 2009/09/15 16:26:02, Link
Author: Quack
Keep it Clean!

I just love you guys how clean you keep it as long as no creationist rears his head to stir you up and arouse the kind hearts and loveliness you hide so well...

Date: 2009/09/16 04:09:35, Link
Author: Quack
I’ve already expressed my misgivings regarding this ‘venture’ and it is turning out even worse than feared.

I don’t find much of this:
(1.)  First, I’m going to combine “Evolution is incompatible with Christianity” and “The Biblical Perspective on Biology” and write about BOTH items under the overall topic “Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity.”

in this:

Won't lie to you, Dan---Mr. Darwin AIN'T my patron saint, and you should not look for me to speak reverently of him at all times, not even in this main debate thread where I'm committed to civility.  
Besides, the promised civility applies to you and all the posters/readers here.   Didn't promise anything to Darwin.

Now, I won't do any blatant insults on him, but for me "Big Daddy Chuck Darwin" is within the boundaries.  
I do not owe him any reverence---and quite frankly, given what he said about black folks in The Descent Of Man, I honestly think I'm being too lenient on his butt anyway.

Darwin has been dead for quite some time and I can’t see how whatever ideas most white people had about black people 150 years ago are relevant wrt evolution vs. Christianity.

But, if that’s the way it is going to be, I presume the genocidial maniac Yahweh of the OT is fair game too. He certainly is incompatible with my Christianity.

I won’t even repeat FL’s stupid and childish words about Darwin and parts of his anatomy –– but they tell me a lot about FL. In any case they are entirely off topic, but from what I’ve seen of FL so far, that is not much of a concern with him.
Now I have promised to be civil, respectful and circumspect about it all in the main debate thread, and I will very seriously keep that promise.

I consider Darwin a part of 'it all’ but I see that FL has his own definition of it all.

Circumspect: watchful and discreet; cautious; prudent. The DELETE button on my keyboard often has saved me from making a bigger fool of myself than I already am.

Date: 2009/09/16 10:54:51, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 15 2009,18:18)
Quote (Quack @ Sep. 15 2009,22:26)
Keep it Clean!

I just love you guys how clean you keep it as long as no creationist rears his head to stir you up and arouse the kind hearts and loveliness you hide so well...

Thank take that back! ;-)


What did I say, or intend to say? I guess it might be ambiguous, so please let me make it 100% clear: your kind hearts are present and obvious but you are too prudent to let that outshine the joy of romping around on this playground.

Keep up the good work!

Date: 2009/09/16 11:03:13, Link
Author: Quack
And I have a soft spot for the old cars of the English. Of course it has to be the old cars since they don't make any new cars. Who owns Jaguar? who owns Land Rover? India? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Chad?

The best buy of a car that I've ever made was when I bought a 10 years old Hillman Minx... I enjoyed it almost as much as I now enjoy a 150 hp Audi A3.

Date: 2009/09/16 11:19:13, Link
Author: Quack
For example, are a you a "non-literalist" when it comes to Jesus's substitutionary atonement on the cross?

Let us be literalists and acknowledge that in addition to Jesus's (ohmygod) substitionational atonement on the cross for our sins, he also substitionated resurrection for us.

Too bad; we're already both forgiven and resurrected with no hope of yet another resurrection to get us into heaven...

Date: 2009/09/16 11:28:29, Link
Author: Quack
It wasn't too hard to fix Behe's link but to me it didn't look like much worth to bother with
Recently a paper appeared online in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, entitled “The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine” ( As you might expect, I was very interested in reading what the authors had to say. Unfortunately, as is all too common on this topic, the claims made in the paper far surpassed the data, and distinctions between such basic ideas as “reducible” versus “irreducible” and “Darwinian” versus “non-Darwinian” were pretty much ignored.

Date: 2009/09/18 04:55:10, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Sep. 17 2009,14:55)
When you read the Sermon on the Mount, does it say anything against evolution? Not that I've ever seen. Isn't following its teachings and other statements by Jesus what being a Christian is all about? Isn't being a Christian about following Jesus, not following some particular interpretation that assumes the Genesis creation myths are literally true?

Even better than that; not even Jesus or evolution stand between us and heaven:
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

That's all there is to it, the only problem is identifying the right god; scripture is littered with all kinds of gods.

I am presently reading “Om Gud” by Jonas Gardell. (“About God”) – in Swedish, I wish it would be translated into English.

He is of the right stuff and the kind of person Jesus might have enjoyed mingling with. Gay, standup comedian. After “Om Gud”, he was elected honorary PhD at the theological faculty at Lunds University. He is living in partnership with Mark Levengood

His thorough and intelligent analysis of the OT leaves one with little doubt that you haven’t understood a thing if you believe the literal version touted by the literalists.

An unavoidable stumbling stone for literalists are the fact that the only exhibit they have to present to defend their beliefs is the bible; nothing else!

Which is full of gems like Isaia 37:10  to 37:36  where you will find:      
Then the angel of the LORD went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.

185.000 killed in one night, by an angel of the LORD?

Let this be a warning; don’t keep your nose too close to the bible!

I think the inerrancy of the bible needs to be firmly established by an independent court before we may declare the end of science as we know it.

(Won't mind if moved to peanut gallery.)

Date: 2009/09/18 05:00:32, Link
Author: Quack
Instead we've got a weak, foamy broth of argument from consequences and quote mining. Frankly, I'm disappointed. When's the good stuff going to come?

What? Craving for more, isn't the good stuff at UcD sufficient for you?

Date: 2009/09/19 03:26:09, Link
Author: Quack
Oh, and, um....... therefore evolution is compatible with cricket.

Contingent on resolution of the issue of Irreducible Complexity.

Date: 2009/09/19 08:23:03, Link
Author: Quack
Then Floyd must be a catholic.

More like a holic without the cat.

Date: 2009/09/20 04:59:28, Link
Author: Quack
I am  not amused but what strikes me is the inability of ID'ers to recognize that Weasel is just about fitness. The target is just a vehicle for fitness; there's got to be something against which to measure fitness.

Fitness is a requirement for survival just as in real life.

Date: 2009/09/20 09:18:44, Link
Author: Quack
If my understanding is right, another facet of the concept of fitness in evolution is that it works even with a moving target. Evolution has no target; it is always about immediate fitness. As long as the fitness landscape don't change too fast. Otherwise, extinction.

In a nutshell what Darwin said 150 years ago - and still going strong.


Shouldn't it be possible to write a version of Weasel with moving target - and wouldn't that prove unworkable with latching?

Date: 2009/09/21 05:06:59, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 21 2009,03:20)
Cabal has a moment of insight!

Very few of us are “einsteins”.

But plenty of "them"

Date: 2009/09/21 15:52:52, Link
Author: Quack
The only relevant question: Is FL compatible with Christianity?

Date: 2009/09/22 02:25:16, Link
Author: Quack
And of course, I like ID, particularly on the science front.

If that's the case, this ought to be of scientific interest to you.

Date: 2009/09/22 07:17:37, Link
Author: Quack
I've invited him over.  I hope no one minds.  Perhaps if everyone tells him how much we want him to join us, he'll be persuaded.

Don't think so. From the tone of His Lordship, I gather he prefers the elevated position of his ivory tower.

Isn't he a perfect icon of cdesign proponentsism?

Date: 2009/09/22 10:55:03, Link
Author: Quack
Notice how, under critical examination by evolutionists, evolution does NOT make God's plan look "majestic" at all, but instead cruel and sadistic.

That too. Maybe not majestic according to your wish, and yet what Darwin wrote: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

It also means that the terrain doesn't fit your map.

Date: 2009/09/23 02:20:40, Link
Author: Quack
I consider it a well documented fact that people like FL create their own religion of faith based on their personal understanding of scripture. Nothing can make them waver.

An integral part of that package is the urge to proselytize.

The agenda is FL's, the flood was not included in that.

People like FL ignore all bible scholarship, be it Albert Schweitzer or all the rest over 2000 years.

What characterize Christian apologetics and creationists is that they do not seek truth, they only seek confirmation of their faith.

What more is there to say? I won't bother with "casting pearls before swine."

Date: 2009/09/23 11:13:00, Link
Author: Quack
So, for Christians, a key decision must be made.  Will you choose to believe the Bible and believe in the Global Noahic Flood?  Or will you disbelieve the Bible and abandon the entire Flood story period

That’s only the beginning, the whole bible stinks – and it reeks of symbolic language too.

But that’s beyond FL, I am afraid. Sorry, your loss.

Besides all the myths and symbols, much is of course also just tribal memories from probably long before writing was invented. We know that tribes without a written language have rich oral traditions. We are dealing with people deep down into the past, in a world very different from what we know, and where mankind’s collective mind was far less developed than ours.  

I mean cultural development, not phylogenetic development.

But let’s make a simple test.  Isaiah 37:36 reports that in one night, “Then the angel of the LORD went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.”

You believe that? I believe you do, and nothing can make you change your mind about that.

You most likely will shove that before you like you do with Noah and hope you never will stumble your precious toes on the growing pile before you.

Date: 2009/09/23 11:26:49, Link
Author: Quack
No target, no selection.

Except in nature, where there is no mind but the target is survival.

Right, May it also be expressed like the target is about fitness, a measure of chance of survival with respect to a fitness landscape? But I suppose that is implicit in "survival"

I see the target phrase as a stand-in for the fitness landscape.

I don't think this is difficult except when one has a mental block against it.

Date: 2009/09/23 16:01:20, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 15 2009,06:45)
AnaxagorasRules (quoting Behe): Suppose that nearly four billion years ago the designer made the first cell, already containing all of the irreducibly complex biochemical systems discussed here and many others. (One can postulate that the designs for systems that were to be used later, such as blood clotting, were present but not “turned on” In present-day organisms plenty of genes are turned off for a while, sometimes for generations, to be turned on at a later time.) Additionally, suppose the designer placed into the cell some other systems for which we cannot adduce enough evidence to conclude design. The cell containing the designed systems then was left on autopilot to reproduce, mutate, eat or be eaten, bump against rocks, and suffer the vagaries of life on earth.

Had almost forgotten Behe's 'hypothesis'. It looks exactly like evolution—except those aspects just beyond Behe's ability to discern.

AnaxagorasRules: The reason why he believes this is because he is a biochemist and can't figure out how the complex functions in the cell could have gradually evolved, and all the evidence at his disposable indicates irreducible complexity (for some of the systems) such that they couldn't have gradually evolved. Also, just as importantly, neither can anyone else figure it out. Essentially he's making an inference based on what he does know.

No, he's making an inference based on what he doesn't know. It's a measure of his ignorance. The less Behe knows (or acknowledges), the stronger the 'design inference'.

Guess it is a bit post festum to comment on Behe's (and a few others) babble about front loading.

Seems to me a ridiculous idea if it presupposes intent; a future goal of creating mankind.

Doesn't take no genius to figure out that it would be impossible to encode in DNA and have that take care of changes in environment over 4 billion years. And that includes continental drift, ice ages, meteorite hits and much more. I find the idea idiotic.

So much for front loading. What's left is for the designer to keep busy all through the history of life on the planet, not least during the crucial last five million years to keep hominids alive during a number of close encounters with extinction.

Extinction is a common fate for species. What if mankind had not survived? There's something fatally flawed with front loading.

That's just my innocent bystander's opinion on the subject but I don't suppose I am far off guessing that the question has been disposed of by people who knows such things.

It beats me how Behe or Mike Gene can believe such nonsense. As for Slimy Sal, he is capable of believing whatever he fancies.

Date: 2009/09/24 03:39:59, Link
Author: Quack
Is Behe a front loader?

It's hard to tell when dealing with those guys, they have something in common with jellyfish.

I saved this from ARN some years ago:
From a transcript made at the DDD3 conference in 2002:

Question from the audience: I’d be interested in hearing you tell us a little bit about what your theory of intelligent design is, as opposed to what evolution isn’t.

Behe replies: Well, that’s a great question, and I know folks on the other side who are sceptical of intelligent design often get frustrated, but I try to be as conservative as I can and I don’t go out beyond what the data can support because I think overreaching is the bane of theories of design. You say that flagellum looks designed so everything is designed, or that everything that looks complex was designed, or something like that.

I think the short answer to your question is, for all of those things, I don’t know.

There not enough data. For the elephant, we have primelephus, the ancestral elephant of the Asian and African elephant, and mammoth. Well, could that happened by random mutation and natural selection? My instinctive answer is sure - it sure looks like it. It doesn’t look like any big deal.

The more careful answer, the actual answer, is I don’t know - cause I don’t know what’s involved in making one versus the other. I don’t know what molecular changes are necessary to make the small anatomical differences in those different species.

Suppose one believed that those things could have happened by natural selection, but maybe the origination of mammals needed some extra information - how would that have happened - how would the designer have done that? Would it have been, say, information embedded into nature at the big bang, or whenever nature started, or might it have been manipulations along the way, or some sort of input along the way?

The short answer is “I don’t know.”

Behe in a nutshell: "I don't know."

(My bold)

Date: 2009/09/25 16:13:26, Link
Author: Quack
Nothing here, even this is too much. Sorry.

Date: 2009/09/26 05:25:15, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (sparc @ Sep. 26 2009,00:23)
Quote (Touchstone @ Sep. 25 2009,19:55)
Here's the ever-lovely Denyse:

For what it is worth, I have met genuinely humble scientists who brought credit to science – but they were usually experimentalists or medical scientists.

Does she intend to imply that there is any such thing like experimental ID work?
However, I must admit that the relevance of Dr. Dembski's theoretic output surely does not exceed the impact of his experimental endeavors.

Funny, No "ID scientist" that I know of strikes me as humble. Dembski, Behe and the few others, humble is the last word I'd find appropriate.

They know ID is true, what remains is to get past legislation and have it taught in school.

Date: 2009/09/26 05:48:35, Link
Author: Quack
Besides, given that evolution is incompatible with Christianity

That's been established now, by whom?

Wasn't the purpose of this 'debate' just to establish that? Seems to me the issue is still open? Wouldn't we need some consensus about what evolution is, and which version of Christianity it is incompatible with?

Let's vote on it!

Date: 2009/09/27 04:28:54, Link
Author: Quack
I wonder, if we would just concede that yes FL dearie, your five incompatibilities are all true, what would the next step be? Remake the UN a theocratic assembly? Ambassadors from the Vatican and all Christian churches, Shiite and Sunni Muslims, Buddhist's, Shinto, Hindu, Jainism, Parsi, Sikh, Baha'i, I guess we'd even have to have Confucianism ... ohmygod. FL, please resolve our dilemma, you are the key to all the world's problems, you know what and where the key is?

I believe the only workable solution would be to bestow absolute authority as ruler the world on FL. He would have the last word on all and every issue. And all the world would listen and obey.

Om . . .Peace-peace-peace.

Date: 2009/09/27 11:28:18, Link
Author: Quack
I believe a question like this is more in line with FL's agenda than evolution, therefore:

How does your Christianity make you better than the next guy, be he an atheist, scientist, Darwinist or evolutionist?

(Not to mention Baha'i, Gnostic, Sikh, Parsi, Catholic, Mormon et cetera ad infinitum.)

Date: 2009/09/27 11:45:54, Link
Author: Quack
What's he doing among those other nitwits?

Any possibility he might be an impostor - I presume sock already is out of the question?

An approach like his is something I might have wanted to take but I am far too un-educated and short-tempered to keep  pretending.

Date: 2009/09/28 03:24:17, Link
Author: Quack
Plus he maintains an elaborate web page stocked with links to literature that "refutes" materialism.

Now I know: I am too simple-minded. Can't even fathom the possibility that someone not out of his wits can (thinks he) refute materialism.

OTOH, this world is an illusion, we'll never know the 'real world', whatever that may be. And in the end, this world, whatever it is, will (maybe) no longer be. It is all Maya. Some people need absolute certainty in order not to go nuts and they go nuts in their quest for certainty.

Date: 2009/09/29 02:25:51, Link
Author: Quack
English prose is one thing; English poetry something quite different but strangely similar, and hard to read.

For once I made the effort, and can only say Wow!

Date: 2009/09/30 04:45:22, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 29 2009,13:20)

"[snip] Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created, the one from the earth, the other [al.: altera], however, from the rib of man.”

---Pope Pelagius I (557 AD)

"....[snip]gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep."

---Pope Leo XII (1880)

Now THAT's how you do papal pronouncements!


Ought not a (presumably) thinking, even rational person stop and wonder WTF is this all about? A god, presumably with unlimited magical powers, and he has perform such meaningless, absurd tricks - when he just have to snap his fingers to achieve whatever he wants? Make a woman? Snap, there she is!

Extracting a rib, then miraculously converting that to a woman?

Come on, if reason were ruling in this world nobody would even dream of taking that literally.

Whatever it is, it is not reporting of facts. I don't have to spell out the consequences of applying reason to this and all the other instances of similarly mythological utterances found in scripture?

Date: 2009/09/30 07:24:13, Link
Author: Quack
Well, there you have it!  "IC = no evolution".  If it looks like it's IC, then it is.

Guess he's taken his cue from, I hesitate to mention his name - Ray Martinez:      
If an IC system is reducible, evolvable, then it aint an IC system as
defined by Behe.

Clever, eh?

Date: 2009/09/30 11:10:01, Link
Author: Quack
Little activity in this thread? Should I post in FL's own thread instead?

I made a great post here yesterday but it was lost because  unfortunately I exited before the upload had completed.

Instead this lament will have to suffice for today:
Hi OM!  Gotta ask......would you be trying to ask me a question about the Flood after I stated that I wouldn't try to do a Flood discussion (because of the need to stay with thread topic).

And that, that is the problem with this thread and the reason I was very disappointed to learn that you would set the agenda.

IMHO you'd be better qualified to debate the flood than what you are attempting now, we're not anywhere near what I'd call intelligent discourse.

If and when your problems with the flood had been resolved (i.e. never) the time might be ripe for those juicy esoteric issues.

It is like, we would have to determine that angels really do exist before embarking on a debate about how many of them would fit on the tip of a needle.

Date: 2009/10/01 05:55:10, Link
Author: Quack
It has been pointed out before in this thread but I feel it may need an encore. The fact is, and I can't see how even FL (or his brother of faith, Ray Martinez) can ignore it, that any particular version of the Christian may lay claim on being the one and only true religion. I believe FL's only force is apologetism; outside of that he is quite uninformed both with respect to science and religion(s).

In his introduction to the Norwegian edition of Elaine Pagels’ ”The Gnostic Gospels”, Prof. Dr. Theol. Jacob Jervell writes (translated):
... The fiftytwo papers found at Nag Hammadi, nevertheless only provide a glimpse into the diversity of the early Christian movement. Today we are beginning to see that what we call Christianity – and what we know as the Christian tradition – only represents a small subset of sources chosen among a dozen others. Who made this selection, and for what reasons? Why were some papers left out and for what reasons? Why were certain other papers left out and condemned as heresy? What made them so dangerous? Today for the first time we have the opportunity to investigate the first Christian heresy, for the first time the heretics may speak for themselves.

Gnostic Christians obviously expressed ideas that were abhorred by the orthodox. For example, some of these texts express doubt about the idea that all suffering, pain and death are resulting from man’s sin, that – according to the orthodox version – has violated an originally perfect creation. Others speaks of a female element in the divine, and worships God as Father and mother. Others maintain that the resurrection of Christ is to be understood as a symbol, not literally. Some few radical texts condemns even the catholic Christians themselves as heretics, who, even if they “do not understand the mysteries … pride themselves of being the sole possessors of the mystery of truth.” (Apocalypse of Peter) Such Gnostic ideas fascinated C.G. Jung; he meant that they expressed the ‘night side of consciousness’ – the spontaneous, subconscious thoughts any orthodox movement bids its followers to suppress.

But orthodox Christianity, as delimited by the apostolic creed, contain ideas that many today maybe finds even stranger. It demands for example that the Christian must believe that God is unflawed good and yet have created a world containing suffering, injustice and death, that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin mother and that he, after being executed by the order of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, arose from the grave ‘on the third day’.

How could it come about that the Christian churches achieved not only consensus about these
spectacular beliefs, but determined them to be only true Christian teaching? Historians traditionally have told us that the orthodox opposed the Gnostic views on religious and philosophical grounds. They doubtless were. But investigating the newfound Gnostic sources one gets a clue that the struggle also had another dimension. The sources seem to indicate that these religious subjects of dispute – about the nature of God and Christ – at the same time had social and political implications that would have a decisive impact on the development of Christianity as an institutional religion In other words: Ideas with implications in opposition to that development, were branded “heresy”; ideas that implicitly supported it, became ‘orthodoxy’.

When we study the texts from Nag Hammadi and compare them with the sources we know from the orthodox tradition for well over a thousand years, we can see how politics and religion come together in the development of Christianity. We may for example understand the political implications of the orthodox teaching of Christ’s resurrection  - and we understand why the Gnostic view of the resurrection had opposing implications. En tour we encounter a surprisingly new perspective on the roots of Christianity.

Further study recommended.

Date: 2009/10/02 02:25:23, Link
Author: Quack
My sermon today:
I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel me.
-St. Augustine

Date: 2009/10/02 11:37:21, Link
Author: Quack
Before we can determine whether Christianity is compatible with evolution we have to determine which version of Christianity we are up against. FL's version may be compatible only with YEC creationism, while other versions have no problems with science whatsoever. I believe religion and God are matters of spirit and not about the material world, and I suggest the problem is FL, not science or Christianity.

Before we can get any further with this we have to see FL's evidence that his version is the only true version of Christianity.

Date: 2009/10/02 16:54:20, Link
Author: Quack
*pardon my french

No reason to apologize, we love the scent of french perfume, didn't the court of Louis seize rely on that to neutralize the stench too?

Date: 2009/10/03 05:45:03, Link
Author: Quack
My sermon today:
The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb
- Albert Schweitzer

Date: 2009/10/03 10:42:32, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 03 2009,08:39)
If anyone needs a tard fix, a nice ore-body is available over at ARN (, culminating on 3 October, on the second page ): Frank, the resident and almost only remaining creationist loon, scored an own goal by quoting a reference that emphasized the opposite of a point he was trying to make, and then followed it up by trying to rip into me    
Wells you prove to me over and over and over and over again how completely and totally ignorant you are of history or maybe worse because I have corrected you so many times and you repeat the same falsehoods over and over and over again.
(he tends to project a lot).  The choice nugget in all this is that the statement that he picked on to get upset about was not something that I said, but something that I quoted from him (which he probably grabbed from one of the creationist sources that are the beginning and end of his knowledge).  (He tends not to read stuff very thoroughly, if at all.)  

It is not often that a creationist calls himself completely and totally ignorant, so I'm savoring the moment.

Have fun in Germany, Bob.

IIRC, Frank is the obnoxious jerk I was up against some years ago.

I felt justified in using language just a wee bit beyond what I usually do, and my post was silently removed. The next post silently made me persona non grata and that was that. Saved me from blowing my top, he really is a "#¤"#¤%.

I guess the end came when I invited him over to talkorigins where we could speak freely but I got the impression he was above sticking his nose into that cesspool of sin, and whatever words I used to express that must have been too much for the pure souls at ARN.

Date: 2009/10/05 03:41:28, Link
Author: Quack
My sermon today:

Lord, it hurts! Please save us from stupidity. That's your job, isn't it, to save us from all evil?


Date: 2009/10/05 14:31:30, Link
Author: Quack
Archived for posterity, a PM will get you a copy if you need it...


Edit: To archive.

Date: 2009/10/06 04:14:09, Link
Author: Quack
I've been thinking, FL is asking for compatibility between  Christianity and science. (ToE is science!)

While his version never will be, our version is.
Christianity compatible with evolution is what we have here in Scandinavia; indeed in most of Western Europe.

As someone recently commented: Our churches are empty, but that’s because Christianity has won. We may not know the Ten Commandments, but we know when we violate them.

Evolution is not an issue, except of course in the insignificant enclaves of anti-abortionist, anti-homosexuality, anti-female-clergy fundamentalist cranks. Crackpottery like ID is practically unknown outside those circles.

People just don’t bother although you sometimes may be hear a question like “Just what is this thing about human descent?”

A magazine like “Science Illustrated” print articles about OOL research, Dinosaur extinction, and all kinds of stuff; age of Earth, evolution and much more, it is all taken for granted. Kids prefer such read instead of the Bible…

I understand what must have been going on during the development of man’s consciousness, the psychological and cultural development from ‘animal-animal ’ to conscious human-animal, and the consequent development of religions. It is beyond my capability to write about it; I am just referring to what I have learned in my life, lots of books and attempts at making order out of the mess.

The bottom line might be like we have advanced to a stage where the primitive religions have lost most of their meaning for people. It is hard to tell whether we should view the creation of literalist Christianity as a good or bad thing. Where would we have been today without it? I’ll leave that question to people better qualified than me.

I have to say though that I believe the codification of the 7th century culture of the Arabian Desert into a religion is something the world might have been better off without.

I’ve heard it said “the Americans brought only the Old Testament with them to America.”
I believe that is a general trend with migration; people tend to preserve the culture they left behind, while the culture left behind may continue developing.

Date: 2009/10/06 11:31:30, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 06 2009,11:02)
As someone recently commented: Our churches are empty, but that’s because Christianity has won.

Another good anc considered post Quack, but I gotta say from my perspective:  THAT line is eerie to the max.  That's Halloween-level irony there.

Over here, empty churches, lost members scattered to the winds, no-longer-existing churches, mean great tragedy for Christianity.  Complete Defeat!!

How come that is such a tragedy for you, when here, we are better off than ever before? And I mean as a society - shouldn't a religion be judged by it's fruits? We use the churches when we need them: Baptism, weddings, funerals, Christmas... Who knows, maybe there's a small chapel in everybody's heart. If he just knocks on the door...

Hierarchical religion? Hierarchical psychotherapy? Hierarchical counseling?

The time is over-ripe to abandon dubious, antique scriptures and realize that

Religion is in a man's heart, not in scriptures, the church, the cathedrals or the clergy. The saved needs no salvation.
If Christ were born in Bethlehem a thousand times and not in thee thyself; then art thou lost eternally.

C'est tout.

Date: 2009/10/06 16:14:46, Link
Author: Quack
This is just a reminder for Quack.  Nobody's presenting those "Other Versions of Christianity", (the ones that are presumably Bible-supportable and demonstrably compatible with evolution), in this forum as of yet.  Nobody.

Why should anyone? We have yet to determine beyond reasonable doubt that your interpretation of the bible is or ought to be considered the one and only true version of the bible, nor have we agreed that there should be any reason to base our understanding of the universe and everything in it on interpretation of what ignorant sheep herders wrote 2000 years ago.

You are way off target, except you are blind to the possibility.

Date: 2009/10/07 02:11:03, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 06 2009,23:10)
Christianity is made up of several branches.

There is no central authority over all of them.

The beliefs held in any one branch are decided by the leaders of that branch.

The leaders of one branch do not have authority over the other branches.

Therefore the beliefs held in one branch are not compulsory in another branch unless the leaders of that branch also assert them.


Isn't the history of Christianity even to this day also the history of how the leaders of each branch are having a hell of a time making all the members of the branch subscribe to the beliefs supposedly being the beliefs of the branch?

Date: 2009/10/07 16:21:14, Link
Author: Quack
Dammit, I find FL so disgusting I don't think I can bear to post at 'his' thread anymore. Even Ray Martinez is more fun; he's at least consistent in his stupidity.

Date: 2009/10/09 10:43:33, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (dvunkannon @ Oct. 09 2009,08:01)
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 09 2009,06:47)
I've no doubt it's intended to complement Carter's prize as a comment on Bush/Cheney & co.  Sad, really. I sympathise with the sentiment, but I don't think Obama did anything like what you'd expect of someone who really deserves the prize. It would be simpler to institute the anti-Nobels.

I think Obama should turn it down. Put it in a time delay capsule or something. He knows he doesn't deserve it yet. Sad to see such overt political messaging from the Nobel committee.

We are surprised here in Norway too. It is premature. But I don't think we need fear an embarrassment like we did by awarding the prize to Kissinger.

Just listened to Obama's speech, being awarded the prize so soon after ascending to presidency must have been a challenge to him too, but as usual he made a good impression.

He inspires hope.

Date: 2009/10/10 15:57:22, Link
Author: Quack
There is a canyon somewhere in the Himalayas that is a rather recent discovery. AiG didn't know anything about it when I asked a few years ago. From what I remember, it seemed that as far as science was concerned the canyon could only be the result of events spread out over a long time period.

This, I believe.

Edit, added link.

Date: 2009/10/11 16:22:50, Link
Author: Quack
Cant get much better than that! I just love it! One of my pet subjects! How, just how do he do it? That's the million dollar question. I've been thinking along the line that we have (according to my understanding - but I may, as always, be wrong) something like a law of action and reaction - you cannot manipulate anything without something hitting back at you. Like firing a gun.

It somehow strikes me as absurd that God would be manipulating matter and have his hands getting dirty, so to speak. But wouldn't that make God into something material? I have always thought God was spirit?

But being omnipotent, he might of course turn himself into a team of - scientists - and have a lot of fun and a couple of beers while designing dinosaurs and fruit flies.

I hope Daniel will continue developing his idea into a full-fledged theory.

And hope I don't make a complete fool of myself before he's finished.

Date: 2009/10/12 10:18:14, Link
Author: Quack

(Post of the æon)

Modesty made me decide not to be the first...

Date: 2009/10/13 07:34:25, Link
Author: Quack
I am making certain I don't read any of FL's posts, but using the links here, I took a look at the controversy and while all of them said the same thing clearly enough, I found Dan's entry as lucid clarification of the issue as anyone could ask for. Except for FL, that is, but isn't it obvious by now that he is suffering a veritable comprehension problem?

Stealing from Dan:
Just as plumbing neither requires nor excludes a role played by God.  Maybe God makes the water flow.  Maybe God doesn't.  This is irrelevant to plumbing: I'll use quarter-inch pipes in either case.

Now FL, please show us the incompatibility between the two statements as used in Dan's approach to plumbing.

It is like when I am sitting down to dinner: The use of salt is neither required or excluded - it is an option left entirely up to me whether I think I need some salt on my plate, or if I will exclude it. Heck, I'm not even required to eat, I can exclude it or not.

I believe what we are doing her is using analogies. They are useful when attempting to understand concepts beyond our comprehension.

The missing "y" is intentional.

Date: 2009/10/13 11:56:17, Link
Author: Quack
Hence prebiotic evolution is part and parcel of the overall theory of evolution.

is not the same as this:
Oro simply made clear that abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution

I read quote #1 as referring to the overall theory of evolution - as in the evolution of the universe ever since the Big Bang or thereabouts, while I read quote #2 as referring to the origins of species only, defined by Darwin like:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

but sneakily presented as a theory about more than that, by adding "abiogenesis" and deleting "overall"  in order to make it look as how life had been "breathed into a few forms or one" is part of Darwin's theory.

Shame on you, FL. You stink.

Date: 2009/10/13 16:59:34, Link
Author: Quack
Just Wow.

Why just Wow? Looks like Wow Wow Wow Wow Wow ... to me.

Date: 2009/10/14 11:43:50, Link
Author: Quack
Remember, you evolutionists say that abiogenesis is separate from evolution.  And you say it often.  However, your statement, as you can see, is NOT true.  That's what all this is about.

Nonsense again. It is your statement that is NOT true.

The trick employed again by FL is the reference to naked evolution. But the Theory of Evolution which is the theory that "Darwinism" is about is not just naked evolution, it is dressed up as a Theory. Within that cloak, those clothes, the Theory of Evolution is not naked.

If your claim is that "you evolutionists say that abiogenesis is separate from the Theory of Evolution", you better say it!

Or do you still want to go beating around the bush?

We all agree that the entire universe and everything in it has been subject to evolution ever since it all started.
From the Big Bang to evolution of galaxies, solar systems, planets, moons and all kinds of object, and so on and so forth. We cannot rule out that all sorts of designers have been at work too, but we do not bank on it. We tend to believe they have not because we have yet to see evidence of their existence, past or present.

But that does not imply that the Theory of Evolution, i.e. the origins of species as a subset of overall evolution depends on any particular mode of abiogenesis be it divine intervention, alien intervention or any other kind of intervention, - including what most scientists believe: Natural forces at work.

No matter what amount of semantic, linguistic and other literary device are employed, that fact remains but FL is fighting for the survival of his religion. Masada comes to mind.

Date: 2009/10/15 06:04:52, Link
Author: Quack
Yeah, I knew this whole flud thing was about snowballing

If you'd only left out the link. Thank God it wears off though...
Is it possible to be a prissy liberal?

Date: 2009/10/15 06:18:01, Link
Author: Quack
Read it and enjoy!

Now if I could only get rid of that foul taste in my mouth...

Date: 2009/10/15 14:27:58, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (dvunkannon @ Oct. 15 2009,10:30)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 15 2009,10:04)
i that we had determined that niwrad was likely the eye-taliban Giuseppe Sermonti.  he is definitely not english as first language.  he is also definitely a tard.

For a while I thought that niwrad was gpuccio, but I think gpuccio's English was better. I wonder where gpuccio went?

He's definitely ESL, but I haven't figured out the first language from the mistakes in the second. I've eliminated Asian because he doesn't make single/plural mistakes.

You bastards, if you only knew how hard I try to hide my foreignity... (well, not here)

Date: 2009/10/15 14:32:13, Link
Author: Quack
This thread actually is lots of fun as long as I avoid the FL originals and just go for the replies. I just can't stand undiluted stupidity, I need the chaser to down it.

Date: 2009/10/15 14:42:49, Link
Author: Quack
on the other hand, I didn't force you to click the link

What about the other hand
I am not able to resist a link more than I used not to be able to resist chicks. Ah, the chase...

Srsly, back to business, that is fun too!

Date: 2009/10/16 10:00:19, Link
Author: Quack
Honest study of any subject demands checking one's facts and sources.

I doubt FL have done his homework. I have, at least enough to know that things are not always what we are led to believe.

There are people out there wanting us to believe what they want us to believe, even when they do not even believe it themselves.

May I suggest FL start here?

Date: 2009/10/17 09:36:06, Link
Author: Quack
Wow, seems the rabID epidemic is spreading real fast these days.

Date: 2009/10/18 03:50:52, Link
Author: Quack
When a couple of years ago a creationist claimed Baumgardner was "the world's number 1 expert on plate tectonics", I started this Baumgardner thread to get some answers. The interview link in the last entry so far on the thread is most revealing.

Date: 2009/10/18 04:03:40, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 18 2009,01:00)
Jesus, America is fucked.  Is there any country that has a decent science program, educational program, and let's me keep my guns?

Agreed, but since you asked. Having no education myself I cant vouch for the system but wrt guns you may keep what you need for hunting and practice by registering with a legitimate shooting club and proving your shooting is acceptable for hunting. But no assault weapons or things like that.

We don't keep firearms in our bedrooms here; we keep them locked in a steel cabinet.

So I guess we don't quite fit your bill...

Date: 2009/10/18 04:14:41, Link
Author: Quack
hoping desperately to convince himself that he won't cease to exist when he dies.

I don't care much for this f***ing thread or FL but since the subject came up:
That, gentlemen, that's all what the subject of biblical literalism is about! It always was, right from the start. That's why Gnosticism and related 'heresies' had to be suppressed.

They overlook the fact that nowhere in scripture is physical survival the subject; the subject is spiritual renewal. If one reads Paul's genuine letters and ignore the fakes written to counter Paul's obvious Gnosticism and promote Jewish orthodoxy wrt women, that is not hard to see.

Date: 2009/10/18 06:41:34, Link
Author: Quack
Warning: do not walk in the forest on the first day of the moose hunting season without wearing fluorescent garb. Drunk hunters will mistake you for a moose.

Judge: Why did you shoot him?

- I thought he yelled "I am a moose"

Date: 2009/10/21 16:28:44, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 21 2009,16:11)
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. - John 8:44

Who's your daddy, Floyd?

Dammit, vomit all over my keyboard. Some people might be better  off with a millstone hanged about their neck and drowned in the depth of the sea.

Date: 2009/10/22 10:45:01, Link
Author: Quack
And those theories of evolution that insist that all components of this universe, even those unseen conceptual components such as spirits and souls, as being products of materialistic evolutionary processes are incompatible with the Catholic understanding completely. However, those theories of Evolution that take no stand on such immaterial components and allow that God may well implant such substance within the human outside the parameters of evolution are not incompatible. That's what the Pope is saying. Pity Floyd either doesn't understand that or is dishonestly evading that point.

I am no great fan of the Pope but I think he shows a degree of maturity in his thinking that is sadly lacking in every thought emanating from FL.

Date: 2009/10/23 16:30:38, Link
Author: Quack
A word of comfort before he withdraws to his ivory tower; maybe it isn't so much about lying as it is just another case of     
Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

Date: 2009/10/25 08:45:11, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 25 2009,08:17)
I wonder how many teeth Mark ground down to a nub trying so hard not to use phrases like "fucking nutjob". The effort must have been herculean.

That's what makes it so effing frustrating to try and talk to creationists at their own sites; no matter how you try to 'behave' in a manner that fit their rigorous requirements you always risk being silently banned, censored and thrown out of the good company of true Christians. They fear contamination from both atheistic as well as Christian Darwinists may put their salvation at risk.

The fairytale forum rules says it all.

Date: 2009/10/26 07:29:28, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 24 2009,13:53)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 24 2009,10:34)
but if you read the rest of the evolution fairy tale forum where he was discussing his efforts on this board..... TARD... you'll find some interesting reading.  what a bunch of idiots.

"Ikester7579" who's the main mod at that site has to be one of the biggest dickheads in the entire YEC internet circus, and that's saying something.

He bragged he could show YEC supporting evidence, and when called on his bluff ("so show it") he locked the thread and threatened the asker with banning.  That'll learn those mean old evos!

Now it can be told!

I probably should have known better but I did go there with the idea of trying to engage Clownshoes in a direct debate – addressing facts and real issues. I have to admit I was quite a bit put off by seeing some of the idiotic rules in effect but I did my best, starting wit a post about what I thought was sound advice about being careful about using reliable sources and backing up claims with proper references.

When ikester – whom I suspect is a paranoid sociopath – butted in I didn’t see any reason why I should waste time and effort on addressing all of his off-topic verbiage, and thought we all might be better served by addressing his opening gambit:

I can show by google search examples where you guys cannot even decide the DNA percentage we are different from chimps.

I actually was quite confident that he was wrong; that I could find evidence that he was just a snotty, misinformed and ignorant jerk. Without being a scientist, it nevertheless so happens that I have been reading a bit just about that subject. I guess he knew I’d got him, and he just closed the thread.

It is clear that those guys are not interested in debate, the forum is only a sanctuary for massage and comfort for their inflated egos.

When at last I decided to check out the details of the forum’s rules, topping that with uncle Fred’s “Warning to Christians”, I knew the bells were tolling for me. I just finished my time there with a goodbye post, based on Fred’s quote of “If Jesus is not the topic it is off topic.”

That was last night, when this morning I went over there just to verify the quote for this account of the incident, I found I am not even allowed to read the forum! I even included some words attributed to Jesus in my farewell note,
“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.”

I completed that with a couple of lines of 21th century wisdom with advice to “silence and ban your adversaries.”

And that was that. Am I relieved, being done with them.

But before that, I thought that ikester had been a little too quick on the trigger and complained about that.

The guy who pm’d me with a reply that I’ll quote below here may feel betrayed because I make it public, but I am so horrified by uncle Fred’s site in addition to having been subjected to such idiotic abuse by ikester that I have lost whatever respect I might have had for everyone of them. They are bad company indeed; Jesus would have had them cast out of the temple along with the moneychangers.

I read a post made by a poor 19 years old boy there too, I really felt sorry for him, appearing like brainwashed and home schooled.

But here’s the promised quote:

Actually, he usually bans people for doing that. My guess is that because he saw that you were basically new, he gave you another chance. He just got finished doing a suspension trial to try and stop so much banning. But found out it was more trouble than it was worth because most people did not change after coming back.

ikester7579 is actually a mod with admin powers. He displays mod position because that is what Fred (the owner) wanted for some reason or another. He has total confidence from Fred in running this forum. He is actually in control when Fred is not here because he has been doing it for so long. He even built part of this forum, and often adds the new sections that you see.

He trains all new mods and promotes them to admin status when ready. So you would have to pm Fred because Fred overrides him. He does listen to us on things and we vote lots of times on whether to ban a member. But he often does things on his own because he has that power to do so.

I just talked to him about the situation. He said that the main problem is that you started a thread asking a question that you were not interested in hearing answers for. He considers those time wasting threads and usually closes them.

Just be happy that he did not boot you. And speak to Fred if you have anymore problems.


Me having problems? That’s nothing compared to what they have…

I just hope they will take Clownshoes advice and come over here as ‘a team’. What fun that would be! We are here for the entertainment, are we not?

Date: 2009/10/26 11:37:45, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 26 2009,09:18)
I don't think it's quite that. Remember that, at its basic level, the YEC cult is part of a simplistic, anti-intellectual and paternalistic group identity. The dynamic works as long as members remained focused on the next life (or a fantasy apotheosis in this life where Jeebus comes and We watch the Others get skewered)  rather than the complicated, messy realities of this one. A form of emotional coercion, whereby you stick with Received Wisdom or face exclusion and damnation, keeps them doing just that. It is a very shallow faith that is easily threatened when (as with Floyd here) it is questioned by outsiders.

As far as I can see, "evolution" (like "socialism" or "atheism") is just a place-holder term for stuff that threatens that group identity. Because they are Wrong, it isn't important to examine the truth of their claims (or non-claims, in the case of atheism).

I suspect that Floyd sees Catholics as not-quite Christians, but can't trust his ability to handle the theological and doctrinal side of the argument, hence his concession (which pretty much punctured the rest of his argument). To be consistent, Floyd should have stuck to the approach that his version of Christianity is the only correct one. But I think Floyd has academic pretensions, as well as being an attention whore.

Can't be said too often...

(Bolded by me)

Date: 2009/10/26 11:42:06, Link
Author: Quack
The human genome, according to Bill Gates the founder of Microsoft, far, far surpasses, in complexity, any computer program ever written by man.

Do we have to write that program just to prove him wrong about whatever he thinks that proves, provided it is true?

Date: 2009/10/26 17:18:40, Link
Author: Quack
Ah, the Nicene creed. I may stretch the good rules a bit but follow the example set by Emperor Constantine, hoping for forgiveness from the authors of "The Jesus Mysteries" (FL, DO NOT READ IT!):
we found that the history of Christianity bequeathed to us by the Roman Church was a gross distortion of the truth. Actually the evidence completely endorsed the Jesus Mysteries Thesis. It was becoming increasingly obvious that we had been deliberately deceived, that the Gnostics were indeed the original Christians, and that their anarchic mysticism had been hijacked by an authoritarian institution which had created from it a dogmatic religion-and then brutally enforced the greatest cover-up in history.

   One of the major players in this cover-up operation was a character called Eusebius who, at the beginning of the fourth century, compiled from legends, fabrications, and his own imagination the only early history of Christianity that still exists today. All subsequent histories have been forced to base themselves on Eusebius' dubious claims, because there has been little other information to draw on. All those with a different perspective on Christianity were branded as heretics and eradicated. In this way falsehoods compiled in the fourth century have come down to us as established facts.
Eusebius was employed by the Roman Emperor Constantine, who made Christianity the state religion of the Empire and gave Literalist Christianity the power it needed to begin the final eradication of Paganism and Gnosticism. Constantine wanted "one God, one religion" to consolidate his claim of "one Empire, one Emperor." He oversaw the creation of the Nicene creed-the article of faith repeated in churches to this day-and Christians who refused to assent to this creed were banished from the Empire or otherwise silenced.
This "Christian" Emperor then returned home from Nicaea and had his wife suffocated and his son murdered. He deliberately remained unbaptized until his deathbed so that he could continue his atrocities and still receive forgiveness of sins and a guaranteed place in heaven by being baptized at the last moment. Although he had his "spin doctor" Eusebius compose a suitably obsequious biography for him, he was actually a monster-just like many Roman Emperors before him. Is it really at all surprising that a "history" of the origins of Christianity created by an employee in the service of a Roman tyrant should turn out to be a pack of lies?

My bolding.

Date: 2009/10/26 17:27:49, Link
Author: Quack
It may be okay to go there if you crave for a whiff of tard but I really think we should not honor them with the offering of comments there.

They've chosen what company to keep, it is well deserved!

Date: 2009/10/27 12:02:18, Link
Author: Quack
I am easily satisfied, just show how to make a woman from a male rib bone. Complete with XX chromosomes.

Strikes me as a rather roundabout way of doing it for the magician that created man from clay.

Did He have to see Adam's loneliness to understand he was not just lonely but horny as well, f***ed up with just goats to play with?

Date: 2009/10/27 17:10:53, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,15:26)

"Yes" is the correct answer, btw.  There's only one creation account.  And it's complementary, not contradictory.  Chapter 2 holds up a magnifying glass on Chapter 1 and explains more about the origin of humans and also their relationship with their Creator.

When tribes joined together, the epics, the stories became common tribal property. And the “tribal fathers” after whom the tribes were named, traditionally became “brothers”.

The 12 tribes of Israel had each their own founding father. When the tribes joined, the fathers became “brothers” in the mind of the people, and Jacob “Israel” became the father of them all.
The stories about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob originated as unrelated stories within the Semitic, semi-nomadic sheepherders in Palestine. But when these small tribes joined with the Hebrew that had migrated out of Egypt (a story of its own that actually may be a myth, but I will let that problem rest here), the stories again became incorporated in the common body of myths, whether referring to real events or persons, or not.

Thus, the Semitic tribal fathers became patriarchs for the entire nation that grew out of this.
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob belonged to different tribes and were not related, but the stories grew together into a collection and the persons were tied together as members of the same family. Isaac became son of Abraham, with Esau and Jacob becoming Isaac’s sons.  And Jacob became equipped with twelve sons, so the twelve tribes should be equal.

Into this storytelling old adventure stories also were incorporated, and they were told as being as credible as the heroic epics. The motif in the story about Joseph and the wife of Potifar for instance is copied from the Egyptian fairytale “The two Brothers”.  
Of old an enmity existed between the semi-nomadic sheepherders and the Bedouins. In the production of myths, the sheepherders therefore made a story about how the Bedouins were descendants of a farmer that had fled because of murdering his brother. We recognize the story about Cain and Abel. They then equipped Adam and Eve with a third son, Set, who was made god-fearing and straight enough to be the one they themselves descended from.

Two creation stories:
In Canaan, drought was the enemy; high summer was the death of nature. But with autumn the rains came, and nature awakened to life again.  The creation myth of the Canaanites therefore speaks of the dry, arid land that id being blessed by their God with rain and wells breaking forth.
Thus life was created on Earth.
Contrary to that; in Babylon floods were the dangerous problem. Their creation myth, that also became known by the Israelites and incorporated into their folklore, therefore tells that it began with waters all over, then with land rising out of the water. The two creation myths are placed side by side in the bible and they are both equally true and believable.

Most likely, people in those times believed those stories as more than just stories. For them, it was real history that earth and heavens, man and animals suddenly were created. They were aware of the existence of other peoples with other gods, but they were not part of their own history and how they might have been created was of no concern to them. So therefore, there was no problem for Cain to find a wife.
Most of the myths in Genesis are older than the immigration of the Israelites. They had been part of the tribal traditions for a long time. Their concept of God also was quite different. The patriarchs knew gods like El-sjaddai and Elohim, and neither Abram, Isaac or Jacob knew anything about Moses’ new creation, Yahweh. According to 2. Mos. 3, Moses asked the new god what he should be called, and the god replied: “I am who I am.” The story leaves no doubt that it is a new, hitherto unknown god that is being introduced, but history has made him identical with the god of the patriarch’s. While they had been more like family- or tribal gods, this new god was made the god of the Israeli nation, and theirs only. And in later history telling he became the god of the ancient myths and fairytales.

This new god was made the unifying symbol to create a nation out of the different tribes. True, we may read in the OT that the tribes time and again relapsed into their old traditions and ancient gods but the clergy threatened that their new god, Yahweh, would punish them severely if the did not stick to him. And they could point of examples of his tremendous power in connection with the exodus from Egypt.

Thus the stories were kept alive for hundreds of years as a spoken tradition of adventures, and they quite naturally underwent changes both in form and content over the centuries. They were adapted to new ways of thinking and new ways of living.

It was not until long after a kingdom had been instituted in Israel that the first of these epic myths were consigned into writing. The oldest known source of the OT probably was written between the years 800 to 740 BCE, i.e. 500 years after Moses. They are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and Samuel. The author is called the Yahwist. His basic view is that all that happens is guided by Yahweh’s will and providence, his reward and punishment. And the result was not just a historical account, that apparently was not his intention, but to show how disobedience against Yahweh’s commandments led to punishment, for a person – or for the entire nation of Israel.

The world of the Yahwist was small. To him, Noah and Abraham were the origins of all of mankind. While he recognized the existence of other peoples in the surrounding country bet their origins was of no concern to him. According to the flood myth they too were descended from Noah. For the Yahwist the only people that counted was Israel. The Israelis were just and intelligent, while all other peoples were a lowly breed of sinful beings.

All the ancient tribal adventures or myths were incorporated in the Yahwist’s collected works; about the creation of the world, about Abraham as the tribal father of Israel, about Noah and the flood (even other peoples in the region of Euphrates and Tigris knew stories about the great flood and its survivor, but they gave him a different name) about the people who wanted to get close to the Godhead, either by eating from the tree of knowledge, or by building a tall tower.

Little in the way of judging the fitness of the stories to include in the writings were done, so stories more told for entertainment than anything else were included, like the story about Potifar and his wife, or stories of a more adventurous character. Yahweh was made identical with the family god of the patriarch’s, but under another name. And the ancient people were ascribed unlimited longevity. They lived until 800 or 900 years old, but since the god often were disappointed with them, he shortened their lives.

For a couple of hundred years the writings of the Yahwist served as the religious literature of the Israelites. There they could read about their special relationship with Yahweh, how Yahweh stood by his chosen people in times of peril, but also punished them for disobedience, and about Yahweh’s superior power against other the gods of other peoples – they were dwarfed by Yahweh.

In the middle of the 6th century BCE a new author sat down to improve the works of the Yahwist. This author is called the Elohist. He used the Yahwist’s works as his foundation, but made additions and deletions and reworked the text to better conform to more ‘modern’ thinking.

Date: 2009/10/28 05:06:38, Link
Author: Quack
I post this here, the two creation stories controversy has been adequately covered in the FL thread.

Literalists and apologetics ‘prove’ that the Bible is the word of God, infallible, and that all criticism is false. What else can they do? They are in the boat with FL; hellfire is no substitute for faith.

It is not my intention to attack the character of those who advocate the Documentary Hypothesis.  But the Bible Paul says in Rom. 1:18-21 that men suppress the truth of God's word in their unrighteousness.  This is what is happening here.  They are suppressing the truth.  They are devising elaborate methods to deny the inspiration and authenticity of the Bible, particularly the Pentateuch. Nevertheless, there are several issues worth examining when answering their claims.

This is funny! Suppression of truth; that is what literalism was built on.

The names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John never appears in Justin Martyr’s extant work, written in mid-second century. However, a generation later, Irenaeus brings forward these four gospels as authoritative: ‘It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer that they are, for there are four zones of the world an four principal winds.’ (Quoted in Stevenson, J., (1957), 117.) As Lüdemann notes: Irrenaeus ‘artificial arguments- at least demonstrates that the idea was a novelty which needed defending. (Lüdemann, G., (1959), 196.) Likewise Justin has never heard of Acts or Paul, the hero of that book, whom he likewise never mentions), which turns up in Irenaeus for the first time c. 175CE. It is widely accepted that it was Marcion’s set of authoritative writings that spurred the Roman Literalists to establish their own canon. (See Price, R. M. (2000), 80)

The Gnostics claimed Paul was one of theirs, and Elaine Pagels wrote: “What interested the Gnostics far more than past events attributed to the ‘historical Jesus’, was the possibility of encountering the risen Christ in the Present.’

Further from TJM:
”Gibbon’s original intention in The Decline and fall of the Roman Empire was to end with the destruction of Rome by Alaric the Goth and his horde of ‘barbarians’ in 410CE. However, on discovering that Alaric was a Christian, the ‘barbarians’ were bands of Christian monks and it was Pagans who were hunted down and killed whilst Christians remained safe in their churches, Gibbon changed his plan. Instead he continued his work until the fall of the Holy Roman Empire at the Reformation.”

Since FL rely only on apologetic and creationist sources and thinking, ignoring or denying anything that stands between him and his salvation, he have no option but to think what he thinks and say what he says. A fundamental prerequisite for finding truth is at least to realize that absolute proof is not available – that the story of the origins of the canonical bible is not what the apologetics want us to believe.
Apologetics are as poor sources of truth about the Bible as are AiG or CMI sources of truth about not only evolution, but also about science in general – like cosmology, astronomy, geology, archaeology

Date: 2009/10/28 05:14:08, Link
Author: Quack
The Documentary Hypothesis has garnered criticism on relying too specifically on inconsistency in redactors and consistency in sources. I see no indication that serious modern work on the linguistic analysis of the Pentateuch that would ascribe all of it to a single author, or that would identify that author as Moses. The DH in all its details may not be currently ascribed to by a preponderance of scholars, but the cat's out of the bag so far as the Pentateuch being a pastiche of different authors writing at different times.

Of the three links provided by FL, the first simply describes the DH, and the other two offer only straight-up denial as reasons to return to the earlier, simpler view of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

Both this and other comments are sufficient wrt FL's bold statement. I posted a piece to broach the subject a little at the peanut gallery. But expecting FL to budge on anything threatening his faith is like expecting the Pope converting to Islam.

Date: 2009/10/28 10:51:15, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 28 2009,08:45)
I posted a piece to broach the subject a little at the peanut gallery.

Any response I give to the peanut gallery is automatically redirected here.  Post your piece here if you want.

I try to show some respect for the high ideal of intelligent and pointed discourse. I just made a comment for the record, and didn't think it would mean anything to you. Nothing does except the handwriting of God. All that remains is for you to present proof of the authorship.

Date: 2009/10/28 17:21:02, Link
Author: Quack
If we should run out of topics(!), it might be interesting to debate those innocent looking words "Son of God". Do they mean what FL will claim they do, or do they mean what we may glean from unbiased study of the Bible and Jewish traditions?

But I really hope this thread will be terminated soon; it seems FL have enough problems already.

Date: 2009/10/29 03:28:37, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Raevmo @ Oct. 29 2009,03:16)
vjtorley has an answer to everything, no matter how ridiculous:
(I am taking Adam here to have been the acknowledged leader of the human race, in its original state, regardless of how many human beings there may have been at the beginning of human history.)

Assume the babble is absolutely true, then engage in mental gymnastics to make the fairy tales (a) maximally logically consistent, (b) minimally departing from scientific understanding of the world.

Shame how religion rots the brains of people who are obviously not stupid.

Karl Marx was a smart guy, wasn't he?

Date: 2009/10/29 03:36:57, Link
Author: Quack
I warned you, Floyd; you can't best me on Biblical exegesis nor on evolutionary theory nor on logic.

Even I can't... Buuuuhuuuu...

Date: 2009/10/29 06:37:26, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 29 2009,06:23)
Quack, I like your new avatar. A relation of yours?

Thank you. A little better than the slightly inebriated fellow waving a book "Norske Sengehester" (Norwegian bed-horses). We may laugh at it today, but in 1965 it was a harbinger of what IMHO has gone quite a bit to far.

WRT that fellow I like him too, but don't quite know if or where he might fit in. But I'll try to check it out, I want to know too!

Date: 2009/10/29 11:19:19, Link
Author: Quack
I would be surprised if FL hadn't already established that John Shelby Spong is not worth listening to; FL knows better, but anyway:
The Bishop of Newark writes about his disillusionment with Literalism: 'I look at the authority of the Scriptures as one who has been both nurtured by and then disillusioned with the literal Bible. My devotion to the Bible was so intense that it led me into a study that finally obliterated any possibility that the Bible could be related to on a literal basis... A literal Bible presents me with far more problems than assets. It offers me a God I cannot respect, much less worship ... Those who insist on biblical literalism thus become unwitting accomplices in bringing about the death of the Christianity they so deeply love.' (The Book your Church Doesn't Want You to Read", Leedom, T. C. (ed.) (1993), 116.

Date: 2009/10/29 17:01:22, Link
Author: Quack
Let's all have a field-effect day, and impedance!

Dancing inside or around the rhumbatron?

Date: 2009/10/30 05:50:24, Link
Author: Quack
I just wonder if it's ever even occurred to him that there is even the slimmest possibility that he might be wrong.  It wouldn't corrode his faith, it wouldn't destroy his faith in Jesus.  It would, generally speaking, make him a much nicer person to be around and a much more effective witness for his faith.

He might even learn to know "The Christ in me" (cit. St. Paul) ('me' in this case being  FL) instead of the fruitless worshiping of a mythical Jesus at Calvary. It is interesting to note that in a context of myth creation, use of "The location's landscape resembled the shape of a skull" would make sense.

Date: 2009/10/30 17:24:06, Link
Author: Quack
If a Christian rejects the evolutionary history of life because it has involved unpredictable processes that could have resulted in a very different outcome, then those same Christians should also be required to reject all other scientific explanations that include unpredictable processes.

They ought at least thank God the Romans did not invent the guillotine...

ETA: That would of course have been the Pilatine.

Date: 2009/10/31 10:25:05, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 31 2009,07:40)
As a follow up, how does your theology even handle those things like Thermophilic life which lives in locations bronze age shepherds would be completely clueless?

On a broader scope, why is there all this stuff in the Universe if Earth and only Earth is the "Privileged Planet"?

I am afraid questions like that means nothing to people like FL: the standard reply is, we don't know what may have been God's reason for making things the way they are. Or whatever.

Date: 2009/10/31 16:38:44, Link
Author: Quack
I would disagree with Bruno Maddox, in part. Darwin was a man of genius, and his theory a work of great creativity and imagination. However, he was a human being who gained whatever modicum of wisdom he attained, as human beings do, through hard-won experience.

From what little I know about Darwin, he was a very competent, dedicated and hard working fellow. I'd have loved been anywhere near as capable as Darwin. But that maybe says more about me than about Darwin.

I even have a problem stopping myself from ending sentences with three dots.

Like this...

Date: 2009/11/01 12:54:43, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 01 2009,08:54)
Hello Telic Thinkers!

I have decided to stay away from TT primarily because Joe G (a.k.a. ID guy) is clogging much of your cyberspace with his nonsense.  Enjoy his company!  

If you have a question to me, feel free to ask it here.  AtBC is not a scary place.  Just ask Joy.  (I wonder why she is not posting at TT.)


Oleg T.

If my opinion is worth anything although I guess to them nobody's opinion is worthwhile if it doesn't support ID - I made one of my occasional detours into TT, and found it rather bizarre with little, i.e. nothing of value deserving of argument.

If people can't see through the convoluted thinking of JoeG, all the worse for them.

ETA added 'to them' for clarity
+ worthwhile was worthless

Date: 2009/11/02 04:58:10, Link
Author: Quack
Their problem is on the order of the classical and still without a solution: How to fit a square peg into a round hole.

We should not expect coherent answers. Or questions.

Date: 2009/11/02 08:52:20, Link
Author: Quack
Evolution has been tested asshole.

You pukes just refuse to accept the results.

And that is not our problem.

Now if you want to refute the theory of evolution all YOU have to do is to actually start supporting your claims.

However you cannot even provide a testable hypothesis for your stupid inference.

Edited for correspondence with reality.

(I don't usually use such language but didn't want to distort the template ungraciously provided.)

Date: 2009/11/03 02:24:15, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 02 2009,23:13)
Quack, posted 11/01/09 11:54 AM
If my opinion is worth anything although I guess to them nobody's opinion is worthless if it doesn't support ID -

worthless, or worthwhile?


Oops, fixed it.

Maybe I need a new sig, like "nobody's opinion is worthless if it supports ID."

Date: 2009/11/04 04:56:52, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 04 2009,04:21)
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 03 2009,11:54)
Speaking of weird things:

This guy thinks that he's asking something simple, like "Show us the morphological changes from the whale's ancestor to the Sperm Whale", or "Is the Komodo Dragon a descendant of some dinosaur?"

Good stuff.

When you introduce a new site, and I've already been banned from it, it tells me I've spent too much time on the internet.

Those guys, beginning with uncle Fred himself and downward are crazy! All I did was tell them goodbye, meaning I no longer had any desire to talk to them – and I can’t even read the forum anymore. I expected, really wanted to have my account removed, but quarantining my URL?

What a miserable lot.

Date: 2009/11/04 05:22:15, Link
Author: Quack
Floyd - answer this question:

Does a person have to accept a literal version of Genesis to be a Christian.

IMHO, Luke 10:25 - 28 says all that needs to be said about that, but I am afraid FL ha painted himself into a corner.

Date: 2009/11/05 04:40:24, Link
Author: Quack
And anyway, if the universe was designed for human type life then why are all the other planets in the solar system unsuitable for human life? Sure, they may be outside of the "goldilocks" zone but I'd expect a designer capable of creating the universe to be able to get around such small details.

We know we are not allowed (according to types like FL) to ask questions about the mind of God; it is unfathomable, i.e. irrational. So whether chopping down an entire forest to make a matchstick or creating a vast universe when he needs only a tiny solar system, that's just the way he works, 'in mysterious ways'.

'You' can explain anything, i.e. nothing by using the Bible as 'your' vademecum.

I have another question too: Why did he go to all that trouble, creating so much misery when he could have created his heaven right away, with all of us pre-installed ready to play the harp and sing His praise? That's his goal, isn't it? What a roundabout way of doing things. But fully in accord with what to expect from the psychopathic tyrant  of the OT.

Date: 2009/11/06 05:30:13, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,04:30)
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Nov. 04 2009,12:48)
Could AiG's atatement be tantamount to telling lies ?

First time biblical creationist posting here. (there seems little traffic??)
AIG is a Christian forum of famous merit. They would not lie as opponents would take the lie to great lenghts and Christians would be very disappointed as we see ourselves as the moral and intellectual good guys on planet earth.

The growing number could mean just three more then before. Geologists are not that many, relative, in North america and so even a few is notable change.
Still the whole matter rests on the merits of the issues and not the quanity or quality of those behind any particular position.
I see geology as a good friend to Genesis and I do wish more kids became interested in it. Geology does tell a story of the past. Yet it must be figured out like at a crime scence.
Yet like in the Sherlock Holmes stories it matters who is Sherlock and who is scotland yard detectives. Both sincere seekers of the truth but one is wrong.
YEC is Sherlock Holmes.

Hi Robert.

What is your agenda? I think it would be a good thing if you had some specific issues you wanted to discuss. You will find that you get good answers here, but you have got to show what you are talking about. Bla bla about Sherlock Holmes, Asian doctors and I don't know what won't get you anywhere.

But if you really, truly want to know and to learn, you will get help here. Except you will find it also require of you that you invest time and effort to do some study on your own before asking questions or making claims.

It is not possible to ask intelligent questions without some knowledge beforehand! The talkorigins archive is a fountain of knowledge. And a simple Google search or Wikipedia also may help you get some background for whatever questions you may have.

You should not expect to be successful at proselytizing or teaching scientists how the world works. I am not a scientist myself, but I have experience enough to respect science and scientists. They are not quite the idiots that creationists often seem to think.

Date: 2009/11/06 10:00:06, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 06 2009,08:23)
Hmmmm.  Not enough exclamation marks.  Almost whole, coherent sentences.

Whiff of sardonic wit.

I call Poe on RB.

Poe in Training.  Here are some tips for being a really good Poe, Robert.  First, don't work the room too quickly.  Never announce right off the bat that you're a YEC or OEC or Freaking Lunatic (FL).  That should come scores of pages later in a spluttering, incoherent burst of self-destructive rage.

Ask a few simple questions to get the evolutionists to waste their time writing out for the 100th time Evolution 101.  Then after a couple of weeks of cat and mouse, slip in a code word like macroevolution or academic freedom or stasis.  That sets the hook.

Once set and the room is ready you can take us all on a tour of Kreationist Krazy Town until even the cattiest of us tires of batting you around.

Then and only then do you exit with a Flounce claiming to do more research, be back soon, going on vacation, just took up a new hobby or, hopefully, something more creative and don't neglect to insult everybody for being mean, vindictive, patronizing, crude, rude and sinful, and let us know you'll pray for us.

That's just an outline to get you started.  This is a great place to hone your skills.  All it takes is a little work and dedication on your part.  Good luck and may the farce be with you.
Let the show begin!

Date: 2009/11/07 03:40:05, Link
Author: Quack
So modern YEC folks are actually the father of modern science.
The early geologists were intellectually on our side and only later a few strayed and then modern geology followed.
Just to keep the history accurate here.

Just as the Pagans are the fathers of modern religion.

Ergo, you stick to YECism, I stick to Paganism.

And that has how much with the theory of evolution to do?

Please tell.

Phew, "Intellectually on our side", what !*%$:(¤%!
And now we have all strayed except for the elect, intellectually true few. Phew.

Date: 2009/11/07 07:11:12, Link
Author: Quack
He just knew nothing about moving continents and the great pressure from this affecting water and sediment.

You really know about moving continents? You know that's a real scientific subject? Care to discuss it? I am certain there are lots of people here waiting for you to address science. Maybe you want to tell us we need to read Baumgardner like that guy from evolutionfairytale did?

Frankly, I think that site will be more to your liking and I am certain you'll be most welcome. Say hello to ikester and uncle Fred for me. The gates of freedom are quite narrow over there though.

Know what? You come barging in here with the expressed intent to overthrow science and the theory of evolution in a short time. Is there no limit to your hubris? Darwin published Origins 150 years ago and the theory stands more firm than ever. What makes you think you singlehanded, with zero knowledge about what you are babbling about, can falsify not only the ToE but lots of heavy science far beyond your grasp?

What about a modicum of humility?

Date: 2009/11/07 07:27:31, Link
Author: Quack
They strive or see themselves as smarter then most folks.
You mean they're just like you? Guess it is time for the good old  
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

It never fails, creationists are blind to reality.

Date: 2009/11/07 16:02:29, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 07 2009,05:27)
I am a YEC .
I agree engineers are not into science except as they must use it.
Doctors also only memorize science stuff for background.
I find science or scientists come with different agendas. they are more interested in the prestige of doing "smart" things then practical things. So they can study bugs or bugs within bugs NOT because of interest in the bug but because of a desire to advance knowledge and get the credit.
I find scientists all want to be Einstein and the field of study is beside the point even if a passion develops later for it.
High science draws people who want to advance important knowledge for mankind. These people see this as very prestiges. They strive or see themselves as smarter then most folks.
This also explains motivations for demographic abberations in high science.
This is unrelated to professions that use science but only desire to do a particular thing.

So high science would have few people coming from demographics of bible believing heritage or inclination. while Engineers is from a greater cross the board demographic in America
And so on.

Yet this all has nothing to do with the merits of whether evolution and company are true or Genesis is true.
Its on the evidence and not respect of persons.

I taught myself English here in Norway and yet even I spot your poor language. It is my experience that smart people also are capable of expressing themselves in quite good language. Besides, in your case it is not just the language; that could be excused if the thoughts expressed were of a better quality - but they are not.

Do you mind telling us your age? It might serve as the excuse you need.

Date: 2009/11/08 05:17:56, Link
Author: Quack
Have Robert and other YEC's got any idea about the number of scientists they have to convince that the Earth is only 6k years old? Just look at the number of people engaged in just the study of the Mjølnir Impact crater, in Earth perspective an almost negligible piece of evidence - evidence that according to YEC geology should not exist?

Robert, scroll down and look at the list of peer-reviewed papers for just this piece of evidence. Read the article, then convince us that you know better, and why.

Date: 2009/11/08 06:42:19, Link
Author: Quack
Robert, I don't mind telling anyone that I am 79. Why can't you answer the simple question about your age?

Got anything to be afraid of? If you are the adolescent you appear to be, there's always the prospect of improved intellect and expanded knowledge. FYI, the brain is not fully developed before about 25 so I suspect you have a few years to go. Rejoice, there's still hope!
We do alright and will prevail soon enough.

You all have been at it for so long and all you have are promises about the future. I am more interested in what you have today. Got anything? So far you haven't even given a hint that you might have a clue.

Date: 2009/11/09 02:56:46, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 08 2009,23:29)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 07 2009,03:01)
I wrote a forth interpretor in Z80 assembler for my Amstrad 64k. Do I win the geek prize?

I wrote a Motorola 6800 assembler in Atari BASIC.  That should take some sort of prize.

Perhaps one for having way too much time on my hands.

Nothing like hand assembly, counting # of bytes in jump or calls and converting to a hex number. Had no calculator, made me a table for that. I/O was a NCR thermal printer/keyboard, it was a great improvement when I made a CRT display from a tv set salvaged from a garbage dump and an interface design from Byte magazine. I built this $395 kit:

Date: 2009/11/09 11:50:44, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (SLP @ Nov. 09 2009,08:36)
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 09 2009,08:13)
Here's the link to the post:

I can't post there as my IP was banned a few years ago for daring to ask Fred to support his claim that Oil of Hyssop contains "50% antibacterials" as he has claimed...

But what we have is the creationists' ignorance of things like development leading them to ask asinine 'questions' such as how did the muscle find the hole in the bone to go through.

Simple answer - it didn't need to.  It, like th eother extrinsic eye muscles, devleop in situ.  They do not sprout and then extend to find their point of attachment.  

That 'challenge' is just the sort of thing that Fred the electrical engineer thinks is a game winner.

If he'd just taken the trouble of reading Your Inner Fish, he would have known that and then some.

But I find much that I don't remember from the first reading that I enjoy studying a little closer on this 2nd or 3rd reading. I know something about electricity too. BTW I can't even read there, overtones of the black age when we were not allowed even to read the bible.

Date: 2009/11/09 16:40:52, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 09 2009,15:25)
Sal gives a shout out!

Salvador T. Cordova: I will not visit ATBC, they are an uncivil mean cesspool.

I never visit that cesspool of undiluted idiocy but thanks for the link, I felt like he deserved a nudge.

Date: 2009/11/10 13:38:13, Link
Author: Quack
the average citizen in this country has no idea what science is, beyond pocket protectors.

Sig worthy?

Date: 2009/11/10 14:03:45, Link
Author: Quack
This creationist sees the k-t line as the biblical flood line.
so if all these layers are below this line then they were all fossilized during the flood year.
I understand your looking at sequence but probably the trees and the other sediments were just collected and sorted en masse and has nothing to do with original living arrangements.
different layers just indicates to us different flow events within the flood year.

Robert, (although Bubba is very fitting) posting at a forum run by scientists you are not at risk of being banned or censored, so you need not save what you post here like I have to do when making an occasional posting to a creationist forum; you'll be able to retrieve it from the archive if and when you have grown up to some degree of maturity. Then, and not before, if you're lucky you you may perhaps be able to appreciate the silliness of the claims you are making now. But that is quite a few years hence.

Date: 2009/11/11 04:24:12, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 11 2009,04:09)
I know trees don't sprout up in hours. i'm saying these situations can be seen as simple collections from different flow events.
So first there is a sand layer and then from hundreds of miles away or so a great flow bringing sediment areas with trees in them lands it on top.
Like the discovery of turbite origins it just needs the right recipe.

You are pulling ideas out of your a**.

If not, I presume you have evidence for your claims? please show!

Like evidence for those "flow events" with "sediment areas with trees in them." Geology knows nothing about them, where does your knowledge about them come from? Sources, citations, please! Evidence! Studies! Facts! Documentation!

You understand that you cannot just present your own unclear, unfounded, unscientific, meaningless ideas here and ask we take them seriously? You may take personal pride in and enjoy your own ideas as much as you like, but they should stay with you until you had something substantial to show.

Date: 2009/11/12 09:19:54, Link
Author: Quack
Creationists have applied our minds regardless of professions and take on evolution on its merits.
We are experts now too and show any audience the lack of merit in evolution in its great or minor claims.

If the experts can't defend the merits then they are not very good. We already discovered this.

Wow, regardless of professions, 'you' are experts?
How come you fail miserably in showing lack of merit? You make claims without supporting evidence.

Your 'experts' are not very good; they aren't even bad - they are completely useless as we already know.

Please disappear, you have yet to make sense, you are just wasting our time. How old are you? Why is that a secret? Have you got anything to show that you are not just grossly ignorant?

Date: 2009/11/12 15:43:21, Link
Author: Quack
I dare not add another mutation but I find the pyramid quite lovely scrolling through. When will genetic entropy kick in?

Date: 2009/11/12 15:48:59, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Rrr @ Nov. 12 2009,15:05)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 12 2009,09:19)
Creationists have applied our minds regardless of professions and take on evolution on its merits.
We are experts now too and show any audience the lack of merit in evolution in its great or minor claims.

If the experts can't defend the merits then they are not very good. We already discovered this.

Wow, regardless of professions, 'you' are experts?
How come you fail miserably in showing lack of merit? You make claims without supporting evidence.

Your 'experts' are not very good; they aren't even bad - they are completely useless as we already know.

Please disappear, you have yet to make sense, you are just wasting our time. How old are you? Why is that a secret? Have you got anything to show that you are not just grossly ignorant?

Sorry, Quack, but I must interject the opposite here.
Au contraire to "fail[ing] miserably in showing lack of merit", it appears to this casual, non-interfering observer that they instead ace every single test in that regard.
But that is the only point with which I have any quarrel.
Oh, except perhaps the concern of other commenters that the obviously insecure Booba might get scared away. Some might consider it rude, even, to demand he state his age; it might be similar to his IQ. [And I'm not referring to any of the OT heroes here :-]

Carry on, as you were, at ease, usw.

I may have a language problem and think I see your point. If my guess is right, I can only say but of course, you are right! Carry on usw...

Date: 2009/11/12 15:59:25, Link
Author: Quack
I haven't been my usual self lately; I've had some tough business on my mind but it seems things are clearing up again. Bubba has been a challenge too. It would be better if we could have a subject to debate, say like flood geology.

Hey Bubba, what about flood geology, care  (or dare?) to discuss that? Take marine fossils, chalk and limestone in the Himalayas, how is that compatible with YEC flood geology? Let us throw in some plate tectonics and continental drift too, and let us know where that water came from and where it went. You are the expert(s), surprise and overwhelm us with facts.

Date: 2009/11/13 08:04:43, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 13 2009,04:10)
Geology is a great friend to YEC. In fact the new ideas of continental drift has been one of the best things to come along for us. It not only explains why the lands are separated but is the origin for the great pressure produced water flows that collected and laid the sedimentary covering of the planet. Only areas on earth where volcanos were in action do not have solid sedimentary rock covering.

I asked for facts. Please show them! Show us the facts. I am not interested in what you say. I believe you're not a geologist, so why should I take your word for anything? What, if any, scientific education/training do you have? What is your background? Why should we take your word for anything as long as you remain an anonymous, obscure web phantom?

Facts, show us the 'new ideas of continental drift'. Are they just creationist ideas, i.e. nonsense, or is there a consistent hypothesis or theory? Where and when has it been published, whose ideas are you talking about?

I want to read, with my own eyes, about why the lands are separated but is the origin for the great pressure produced water flows that collected and laid the sedimentary covering of the planet.

So far you have only made words, lots of, now is the time to deliver facts. If you don't have the facts, maybe you can point to other sources, where are the facts?

Date: 2009/11/13 10:54:32, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 13 2009,09:56)
Careful, Quack, you read like you're getting infected with Byerslexia.

Guess I better let him speak for himself then.
So good guys of Canada just keep talking out load. Its our country. Canadian, French Canadian, Ethnic citizen.
Robert Byers
Robert Byers, Project Manager – Database

Robert on marsupials

Date: 2009/11/14 02:46:38, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 13 2009,22:23)
Well, I got banned at EFT.

You're right, there is a buttload of deep, deep TARD at that site.

I'm actually proud of it:

As you should be, very well done!

Date: 2009/11/15 05:16:16, Link
Author: Quack
So a marsupial bear is just our bear and its marsupialism is a result of the area etc it lives in.

Robert, why have not the humans in Australia become marsupial too?

If we were to put some regular bears out in the wild in Australia, in a few generations they would become marsupial? Yes or No?

Date: 2009/11/15 07:14:54, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 15 2009,06:52)

(hypocrisy mode on)
"Leave him alone, he can't help it."
(hypocrisy mode off)

It is all getting rather boring. It might be more meaningful to debate UFO's, crop circles and similar subjects. Unlike evolution, they can be studied in realtime.

Adamski, Roswell, Velikovsky, Yum-yum!

P.S. Realtime study. Haven't seen it before, waiting for darkness.

Date: 2009/11/15 13:22:44, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 15 2009,10:24)
P.S. Realtime study. Haven't seen it before, waiting for darkness.

Must be beautiful covered with snow, too.

A pity nothing supernatural has come out of it;-) Research activity seems to have come to a standstill. The lights are a fact, nobody knows what they are. Just saw what looked like a brief flash, was gone at next (2 sec) frame.

Date: 2009/11/17 04:15:47, Link
Author: Quack
Reading this page #76 had me chuckling, while I suppose some other people will be frothing

Date: 2009/11/18 05:15:48, Link
Author: Quack
Data and reasoning but no scientific methodology.

What method are you using to determine that marsupials are bears? That is not a difficult question. What method are you using to define species?

Please show that archaeology doesn't use this method.

Date: 2009/11/18 10:08:53, Link
Author: Quack
Maybe it should be pointed out to Rob that DNA is not only effective as evidence whether you are the son of your father & mother - or the father of children you might have; it is also a very effective tool in determining relationships between you and your other relatives, and your forebears. This extends throughout the entire animal kingdom, that
is why we determine species relationships by using DNA instead of just looking at the exterior of their bodies.

Just as we do not determine your relationships by finding people that most closely look like you.

Do you understand that finding a Frank Sinatra lookalike is not evidence that he is a close relative of Frank Sinatra? Using DNA, I am certain we may find people looking nothing like Frank Sinatra but still they would be more closely related.

Date: 2009/11/19 05:17:52, Link
Author: Quack
Its speculation that because I am easily identified with my dad etc that all dna can by extrapolation be used to connect us back to bugs.

Not quite, all evidence points to the same inevitable conclusion. That's what Geology and the fossil record says, that's the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn.

You are just speculating.

Robert, what about dogs? The dog was domesticated from wolves about ten thousand years ago. From that we have been able to breed very may different dogs and according to your methodology they cannot all be dogs. So Grand Danois and Chihuahua are different species, created by man? How could that be possible?

DNA shows they are both dogs, while your intuitive method based on morphology would determine that they are different species.

How is it possible to get so many different dogs from a single source?

Date: 2009/11/19 08:34:49, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2009,06:43)
Sal lies, again
We simply need to look at DNA of great grand parents, grand parents, parents, and kids, to get some good estimates of the real-time rise in SNPs. It is heartening to see that Solexa and Illumina technology is helping to inform the debate (as I predicted it would a few years back here at UD).

No Sal, you said that you and yours had better start coming up with some predictions that can be validated by Solexa. That was several years ago.

And who is this "we" anyway? If you just need DNA from a few generations in the same family that can be arranged, I'm sure. Furthermore full DNA sequencing is available at much reduced prices.

There is nothing stopping Sal getting funding from the DI or similar to do what he's proposing.

You'd think they'd be all over the possibility of proving ID via empirical evidence.

But no.

We simply need to look at DNA

I hypothesize, the directly measured increase of the SNP’s will be inconsitent with accepted mainstream ideads. This implies genetic deterioration of some sort.

So fucking do it already!


Somebody should ask Sal about his approach to science; how he went out and bought something like this:

for a geological experiment to disprove current theory about folding/deformation of sediment rocks.

That was recorded at ARN's ID forum, maybe ten or more years ago, and might be available in their archive.

Being banned there I am unable to check it out.

Date: 2009/11/20 03:59:45, Link
Author: Quack
In fact i would say bears and dogs are the same creature. It is the anatomy that should lead the way and this means same shaped creatures are the same creatures despite details like size, teeth, pouches.

Right, details don't matter, therefore science is right when defining man as just another in the family of great apes: Man, Orangutan, Gorilla, Chimpanzee and Bonobo.

Dna just follows physical laws and thers no reason to see it as a trail of ancestry.

Let it be known: DNA is useless in determining ancestry; DNA also is useless as forensic evidence.

What's more: according to Robert, DNA does not determine morphology, anatomy.

Date: 2009/11/21 10:21:13, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 20 2009,23:47)
This Robert Byers idiot is someone I seem to recall from years of creationist stupidity. I think they are terminally stupid.


A reasonable conclusion, but I wonder if not things like home schooling, poor education, religious brainwashing and lack of exposure to qualified 19th thru 21st century science and thinking also plays an important role in the dumbing down of people.

Robert Byers is a perfect example; as far as I can tell, without shame he presents his own random thoughts as facts overriding even the most rigorously studied scientific subjects.

Date: 2009/11/23 16:18:53, Link
Author: Quack
Yet if there is great sudden change then the dna will change and not show a connection even from off spring to parent

No limit to your stupidity? A great sudden change means there will not be any offspring!

DNA with a 'great sudden change' is a damaged DNA, unable to develop into offspring.

Even a slightly altered DNA will result in no developing embryo, or in a spontaneous abort, or perhaps a stillborn. But healthy offspring, no way!

And I am not even a scientist. Shame on you, Robert, you are only displaying an unbelievably high level of ignorance.

You know less than nothing about genetics!

I won't tell you what I suspect.

Date: 2009/11/24 03:07:23, Link
Author: Quack
Robert, is it too much to ask that you try and learn at least some rudimentary genetics? You know, DNA and genetics are what makes reproduction possible. It works according to strict principles that cannot be violated if reproduction shall take place.

Corruption of DNA  - for whatever reason, leads to failure! Only slight changes are possible. That's the reason you find that of all the 6+ billion people on the planet, they are all human beings! Human, nothing else. And if we analyze the DNA of all those people, we see the same thing: Human DNA, showing clear relationship with all other humans.

A human will never give birth to anything but a human.

People like you used to deny Earth orbiting the Sun - the church even almost killed Galileo for telling the truth. The fact is, you and people like you deny everything that doesn't fit your religion. You simply deny the facts. An yet, all it would take to verify the truth of Galileo's discovery was to look into his telescope.

In the same manner, you refuse to learn the basic facts.

Date: 2009/11/24 06:34:04, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 24 2009,04:54)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 24 2009,03:07)
A human will never give birth to anything but a human.

Ummmmmmm, Quack. . . .

. . . . are you sure?

Weel, looking at it that way...

Date: 2009/11/24 06:37:10, Link
Author: Quack
Quack, I admire your efforts to try and educate this fool, but I think it's a lost cause. Say something nasty about the bible instead, it will be more entertaining to watch his "brain" explode :)

Good idea, I'll just wait for his next coprolalia.

Date: 2009/11/25 07:56:04, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 25 2009,05:47)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 25 2009,05:36)
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 25 2009,19:54)
Why is it so important to the fundies that climate change (let alone AGW) isn't happening? Would it somehow reflect badly on Jeebus? Can someone please explain?!?

Pick one or more of the following:

1. Because the whiny Liberals believe in it.
2. It would cause them to curtail their lifestyles which is unAmerican
3. Its not in the Bible (ie God wouldn't let it happen)

For Dembski, it has the added benefit of feeding his bitterness, as can be summarized in the last paragraph of this article.

Scientists are not our masters. They are our servants, and they need a lesson in humility. It is up to us -- We the People -- to hold their feet to the fire. To fail to do so is to be complicit in their sins. God help us to preserve what freedoms we have left.

I wish I could comment on the Dembski quote but words fail me.
I just don't feel comfortable enough with the English language. I've made several attempts but gave it up. Bitterness? Yes, I am afraid - and blinded by it to the extent that he doesn't fathom the implications of his own words.. That's all I can say. I just had to say something.

Date: 2009/11/26 03:14:59, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 25 2009,16:58)
Good stuff here, but it's still putting toothpaste back in the tube.



Article Not Ready
This article is currently being published.
It should be available for viewing in 5 minutes.

The Team

Edit to say 5 minutes becoming hours...

Date: 2009/11/26 04:02:18, Link
Author: Quack
Hi Robert, since your arguments are unique and you are the only person on the planet sharing belief in such nonsense, here is a suggestion for you:

You do not trust science (and you don't understand science), but do you trust AiG or CMI? They are Christian YEC creationists like you, and I suggest you ask them if they support your unique theory of biology and genetics.

Will you trust and accept their answer?

You trust their geology, shouldn't you trust their biology too?

Edited by removing relevant arguments beyond Robert's comprehension and making the suggestion above.

Date: 2009/11/27 02:30:33, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 26 2009,07:00)
Quack, let's get down to business here and adress what really interest Boobah:

Let him brainfuck himself until explosion. the world doesn't need this brand of tard...

Well, for every person praising the Lord for miraculously saving their lives from all sorts of disease, disasters and accidents there are thousands the same Lord didn't give and don't give a damn about. Whatever he is, he isn't fair and loving but cruel and indifferent to our suffering. Praying doesn't help either.

Should I make a list of times and places when His Bloodthirstyness Himself calmly with a smirk looked down at our suffering?

He is well known from way back for his predilection for blood and the stench of burnt flesh.

Good to be back on track.

Date: 2009/11/28 16:34:17, Link
Author: Quack
Egnor's  "obvious truth" reminds me of another crackpot, Ray Martinez, and his frequent use of "self-evident" arguments.

Date: 2009/11/29 04:07:22, Link
Author: Quack
My resolution is to argue that just as the salvation of Christ purchased at the Cross acts forward as well as backward in time (the Old Testament saints were saved in virtue of the Cross), so too the effects of the Fall can go backward in time. Showing how this could happen requires extensive argument and is the main subject of the book.

I'd think so! So that is only the first of a series?

(My bold.)

Date: 2009/11/29 10:40:45, Link
Author: Quack
The money in ID books has been drying up since Dover.  Billy has evidently decided to break into that hip new Science Fiction genre.

We have a lot to look forward to then from Bare Faced Messiah II

Date: 2009/11/30 08:48:49, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 30 2009,06:09)
Robert Byers:


All I can do is present the idea and the evidence and for creationists the boundaries of genesis.

Everything I've seen from you so far has been pure assertion. Do you really have an interest in evidence, and are you really going to present any within our lifetimes?

Hi Robert, Wes beat me to it, but we all most certainly want to see the some of that evidence of yours. Fair enough?

Date: 2009/11/30 11:52:20, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2009,10:00)
Robert hasn't exploded yet?  Wow, I'm impressed... and saddened.

Anyway, I had big long argument for him, but I took out the extraneous words and it said... "Robert... learn... biology... first."

If he only would learn anything at all. He is unbelievably ignorant and shows no signs of intelligence.

Date: 2009/12/02 09:08:47, Link
Author: Quack
I just stumbled over this

Date: 2009/12/04 04:35:44, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 04 2009,01:11)
Dembski pokes self, ID in eye.
Here's the whole OP:            
3 December 2009
Climategate Quote of the Day

William Dembski
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

–Leo Tolstoy

Lets see...
Has Bill delighted in explaining ID to colleagues?  Check.
Has Bill taught ID proudly to others?  Check.
Has Bill woven ID, thread by thread, into the fabric of his life?  Check.
Does Bill have problems with admitting the falisity of conclusions?  Check.
Is Bill at ease with problems of greatest complexity?  Oops, that is definitely not William Dembski!

Still, four out of five is not bad.  Good own-goal, Bill!

I'd say five out of five, Dembski is a member of the group 'most men' notwithstanding some of the group are at ease with problems of the greatest complexity.

Date: 2009/12/04 04:51:06, Link
Author: Quack
Sure lot'sof people say that "a god" exists, but it is usually not God at all, but an idol of their own making, so that they do not have to submit to the one true God of Christianity.

What a pity the one true God of Christianity is so reluctant to reveal himself to men.

Maybe he'd care to tell us how to detect the difference between idols and The God? Can we seduce God into unmasking himself or is he as deaf and blind as we have reasons to believe?

Date: 2009/12/06 15:12:56, Link
Author: Quack
Climate? I regret the poor image, but it shows six temperature curves between Oslo and Tromsø, Norway (60 – 68.6 parallel) for December month, period 1961- 2008. The straight line is 0°C.

Date: 2009/12/06 15:21:17, Link
Author: Quack
A scientific model which explains something doesn’t have to directly observe it. It does have to make specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.

I don't know, but I assume the cause of daylight is the Sun even on cloudy days.

Date: 2009/12/06 16:19:42, Link
Author: Quack
Quite a long time ago, maybe a few years, I read something at PT about analogy between genetics as expressed in development/embryology and digital logic circuitry.May have been by Nick Matzke but I am not able to locate it now. Suppose somebody here can..

Added in edit: On further thought, I believe it may have been Mike Elzinga, am not finished with Google yet...

Date: 2009/12/09 03:01:32, Link
Author: Quack
I would insist that the differences are few and the sameness of marsupial wolves etc are fantastic. In fact so much that they have to invoke a concept of special convergent evolution.

You are making a colossal error by just looking at overall external appearance. Those animals are so very different in lots of details internally and genetically that nobody in his right mind consider them the same animal. They are absolutely incapable of interbreeding.

Is it enough for you if two cars to have similar exterior, then they are the same model? They have for wheels and you have to look closely to see that one is a Chevrolet the other is a Ford, doesn't matter to you?

Doesn't matter if one have a small four cylinder diesel engine, manual gearing et cetera, and the other a six-cylinder gasoline engine, automatic gearing and all sorts of bells and whistles?

ETA typo fix.

Date: 2009/12/09 13:18:39, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (khan @ Dec. 08 2009,18:23)
Quote (dhogaza @ Dec. 08 2009,19:20)
I got caught up in the sequestration argument a couple days ago and couldn't locate a single source for the data, something with consistent units of measure, something that shows the carbon sequestered by all sinks in a way that can directly be compared to CO2 emissions.

Roughly half of our CO2 output disappears from the atmosphere, but mostly because currently the ocean is a sink, not due to increased growth of plant life.  As the ocean warms, eventually it will reach equilibrium with the atmosphere, and continued warming will cause it to become a source, not sink, of CO2.

I'm sure there's easily accessible information on the carbon cycle at Real Climate, along with the other sources already given by others.

And the carbon is acidifying the oceans and dissolving the shells of the sea creatures.

Wow, even JAD is an AGW defender...

Date: 2009/12/10 02:00:07, Link
Author: Quack
Otherwise marsupial cats, dogs, bears, mice, tapirs etc are so close to their placental namesakes that it stretches credibility to not see they are the same kinds.
what do you mean by 'kind'? Yes, they look similar, but in what way do that make them 'same'? Look-alikeness doesn't equate to sameness!

Look, car manufacture originated late 19th/early 20th century and all cars made today are the product of the evolutionary process of car making since then. It has diversified into many different lines of production all over the world.

But you know what: Whether rolling off assembly lines in Korea, Europe or USA, they look very similar because they are made for the same purpose: To carry people to and from workplace or supermarket.  

In the same way, because wolf and thylacine are/were adapted to a similar lifestyle they would have to share many features as required by that lifestyle. While at the same time retaining those fundamental differences that make them different species. They arrived there by different routes! Like all life shares a common origins, we have arrived here by different routes!

What makes you think you are smarter than millions of scientists? Who do you think you are, to tell the world anything about things you know nothing about?

Date: 2009/12/10 04:08:18, Link
Author: Quack
An interesting experiment was shown on Swedish tv recently. A reporter having made some very profound and somewhat surprising observations by studying people in real life situations.

This time his starting point was the programs of the two main political parties, the social democrats and the conservatives.

He prepared some selected quotes from each of them into a document. Then, pretending to be a representative of a public relations outfit, he arranged for a separate meeting with a group of people from either of the parties youth organizations. He carefully choose attire typical of the party group he would be addressing, carrying a folder with the party's logo clearly visible. His aim was to appear as a bona fide representative of the party group he would be addressing, doing his best to assume the air of authority his role required. The charade was made complete by setting up the meeting with tv cameras and making everything appear like a serious affair. He presenting himself and explained that his agency had been asked to make a write-up of some pertinent points from the party program that he was going to read for them. They were asked to listen carefully and determine whether they found the statements conformant with, and proper expressions of the party’s program.

The same text was used at both presentations except for some subtle, minor differences.

And at both presentations, the audience was very positive. Yes, what they heard was a fair representation of the values of their own party.

He was rather relieved when afterwards he could reveal his true identity and confess what they had been subjected to. And with insight and hindsight, both parties could see what they had done: They heard what they wanted to hear, doing their best to interpret the message in a way consistent with values of their own party, but now they could also see what they should have seen before, but had not.

If I have I been able to explain this in a satisfactory manner you also know why I post it here.

ETA: He presented the pr consultant company name as Rhubarb...

Date: 2009/12/10 10:39:50, Link
Author: Quack
lost what I wrote to a page reload - stupid me -

It takes just a little more time but may be worth the effort:
1. Use word processor and save, then c&p to UcD. (Or TT or ...)
2. Copy post w/link info back to wp and save.

Date: 2009/12/11 08:16:27, Link
Author: Quack
Robert, you have failed all tests so far. And you have ignored my very relevant use of cars as an analogy. That means you are unable to dispute the obvious argument: Cars looking like does not mean they are the same!

We can now say with certainty that we could replace your brain with a true plastic replica - it would look like the original, you would still have the same IQ and would still be the same "somebody who acts in a foolish, self defeating, uneducated or counterproductive way. clueless." (Wikipedia)

Date: 2009/12/11 08:23:38, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 10 2009,14:54)
Robin: he calls himself Jon Stewart. I had no idea who you meant for a second there. :-)

I had no idea until I saw your correction. IMHO, one of the reasons there's still some hope for the USA...

Date: 2009/12/11 17:25:07, Link
Author: Quack
Robert, if you had no previous knowledge about dogs and were shown a St. Bernhard and a Chihuahua, you would not say they were "the same", would you? Be honest now, how would you determine they are "the same"? Oh, so you say they are not the same, huh?

How many cubs would you expect a thylacine mother to  have with a wolf as father?

Date: 2009/12/12 03:26:52, Link
Author: Quack
Is this "progress?"

No, it's civilization.

Date: 2009/12/12 06:02:48, Link
Author: Quack
But a thought: I get the impression that (intelligent design) creationists believe in the power of the word, all words, literally. So, if someone calls some algorithm a evolutionary strategy, it has to be linked with the Theory of Evolution in general, and burning the effigy means destroying the real thing.

At the other end of the spectrum we have a nincompoop like Ray Martinez employing a similar method. It is all about words, and using his own definitions of words and terms to create a fantasy world of evidence why evolution is false.

Ignorance and denial of reality is a prerequisite for all flavors of creationism.

Date: 2009/12/14 11:19:04, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 11 2009,14:46)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,12:23)
"Gods ipod" banninated in that same thread here

Gods iPod subsequently unbanninated.

None of the links working now...

Date: 2009/12/15 04:46:39, Link
Author: Quack
I see my case the same way. The evidence backing up my assertions is solid and the issue of mechanism should not be even brought up.

You are dead wrong.

Your two examples are excellent evidence for the scientific method: Hypotheses are mad based on observations. The observations require an explanation, a theory about causes for the observed facts.

Such theories were proposed, tested, researched and found valid; they accounted for the observed facts in a coherent manner consistent with all scientific knowledge about our world. Further evidence have been found, the continents are still moving!

Mechanisms have been found. If no evidence and no mechanisms had been found, those hypotheses would have been in great trouble by now!

That's why your personal thoughts cannot be taken seriously. They go against all our knowledge about the world and of a similar quality as theories about the moon being made of green cheese.

You can make such assertions without mechanism, but until you present mechanism/evidence they will remain stupid nonsense as far as the rest of the world population is concerned.

Any idiot can make stupid assertions, you are a perfect example of that.

See what happened to all the christian idiots who asserted that the Earth was the center of the universe?

They thought they didn't need a mechanism, they relied on the bible. The scientific method employed by skeptics making observations of facts and finding mechanism exposed the religious idiocy for all the world to see.

Your idiocy is a few centuries too late, we have already all the mechanisms in place. Before you have a mechanism,you have nothing but emanations from a dysfunctional brain.

Date: 2009/12/15 06:30:10, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 15 2009,05:11)
UD is truly a moral tard-pit.

Seems like O'Leary's cup runneth over...

Date: 2009/12/15 06:36:47, Link
Author: Quack
Off topic, but anyway:

Heard on the news this morning it has been found that the level of brain development from conception to the time they begin to walk are exactly the same for all mammal species.

Date: 2009/12/15 14:56:19, Link
Author: Quack

Date: 2009/12/16 06:49:23, Link
Author: Quack
By the way, the fact of biological change via mutation is not in dispute. What is disputed is that mutation/natural selection can account for an increase in GENETIC INFORMATION.

Since I know computers better than I know genetics, what if

I take a top-down computer computer program an decide I want to make it shorter? I search for code sequences that are repeated in several places. I save one of the sequences, put it in a subroutine, delete all the original sequences, replacing them with just a call to the subroutine. Voila: Less code, same amount of work done!

It is not just about amount of code, number of bytes or whatever, it is about how the code is used, how it works. There are more ways than one of writing a complex program!

Creationists are sadly lacking in knowledge.

Date: 2009/12/17 02:08:06, Link
Author: Quack
Thats my point.
I'm saying marsupial wolves are not more related to "marsupials" then to other wolves.
Mechanism again.

Robert, please define 'related', 'relation', 'relationship.

Since you have demonstrated utter disregard for the concept of évidence, please also consider this and tell us whether you think it nonsense or not:

Évidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring évidence is the process of using those things that are either a) presumed to be true, or b) were themselves proven via évidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Évidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

Date: 2009/12/17 02:16:01, Link
Author: Quack
Sometimes celebrity look-alikes are dead ringers for the celebrities. How does that happen? Mostly we take this phenomenon for granted, but how could it possibly be that someone more closely resembles Beyoncé than her own mother?

Guess they could use Robert on the staff.

Date: 2009/12/17 14:34:35, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 17 2009,13:17)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 17 2009,10:49)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 14 2009,14:39)
I note that the largest viable replacement for bad coal is nuclear. I will believe that people are serious about CO2 when opposition to nukes diminishes.

I'm a little bitter about this because my home town geared up to build offshore nukes, got frozen out by Luddites, and wound up selling the industrial infrastructure to China at garage sale prices.

I view "Luddite" in this instance as an appellation bearing honor.  Lots of enlightened people view industrial society as a mistake.

What? How dare you? Capitalist industrialism is a cultural inevitability, the goal toward which all social evolution strives!!!11!!!  We must bring the TRUTH to the agrarian socialists!!! Enclose the commons!!!111!!!

I am uncertain about how serious you are about this.
IMHO, human civilization may be the most risky experiment in the entire history of evolution. But what the heck, life on this planet is doomed anyway, even if there still are lots of time left...

Date: 2009/12/17 16:48:01, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 17 2009,14:52)
I note that the richer people get, the fewer children they have. I find that more attractive than other decompression scenarios.

The only problem being that it takes too many poor people to make a sufficiently high number of people to make a difference. I won't attempt parsing that statement.

Date: 2009/12/18 03:50:36, Link
Author: Quack
What a s*****$$
I am glad that Kontinental at 9 is a proud European taxpayer. I just hope he’s getting something more for his money than mere absence of war. We don’t have much war here in Canada either (no local war since 1812-1814, actually), but generally we would never put up with all that Eurocracy. The people who have tried it on us are getting their butts kicked all across the country. They are not smart enough to tell us how to live.

Date: 2009/12/18 04:11:34, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 17 2009,19:11)
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 17 2009,14:34)
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 17 2009,13:17)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 17 2009,10:49)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 14 2009,14:39)
I note that the largest viable replacement for bad coal is nuclear. I will believe that people are serious about CO2 when opposition to nukes diminishes.

I'm a little bitter about this because my home town geared up to build offshore nukes, got frozen out by Luddites, and wound up selling the industrial infrastructure to China at garage sale prices.

I view "Luddite" in this instance as an appellation bearing honor.  Lots of enlightened people view industrial society as a mistake.

What? How dare you? Capitalist industrialism is a cultural inevitability, the goal toward which all social evolution strives!!!11!!!  We must bring the TRUTH to the agrarian socialists!!! Enclose the commons!!!111!!!

I am uncertain about how serious you are about this.


IMHO, human civilization may be the most risky experiment in the entire history of evolution. But what the heck, life on this planet is doomed anyway, even if there still are lots of time left

That's the spirit!

Indeed - and I don't even speak French.

Date: 2009/12/18 08:42:34, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (J-Dog @ Dec. 18 2009,08:25)
Quote (Kristine @ Dec. 18 2009,07:39)
(P.S. All my librarian/archivist training has paid off - I am realizing how important sites like UD are for revealing people's thought-processes. Whatever opinions we have of them, these are people's real thoughts and a website like this is the first opportunity people have to see the life-cycle of a creationist idea. It's an important document (but too bad so much of it has been excised by its own moderators) that objectively captures people's subjective ideas. I'm been seriously thinking that we need a museum of creationism in this country, to make real in the minds of the public that this is a movement, not a science, based on people's deep fears and desires. Can you imagine if we had been able to access a website like this during the Little Rock "creation science" fight? Creationism is Americana, folk art, folk poetry, outsider philosophy, outsider identity-creation, and kitsch. I'm learning to see it as Bob Schadewald saw pseudoscience in general.)

Kristine - IMO - Excellent thinking!  This looks like the beginnings of a PhD Thesis, perhaps a best-selling book, or a Saturday Morning Itchy & Scratchy cartoon.

I don't always read posts as thoroughly as I should but when you point it out, yes indeed, that subject is truly deserving of some dedicated attention to.

What response and attention it would get from the you-know-who's.

Date: 2009/12/21 06:10:37, Link
Author: Quack
Well after the flood there was a great need to quickly refill the earth.

Why? God has plenty of time. Time doesn't matter to God, does it? He has all eternity at his hands.

I guess that's why the Bible is full of lies, like this one:
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Date: 2009/12/21 06:24:39, Link
Author: Quack
Well after the flood there was a great need to quickly refill the earth.

Why? With God such a smart guy, why didn't he just wipe out mankind instead of destroying his entire creation? And why don't he fulfill this promise of the  Bible:
       For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

        For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

       Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. (1Thes 4:15)

We may trust God but the Bible is not trustworthy. Why do you believe a pack of lies?

You are such a great thinker, think some religion for us!

Date: 2009/12/22 00:46:34, Link
Author: Quack
How do you explain comparative homology?  Vestigial structures?  Gene sequencing?

You can't be quite up to date on Bubba's theory. You see, there's a need for change, that's why and how species change. When they end looking similar that's because they are 'the same'. And then, miraculously DNA has "followed".

The only thing I haven't been told yet is how the DNA changes, but since Wolves and Thylacines are quite different DNA-wise, I am certain Bubba can think why that is so for us too.

He's a unique and great thinker, isn't it fantastic what you can learn about nature just by thinking? What's his method?

Date: 2009/12/23 10:46:38, Link
Author: Quack
That's easy. Just read the text. I consider it just another piece of BS but at face value, it is addressed to people alive at the time it was spoken or written. Some of them even will still be alive when the unbelievable events promised shall happen.

But with 2k years hindsight we know that not only are they all dead and gone a long time now, the events did not take place, and won't ever happen.

Since we now [B]know[B] that what was promised did not come true, the promise was a lie back then, and will forever remain a lie.

Jonas Gardell, author of  "Om Gud" (About God) and  "Om Jesus" (about Jesus) is honorary doctor at the Theological Faculty at Lunds University, Sweden.

He doesn't call it a lie but is otherwise of the same opinion: The events promised in 1 Thess 4:13-17 did not happen.

Date: 2009/12/23 14:09:33, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (ppb @ Dec. 23 2009,13:00)
Quote (Chayanov @ Dec. 23 2009,11:39)
Quote (ppb @ Dec. 23 2009,09:57)
Quote (Chayanov @ Dec. 23 2009,10:18)
Well, gee, in that verse you quoted Paul said Jesus will come back in his lifetime, and since Paul's dead and Jesus didn't come back, I don't see where the "out" is.

Oh yeah. And there's no evidence outside of the Bible that Jesus ever actually existed.

No, that whole "Paul is dead" thing is just a rumor.

Of course, the Beatles were bigger than Jesus.

I have an inordinate fondness for Beatles.

Of course, beetles are bigger even with God than Jesus.

Date: 2009/12/23 15:32:42, Link
Author: Quack
"A thief in the night", Paul says.  Unexpected and sudden. So both the text and context are clear:  Paul does NOT know when Jesus will appear.  

Nothing we can do about it; the bible is ambiguous! But when it has been said that this is going to happen while some of you are still alive, a statement that about "unexpected and sudden" doesn't override that, does it?

When you are dead, everything(or nothing) is unexpected or sudden....

No amount of fancy interpretation can nullify a promise given: Some of you will stille be alive when this happens. Is that too difficult to understand? Do you need a course in how to use your brain?

I suggest you find someone else to debate this with. As far as I am concerned, unless you can prove it is true, my claim that it is false stands. It can't be both, do you understand that?

Do you claim that it doesn't say what it says?


Date: 2009/12/24 06:49:46, Link
Author: Quack
The clear text meaning in any translation was the expectation that it would occur within the current generation.

We also have Mark 9:1:
And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

It takes an inhuman effort to reconcile all the conflicting words of the Bible.
Floyd is desperate; he "knows" the truth but have hell of a job convincing himself as well as anyone else. I am afraid he is lost. His intellectual house of cards is a Damocles sword demanding a perpetual struggle for peace of mind.

Without studying to origins of the Bible, the who, when and why of the different, often contradictory texts, sorting out the more or less obvious forgeries, editions, cut-and-paste jobs, additions, deletions. What has been left out and why? Why just the four gospels; there were many others?

Don't remember, may have been Tertullian who felt the need of explaining: "There are no more, no less that four gospels because of the four corners of the Earth and the four principal winds." Convincing?
Both Pagan and Gnostic sources also deserve to be studied.

Date: 2009/12/25 05:21:08, Link
Author: Quack
The link, once again

ETA Oops - I overlooked the earlier fix.

Date: 2009/12/25 05:43:43, Link
Author: Quack
I may be (too) late but anyway: A big THANKS!

Date: 2009/12/25 06:38:50, Link
Author: Quack
[quote=didymos,Dec. 25 2009,06:24]    
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 25 2009,01:32)

More annoying still, he claims they "falsify" the molecular clock, and therefore evolution itself (of course),  but his "evidence" is this abstract (bolding mine):

Using entire modern and ancient mitochondrial genomes of Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) that are up to 44000 years old, we show that the rates of evolution of the mitochondrial genome are two to six times greater than those estimated from phylogenetic comparisons. Although the rate of evolution at constrained sites, including nonsynonymous positions and RNAs, varies more than twofold with time (between shallow and deep nodes), the rate of evolution at synonymous sites remains the same. The time-independent neutral evolutionary rates reported here would be useful for the study of recent evolutionary events.

Shorter CornTard: Flippers were designed because emprical evidence indicates that some penguins' MtDNA has evolved faster than estimated.  So you see, they don't actually evolve at all, and neither does anything else. You lose again evolution!  Take that!

Thanks, I was going to ask for a comment on that, funny how even I could know in my heart that he had to have it wrong?

Date: 2009/12/28 02:37:56, Link
Author: Quack
“Very glad to see the book. I suspect it should have some (very much needed) influence now against the background of the “evo-devo revolution” and the belated recognition of Margulis’s work.”

I used to think Chomsky was a reasonably smart guy?

Date: 2009/12/28 03:08:26, Link
Author: Quack
A news item on Swedish Radio this morning, Cereals 100.000 years ago. Pictures of the tools analyzed show traces of durra seeds.
Source: Mercader, J., Mozambican Grass Seed Consumption During the Middle Stone Age, 18 December 2009 VOL 326 Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1173966

How long did it take before booze was 'invented'? I don't remember where but IIRC, I recently read an article about how alcohol may have had something to do with the evolution of our brain?

Date: 2009/12/28 15:52:21, Link
Author: Quack
What's so funny about thunderthief jerry inventing antigravity?

Date: 2009/12/30 02:57:47, Link
Author: Quack
So that force in the muscles just “poofs” out of nowhere? What physical law generates that force, keeping in mind that f=ma?

Good link

Date: 2009/12/30 03:20:21, Link
Author: Quack
The AFA's Davis said his group has no position on Darwinism and intelligent design but is concerned that debate is being stifled by the scientific establishment.

Stifled? Dembski, Behe, Meyer, O'Leary? Seems to me the 'scientific establishment' is all ears and the answer is  written on the wall Can't they read?

Date: 2009/12/30 11:05:58, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Art @ Dec. 30 2009,07:47)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 30 2009,00:26)

Mung thinks hard

Mustela Nivalis

12/28/2009  1:25 pm
jerry at 23,

Every time I pick something up, I am violating a law of physics, namely gravity.

That’s not the case at all. When you pick something up, you apply a force that is greater than that exerted by gravity. That force comes from your muscles, supported by your skeleton and fueled by the food you’ve eaten. All elements of the action obey the laws of physics.

Next message:                

12/28/2009 1:35 pm
When you pick something up, you apply a force that is greater than that exerted by gravity. That force comes from your muscles, supported by your skeleton and fueled by the food you’ve eaten. All elements of the action obey the laws of physics.

So that force in the muscles just “poofs” out of nowhere? What physical law generates that force, keeping in mind that f=ma?
Unfortunately, I don't think he's joking.

Classic Mung (scroll down to post 7640117):
I posted some material that explained where at least some of the water in the cell comes from. Did you read it?

Hint: It doesn't come from sea water.

While I appreciate your efforts, you seem to be missing the point on a number of issues.

The water in cells does not, afaik, come from water in the surrounding environment. Nor does it come from stars. (What was the purpose of that post?) It is produced as the result of certain specific biochemical reactions.

(I've bolded the incredible part.)  This statement came from his/her reading of something about intermediary metabolism, electron transport, and respiration.

To be fair, he admits afaik, i.e. he doesn't know better. Poor guy.

Date: 2009/12/30 11:16:58, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 30 2009,03:42)
May the truth and the great truth prevail in a mighty way in the areas of origin research.

And who are doing that origins research?

Date: 2009/12/30 15:16:28, Link
Author: Quack

"After the flood the whole earth had to refill quickly."

Why the hurry? God has all the time in the world, has he not?

How long did it take to restore vegetation and forest life so that the animals had anything to feed on? Since it is obvious you cannot think - your claims of 'thinking' this or that is just bragging - you are of course prevented from applying rational thought to the Noah myth, otherwise you'd know it is just a myth and nothing else.

You really are a waste of time!

Date: 2010/01/01 04:37:18, Link
Author: Quack
To me, this has explanatory power for Quantum Experiments where photons seem to interact with each other even when separated in space and time.  They are the same point in Twistor Space.
If mathematics is required in order to (really) understand the universe, I haven't got a chance. But I am interested anyway. And since Laughlin's "A Different Universe" is quite an entertaining read, you have at least made me pick it up once again. I know entanglement is mentioned.

For the rest of you, have phun.

Date: 2010/01/01 09:54:02, Link
Author: Quack
TR and RDF, links?

Date: 2010/01/02 03:40:42, Link
Author: Quack
Re. RDK's post above, for your convenience a working link:
Though her standards are usually not too high it may have not been the brightest of Denyse O'Leary's ideas  to join because it allows comments

Date: 2010/01/02 04:47:07, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,02:13)
You make my case.
Marsupial wolves share thousands of points with our wolves. They share a few points with "marsupials".
Thats what it comes down too.
When looking at still/moving pictures of marsupial wolves I see a wolf.
When reading about them I see a dog like creature in most ways like other dogs even down to howling at night.

When evolution looks at the same. They see just howling kangaroos.
Present the evidence to the people and let the voting begin.

Wrong Marsupial wolves share a few points with our wolves. They share uncountable points with "marsupials".
That's what it comes down too. But you gotta look a little closer. At a distance, you couldn't even see the difference between me and Richard Dawkins.

And even if I and RD looked like identical twins, you don't think we would be different in some very significant ways?

You look at the outside - doesn't what's inside count at all?

If you pelted a thylacine and a wolf, I am certain some quite significant difference would be seen even there too.

I show you two paper bags, so they are just the same regardless, whether one contains crap like you do, and the other contains science like we do?

Look at what I bolded: What do you mean by 'evidence', besides looking at a picture and nodding to yourself 'how they look alike, they must be identical'?

I often see cars on the streets that I have a problem identifying - but at a closer look I can see myriads of differences. But according to you, they look alike so they must be identical, built by the same factory?

So scientific issues should be determined by public vote?

The public knows best, you'd vote for a 50% tax cut? Let the public vote, should we nuke Tehran? Let the public vote, is there water on the moon? Just look at the pictures, you see there is not a drop of water on the moon?

Do you know what microscopes are used for?

i can only conclude either you are one of the most stupid people on Earth, or you have the most perverted, morbid sense of humor. Prove me wrong.

Date: 2010/01/02 08:59:08, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 01 2010,17:02)
If mathematics is required in order to (really) understand the universe,

Well, the math is needed to compute predictions from the theory. Some of the ideas can be loosely described without making specific predictions.


Guess I can live with that.

Date: 2010/01/02 11:32:08, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 02 2010,11:16)
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 02 2010,01:40)
Re. RDK's post above, for your convenience a working link:
Though her standards are usually not too high it may have not been the brightest of Denyse O'Leary's ideas  to join because it allows comments

The Examiner authors are able to delete comments.

Funny, that's what I guessed... AFAICT, would have been like a 2nd home to her.

Date: 2010/01/02 11:33:11, Link
Author: Quack

Date: 2010/01/04 07:41:59, Link
Author: Quack
I also say its a innate trigger that changes creatures.

Robert, yes - that is what you say.

But do you really think saying is enough? If we shall believe anything you say, you'd be obliged to believe anything we say say too. Or are you trying to say you are much smarter than us?

Come on Robert, tell us how you know there is an innate trigger to creatures. How did you find out?

Can you name one other person in this world that knows about and agrees with you about the triggers?

Where are the triggers, what do they look like, what are they made of, how do they function?

Do you think anything becomes true simply because you say it?

You have so much in common with God, are you certain you are not God?

Date: 2010/01/04 11:30:29, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 04 2010,11:17)
What's wrong with UD? I just see an empty page. Not that there's anything wrong with that.... there hasn't been too much content lately over there

I see...

Date: 2010/01/04 14:13:29, Link
Author: Quack
Insects are very fast because they must be to maintain their objectives of filling the earth.

Why then is it that it is not insects, but bacteria that fills the Earth?

Date: 2010/01/05 03:12:13, Link
Author: Quack
I would say so.  Unfortunately though, our boy Bobby has the brain capacity of a dollar-store manakin.

Alternatively, he is just another demonstration of the law of GIGO.

I have noted that it actually is impossible to engage him in anything resembling intelligent discourse. Attempts to put things straight has no effect on him, he just return with yet another insane harangue.

Do we know that there is a functioning intellect at the other end?

Date: 2010/01/05 05:44:54, Link
Author: Quack
Wait! According to your speculation, a host of widely varying animals have wandered (and swam) to Australia relatively recently. There they experienced the same selective pressure and evolved the same reproductive system due to this selective pressure?

Am I right about this?

I hate to disappoint you but I think we already have his answer here.

Date: 2010/01/07 03:48:04, Link
Author: Quack
First there are biblical boundaries.

Right, the bible is the absolute boundary of all your so-called thinking.

This is how your interpretation of the bible binds your thinking:

How can I, Robert Byers satisfy my innate desire to make believe what I want to believe according to how I read the bible?

From that follows everything you say.

If your mind was not so hopelessly conditioned to think in a vicious circle you'd stop and question yourself:

How come I am the only person out of the planet's 6+ billion people that 'knows' this 'truth'?  Why has God given me this gift of knowing something the world doesn't know? Am I a prophet, Christ - or am I God?

Date: 2010/01/07 04:40:41, Link
Author: Quack
With AiG being a creationism propaganda organization, obviously aimed at a general audience consisting of primarily fundamentalist creationists, with the purpose of supporting the belief in six-day creation and a literal reading of Genesis, I don’t see how stuff like that is relevant – except to impress the crowd with sciency stuff.

I think I am reasonably well informed and knowledgeable person, but from reading the Snelling piece I can only conclude that in order to determine if I think he’s got a valid argument, I’d have to do quite a thorough study of geology and nuclear physics.

As far as I am concerned I don’t for a second think that his argument is of much relevance for the question of the age of the Earth or the planet’s geological and biological history.

The problem is that creationists don’t believe science beyond facts like gravity, and don’t want to learn science. They believe creationism and ‘study’ creationism.

BTW, isn’t Snelling his own twin?

Date: 2010/01/07 10:00:13, Link
Author: Quack
Oh LOLeary:
But let me bring my grandparents, now happily at rest, into it instead: They kept trying and they got what they wanted.
The stats are 9 children on one side and 10 on the other, all born alive, no early deaths. That shows what intelligent design can do.

Date: 2010/01/07 15:03:14, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Jan. 07 2010,14:34)
Quote (Jkrebs @ Jan. 07 2010,12:27)
Perhaps we better save this, also, before Barry lays down the hammer (disguised as a gavel.)

'this' link was faulty, but fixing doesn't help since comment 344758 is not there.
Fixed link

But at least, here is the OP:
OP link

Something is going on, I've had UD access in already opened windows all while editing  here, but after closing them, no access possible.

Date: 2010/01/09 04:13:01, Link
Author: Quack
To me, theodicy looks like a relative with sophistry, a tool of apologetics. What's missing is only a mathematical treatment to make it science completing the theory of ID.

Date: 2010/01/10 14:46:42, Link
Author: Quack
Seems like David Tyler at UcD jumps into the quagmire as a suicide bomber with
Casey Luskin and ARN

"Lobbing a grenade into the Tetrapod Evolution Picture"

The ID interest in this story is for at least two reasons. First, the case documents an example of a failed evolutionary prediction - although, for a while, evolutionists have claimed it as a triumph (see the blog by Casey Luskin on this). Second, the evolution of tetrapods is an important test case for the relevance of design thinking - we ask the question whether tetrapods are here by Design or whether Law+Chance processes are sufficient explanation. Research is proceeding assuming the latter option, but the new discovery suggests that pursuing multiple working hypotheses (including design-based options) might be more prudent.

Date: 2010/01/12 14:23:29, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 12 2010,13:36)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 12 2010,11:16)
Of course, you will say that, but for once try to be intellectually honest.

I think you lost him right there, Badger.

As far as he is concerned, he is as honest as can be. After all, what can be dishonest about believing in the Flood, and making up stories to complete the picture? Since there were no thylacines on the Ark, there had to be a way of poofing them into existence.

Innate triggers to our resque.

This is not about honesty, it is only about making the landscape fit the map. Since the map is correct, nothing dishonest about that.

I imagine Robert nodding approvingly now.

Date: 2010/01/12 14:30:21, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 12 2010,12:46)
Autotrophy in Kingdom Animalia:

Green Sea Slug steals chloroplasts intact from the algae it eats.

Scientists have shown that once a young slug has slurped its first chloroplast meal from one of its few favored species of Vaucheria algae, the slug does not have to eat again for the rest of its life. All it has to do is sunbathe.


Grand design.

Date: 2010/01/13 02:37:51, Link
Author: Quack
Is it possible that space (or maybe rather the space-time continuum) and matter are linked - you can't have the one without the other, or vice versa?

Date: 2010/01/13 14:46:12, Link
Author: Quack
What can I say? I read all of them but had to skip most of the fascinating Listeria story. A bit overwhelming and I have no use for it... But great stuff, I wonder if creationists bother reading such articles?

Date: 2010/01/14 06:35:01, Link
Author: Quack
This marsupial cat would look exactly like a placental cat from even a close difference.

It is not related to kangaroos, wombats etc. They are not related to each other either.

Robert, please tell us:

Should we determine human, or horse, dog, cow etc. relationships by comparing DNA or by comparing anatomy? Why?

I know your answer won't make sense to anyone but yourself.

Date: 2010/01/16 04:59:29, Link
Author: Quack
Robert, is anatomy just about the exterior of animals?

What's the purpose of DNA in life?

Please explain "Why's  My having very like Dna with my dad is just a special case and not the true equation of things."

Nobody here understands what it means.

Date: 2010/01/16 07:07:46, Link
Author: Quack
BMC Microbiology
Polar bears living in the pristine Svalbard area of Norway have a low diversity of bacteria in their feces, harboring mostly anaerobic bacteria from the genus Clostridia, and very few ampicillin resistance blaTEM alleles.

Date: 2010/01/17 04:52:29, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 16 2010,03:56)
DNA is a new study and still very primitive.

Robert, please tell us how new - or old - the study of DNA is? How do you know it is primitive? Do you know anything at all about genetics?

Here is my - not guess, but observation: You don't know anything.  

How far back in time do you think the study of genetic relationships between species began? How does the 'age' of a scientific study matter, and how would you know unless you had studied it?

Now tell us what you know, not what you think. What you think is of no value. Knowledge is the key to understanding.

When you have told us what you think (because you don't know) about my questions, I'll be back and let you in on some facts about the same subject.

Fair enough?

Date: 2010/01/18 05:02:16, Link
Author: Quack
[quote=xpowderx,Jan. 18 2010,04:15][quote=Erasmus, FCD,Jan. 18 2010,01:15]              
Quote (xpowderx @ Jan. 18 2010,01:00)

Now a final comment concerning Evolution. Mutation is neither "Random" nor "Magical". Evolution uses both as explanation. To be frank. Evolution process is flawed and is not objective!

There is nothing to ‘pick apart’ in your OP! If you have a better theory, now is the time to let the world know!

I feel bad(not) that my original post is hard for any evolutionary biologist to pick apart!So I get a standard Alinsky tactic! Wonder why that is?

I suggest you address some facts. Before that, my best advice it for you to learn – really do some effort at learning what evolutionary theory actually says. Claims from creationists or evolution deniers are regularly distortion and misrepresentation of facts. We are so used to that and know that there’s a very close to 100% certainty that the proponent doesn’t know what he is talking about, doesn’t want to learn, is not interested in learning anything; his sole purpose is to demonstrate how stupid and impolite evilutionists are.

While the fact is our patience has grown very thin, we don’t care to go beating around the bush.

But we’ll let you have the benefit of doubt – so be our guest, come back with a serious argument based on understanding what you are in disagreement about or have insufficient knowledge about, and you’ll get polite and pointed response(s).

I know it is hard to understand what I am saying but 50 years of exposure to critics of evolution – from university professors to insane Christaliban’s has taught me to expect nothing.

You might even want to study these threads to get a clue to what we have to suffer and deal with here:

Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits

FL "Debate Thread"

Date: 2010/01/18 15:34:29, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 18 2010,08:45)
Granville Sewell (beginning of video): The strongest argument for intelligent design is to clearly state the alternative view, which is that physics explains all of chemistry (probably true), chemistry explains all of biology, and biology completely explains the human mind; thus, physics alone explains the human mind.

No. The contrary view is that physics alone does not explain the human mind. That could mean that physics is incomplete. Or that we haven't found the necessary specifics. Or it could mean that the limited field of physics doesn't encompass the required mechanisms. It could mean Intelligent Design, but that's not the contrary view.

Basic Gap Argument. Find a Gap and fill it with metaphysical caulk, er, Intelligent Design.

Most fitting, the strongest argument for intelligent design clearly is false. What else could it be?

Date: 2010/01/19 04:40:03, Link
Author: Quack
Upon close look a dolphin is not a fish just as upon close look a marsupial lion is not a koala bear. The pouch etc is a minor point.

Please tell, what 'close look' at the dolphin lets you decide it's not a fish?

Does it matter how close you look?  Are your eyes the ultimate instrument in classification of species?

Our eyes are not good enough?

What makes a pouch a 'minor point'?  If your mother had been born with a pouch, would that have been a 'minor point'?

How do you differentiate between minor and major points?

If all marsupials were green, would that also be a 'minor point', to be neglected - a green thylacine would still be a wolf to you?

Or would the fact that all marsupials were green be a 'minor point' to be ignored?

Date: 2010/01/19 16:29:04, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 19 2010,13:19)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 19 2010,08:55)
I wonder if Bobby will be called to testify the next time science textbooks and standards come up in Texas.  Our creationist idiot board members would soil themselves to have you speak.

There is a Robert Byers who works in data management at the Province of Ontario Board of Education, but no confirmation that he is this nut.

That has been mentioned here before and Robert has not denied it.

Robert, please tell, are you that person or not?

Date: 2010/01/20 04:22:34, Link
Author: Quack
Upon close look a dolphin is not a fish just as upon close look a marsupial lion is not a koala bear. The pouch etc is a minor point.
The marsupial lion is in fact a LION.

Yo need to be more accurate in your classification. You don't need to look at a dolphin to know it is not a fish:
Dolphins are mammals, they breathe with lungs.

"a marsupial lion is not a koala bear" is like saying "a thylacine is not a koala" - or "a cat is not a dog". Only an idiot says such things.

There never was a thing like 'marsupial lion. Thylacines were a species in their own right. They were not wolves, tigers or lions. They were just thylacines, like you are no monkey, except with respect to IQ.

Thylacine and Koala are both marsupials.

Take a close look at the  images here

Look at the tail - more like a kangaroo than a "lion". The thylacines actually stood on their hind legs supported with the strong tail just like a kangaroo.

How does a thylacine resemble a lion?

Date: 2010/01/20 06:21:40, Link
Author: Quack
Bannination is a choice, it is always possible to rationalize a reason. It doesn't have to be reasonable, it just has to serve its purpose...

After all, who can get at them like RB? Can't have that, might make them look stupid

Date: 2010/01/21 03:41:21, Link
Author: Quack
What would AtBC be without UD? What would UD be without the socks? I sometimes wonder what it would be like if they were left talking to themselves?

Date: 2010/01/21 03:57:07, Link
Author: Quack
Robert please confirm that you are the world's leading  authority on classification of species.

Please do.

I presume your method also is applicable to virus, bacteria, plants, lichens, fungii and all the rest of biology. Please confirm.

Where did you learn how to classify species?

What does the term 'species' mean?

Is your method of classification limited to biology or can it be used on other objects too?

Can you define 'classification'?

What is the use of classifying objects?

How does it matter to you how animals are classified?

Is your classification useful for any purpose?

Is the scientific classification useful for any purpose?

Should veterinarians approach animal medicine based on  your classification - or the scientific one?

Please answer these questions.

Date: 2010/01/23 16:16:48, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (khan @ Jan. 23 2010,10:56)
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 22 2010,22:12)
Just in: Eating right and exercise(?) solve all health problems!!!

JoeTard, MD

If people eat right and take care of themselves then health care won't be an issue.

Can I say how much I hate that crap? Some of us drew the short straw in DNA.

I wonder if maybe my genes are worth a fortune:

I measured 1.86m tall weighing around 63 kilos at 20, in 1950. That's been my matchweight ever since. All attempts at eating more to gain weight have been unsuccessful. I've always had a good appetite, and eat till my tummy aches.

My weight is a little less nowadays and I try not to stuff myself like I used to since that makes me uncomfortable.

I have two brothers, one older and one younger than me and they are of a similar build. There must be a reason. I suspect my brain is burning most of the energy.

Date: 2010/01/26 05:29:02, Link
Author: Quack
Well, those people are not all that different from Robert Byers. The implications are dire, calamitous.

Date: 2010/01/28 11:35:10, Link
Author: Quack
I would be interested in what the serious posters here, who have been commenting on this, think and see when watching this marsupial pooch.

Robert, why aren't you interested in what all serious posters here, and that means all of us except the odd creationist like yourself and just a couple of others, think and see when we read the excrement of your brain?
Dna is just a number for the parts department.

That’s right, brother! The manufacturing process, i.e. the development from fertilized egg to full born animal is determined by the parts numbers. Different number, different part. All the parts of a body are made using parts numbers. The parts numbers contain the blueprint for making all the different parts!

Like, say carburettors. There are plenty of different carburettors, each with their own unique part number.

So you want a new carburettor for your car? I don’t think it is enough saying it is a 2003 Ford Focus. Unless you have the exact model number, which points to the exact part number, you won’t get it.

Therefore, my dear friend, it is the part numbers that tells us what is related to what, who is related to whom. You just look at the outside and say that's all you need know, but checking the parts numbers you'll see that they are different.

You see, bodies are built just the way you build cars: By collecting and assembling parts by the part numbers.

We do not build cars first and then assign arbitrary part numbers to its parts! So why do you say that? Do you understand that you are dead wrong?

If you compare the parts numbers of a marsupial with another marsupial you’ll find that the share a lot of the parts in common, but if you try to compare a marsupial with a placental you’ll find a lot of differences.  (Parts numbers = DNA codes!)

But comparing two placentals, you’ll again find they share a lot of the same part numbers.

Therefore, parts numbers are the only reliable method of identifying similarities, and determine origins. Different factories use different parts. Ford cars don’t roll off GM assembly lines.

Proper identification of a car’s origins is to check the parts numbers, not just look at the exterior.

Do you think that parts departments store parts according to looks or according to parts number?

Date: 2010/02/01 04:33:03, Link
Author: Quack
No Robert, no!

I say the parts of a marsupial wolf and our wolves are the same and have the original same number.

You said DNA = parts numbers

The part numbers and therefore the parts, they are NOT the same.

We could take any part out of a thylacine and compare it with the same part of a wolf and we would find that they are different, they are not the same! kidneys, liver, eyes, lungs heart and so on - not a single part is identical and with the same 'DNA part number'

Just as I have tried time and again to tell you: superficial similarity is not evidence of sameness.

Like dna is not a trail of relationship.

But that is just what it is!! DNA contains all the part numbers, and what the factory assembly line (the female womb) use when making the parts.

You see, dear Robert, there is something going on inside a female when a body is built. From a single cell, the fertilized egg, the production proceeds according to the blueprint stored in the DNA.

The blueprints for thylacines and wolves are very different, that's why the animals are different too.

Just as the blueprints for two different cars might make two cars that looked like identical twins on the outside but still wouldn't have a single part in common.

Just as it impossible to determine that you are an idiot just by looking at you, instead it is what you write that tells us that.

Date: 2010/02/01 15:12:46, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 01 2010,12:01)
What you'll find, I believe, the more you look into Behe et al is that they are not interested in progressing their "science". If they were they would be publishing their work where other scientists could comment on it, tear it apart, reproduce it and improve it. I.E. the peer reviewed literature.

But you don't need to engage with your critics when you publish a book. You just need to sound "sciency" enough that people read your book and think "my viewpoint is supported by science. I might not understand all the details but Behe has done that for me already".

The back and forth I linked to is the exception rather then the rule.

Just ask yourself. Why is he publishing books instead of papers? Why are comments disabled on his blogs? Why does he never join in the comment wars at UncommonDescent, where he is name checked daily?

Why? I doubt he believes more then a fraction of what he writes. He's already said that he 100% believes in common descent.
Michael Behe
Not all intelligent-design advocates are like Nelson. Michael Behe (1996, 176 1) claims to accept the common descent of all life:

   "I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent."

He repeated this statement in a later publication (Behe 2001, 697 2):

   ". . . since I dispute the mechanism of natural selection, not common descent."

It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. If it was not, where is the science? They've had 20 years+ to show some "intelligent design" science, some positive evidence. But no, it's all "XYZ is too improbable" when we don't even know a fraction of all we could know about life.

IMHO it can't be stressed too often; not only WRT to life but WRT knowledge by and large about most aspects of 'reality'. Reading ID/creationist arguments it seems they are 100 years behind the times. While in reality, we realize we know much less than we once may have thought we did. And yet, that doesn't invalidate all that we after all do know. Am I on the right track?

Date: 2010/02/02 04:59:12, Link
Author: Quack
Robert, if you look at this post from afarensis you will see how normal people classify all animals.

If you can understand a diagram, you should understand that the connecting lines indicate the hereditary relationships. That is, the lines show from what parental stock a particular group descended.

It is all an unbroken mother/father -> son/daughter relationship.

In the same way as you are descended from your parents, grandparents, grand-grandparents a so on backwards in time through nearly 4 billion years.

Just as your family tree have a lot of branches; you may have cousins, third cousins and farther removed relative as well, but at some point in times past there will have to be a common ancestor, i.e. a father or mother that are in the direct lineage leading both to yourself as well as other people living somewhere on the planet right now, unless that branch happened to go 'extinct' because somewhere along the line a person died without leaving any children.

Your classification method based on superficial similarity determined just by looking at exterior features is misleading and is of no practical use. It is useless nonsense, like trying to establish a connection between car manufacturers because their cars look like. How could they not? They are made for the same purpose, have four wheel and a steering wheel and so on: Same purpose, same looks. But not same factory, not same parts.

When you study the diagrams offered by afarensis you will see that there is no connection between marsupials and placentals since the branches numbered 5 and 6.

Do you understand that? No copulation has ever taken place between members from on branch with a member of the other branch. Therefore, the only relationship is the connection between branches 5 and 6.

Therefore, any similarities with respect anatomical features are simply the effect of some similarity remaining from the 5/6 connection, and the affect of similarities of lifestyle.

In the case of the thylacine and the wolf, they are both carnivorous predators.

Now I have wasted more time than you are worth. I know if you respond to this that you will just make more of the incoherent babble we know so well. There is something wrong with you.

Do you know one other person in this whole world that agree with you on the nonsense you believe?

When you say "We will win", it is like I would say "We will win" with reference to the US democratic party. As an European I do not represent them. As an idiot, you do not represent creationists. I know only one classification or group you rightly belong to.

You do not represent creationists any more than I represent US democrats.

Date: 2010/02/03 06:11:56, Link
Author: Quack
Well if your saying the inner parts of the marsupial wolf are different enough from regular wolves then how so?

I note that you are avoiding all of my arguments and/or questions. I therefore ask you to study my post again and properly address the issues raised and answer the questions!

When you have done that, I may reply to your question.

Do you understand that? Robert, I am talking to you. I ought not. Nobody ought to bother with you.

Tip: If you knew what you are talking about you wouldn't have to ask that question above. You'd know the answer. That fact that you don't is real time evidence that you don't know anything at all about biology. Biology is the science of life. Animals are life.

I must presume you didn't know that.

Date: 2010/02/03 16:32:49, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 03 2010,12:06)
but what if, for example, a million years ago, E.T. landed on the earth and performed some genetic manipulation of some sea sludge to create the first microbes?

AFAIK, the origins of microbes lie billions of years back at a time when the planet hardly would have been habitable for ET.

Further, AFAIK, evidence for nested hierarchies is strong against intervention by IT later that that.

While, still AFAIK, the ongoing studies of genetics, DNA and related issues are strong evidence for natural causes.  

I try to read as much relevant stuff as I can and I found this document very fascinating. There must be tons of interesting things to read out there.

I've found these books useful:

The Riddled Chain, Jeffrey McKee
Your Inner fish, Neil Shubin
Endless Forms Most Beautiful, Sean B. Carroll
The Emergence of Life on Earth, Iris Fry. (Though I don't think I'll recommend it.)

I have not read all of Darwin's but you should of course try some, I enjoy the Victorian style, we are invited into Darwin's thought process in a way not often (if ever?) found in modern books

Good luck, a lifetime won't be enough.

Date: 2010/02/05 09:46:01, Link
Author: Quack
Robert, since no thylacines are around for the experiment we'll have to rely on your expertise. Please let the world know:

Would mating a wolf with a thylacine have provided offspring? Would the offspring be marsupial, placental or something in between?

Since there are reasons also to call the thylacine a tiger, maybe
mating one with a tiger might also have been possible?

Date: 2010/02/06 03:34:44, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 05 2010,16:26)
I should have suggested an Anti-Delusional supplement for Ut.

He actually thought  (get this, I am not kidding), he actually thought he was going to have a discussion about "intelligent design" at a discussion group dedicated to "intelligent design."  "Serving the intelligent design community" I believe they say.

I guess "How to Serve Man" was copyrighted.

UD is all about preaching to the choir. The purpose is bolstering faith by making science and scientists look foolish. There's a famous precedent for being "vehemently suspect of heresy", that's why Voice Coil had to be banned. It is indeed all about serving the ID community.

I'd like to see an experiment with leaving them all to themselves for a while, without any opposition.

Date: 2010/02/06 13:03:57, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 06 2010,10:57)
I'd like to see an experiment with leaving them all to themselves for a while, without any opposition.

In a word:  cannibalism

Let's do it!

Right, I should perhaps have said 'opposition from the opposition'

Date: 2010/02/08 01:45:57, Link
Author: Quack
Just in case someone should be unaware of it:
Snelling vs. Snelling

Date: 2010/02/08 03:10:16, Link
Author: Quack
The science and theory behind it is beyond me, and I have no idea how it could be testable. Its certainly mysterious.

The theory is a veritable jigsaw puzzle and it takes time and effort to get enough pieces in place to begin to fathom the grandeur of the Theory of Evolution! I wish you the best of luck. All you need is out there, you supply the rest with your curiosity and a dedication to truth.

Date: 2010/02/08 06:17:50, Link
Author: Quack
2. Wouldn't the Silence of the Socks (good film title, that) on UD be a giveaway? Can we the world of science afford the loss of these valuable counter-intelligence* assets?

Yes, that's a dilemma.

Date: 2010/02/08 08:04:58, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Feb. 08 2010,05:30)
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 08 2010,01:45)
Just in case someone should be unaware of it:
Snelling vs. Snelling

Well aware of it Quack but does Ken Ham know ? It seems not.

Would he care?

Date: 2010/02/09 02:44:20, Link
Author: Quack
Age, language and intellectual capacity made it impossible (or at least too tough) for me to compose the response I tried to make. I'll leave it at extending kudos to RB.

I am not holding my breath for StephenB to appear here although it might have been interesting.

Date: 2010/02/09 03:12:33, Link
Author: Quack
I'm thinking more like Joseph, or StephenB.  I mean, really! Nobody could be that dense, could they?

Would be nice, but I am afraid that's wishful thinking.

(Then again, I've learned from my time here and in the mines, never underestimate the prevalence of the stoopid.)

That regrettably most likely is what it is.

How I wish that it would be A:. That might help restore some of my lost faith in mankind.

Date: 2010/02/09 10:21:31, Link
Author: Quack
I am a Gnostic. ("We" lost out to literalism.) 'Nuff said.

Date: 2010/02/09 10:29:50, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 09 2010,09:49)
I guess there will be a bit of discussion about Fodor & Piattelli-Palmarini's new book - What Darwin Got Wrong (available from all good Amazons, if it's not published by McMillan).  

He wrote an infamous piece a couple of years ago in the London Review of Books, which was pilloried at the time.  But I can't find a thread about the fun then.  So here we are, just in case.

Could this be the thread you were looking for?

ETA Now I know what a spandrel is.

Date: 2010/02/09 16:04:41, Link
Author: Quack
Applause. Some time since we had a real shootout here, last was with Denial Smith.

I believe both Joy and Utunumsint might do well taking a close look at  the Methological naturalism thread

Gotta go to bed now.

Date: 2010/02/10 02:05:10, Link
Author: Quack
How one groups creatures is just in need of serious revision. so a biblical creationist must be the first to do it.

That would have to be you! You are the only person in the whole world that can do it! You have our go ahead!

You'll have a formidable task ahead of you though, overturning the entire framework laid down by Linnaeus, tachonomy,  and cladistics up to this day!

You'll also have to forget words like 'I think', 'perhaps' and such - you'll have to be declare the why all the time. What you think perhaps might be is not a definition of what is.

You obviously are the only person in the world who understand it, shouldn't you be the right person? You are obliged to do the best you can for God, aren't you?

BTW, you have yet to answer the questions I put to you a while back. I'll be back with a repeat, I wont' let you get away with just ignoring questions you cannot answer.

Date: 2010/02/10 11:00:37, Link
Author: Quack
Utunumsint, I appreciate your response although I don't think I can engage in much debate on that level. I am too much of a realistic bent.

WRT God though, I think he is to embedded in the manifest world to have a 'personal relationship' with his creation. (Provided there is or he is a creator.)

There was a time when everything under the sun was attributed to gods: Rains, winds, thunder and lightning (Thor used to drive his chariot across the sky around here, striking with his hammer).

Most of the mystery has gone, the world has become a rational and rather predictable place to be. And even when unpredictable, most of the time we know why things happen anyway.

What remains is the human mind. But as far as I am concerned, that mystery has been solved too. Actually was already 100 years ago. My studies of depth psychology and personal experience have dispersed any doubts I might have had.

That doesn't mean that man's propensity for religious feelings and impulses are false; it just means they too can be understood.

The problem is that people want to see God as a remote spirit in the sky instead of as the ghost in the machine of our soul.

"The Kingdom of Heaven is within."

Date: 2010/02/10 15:47:57, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (ppb @ Feb. 10 2010,15:00)
This is my kind of science!  Turns out that beer may be good for building bones.

It is a very good source of dietary silicon.

I knew there was a reason for drinking it.  :)

So that's the reason my teeth and bones still are so good? But does it have any effect on cartilage?

Date: 2010/02/11 04:44:09, Link
Author: Quack
Robert Byers,
Like dna is not a trail of relationship.

Tell that to the judges ruling in paternity cases! You think you could get away with that?

Date: 2010/02/11 16:39:08, Link
Author: Quack
I'll be brief, that's the best I can do. The problem with religions is that they make God a supernatural being instead of the intrapsychic 'force' it is.

Book religions are bad, they introduce so much nonsense that they can be put to whatever use their proponents may want.

Literalism of course makes it even worse; boundless idiocy from creationists is evidence we all are familiar with.

Christendom would be much better if we got rid of the OT, Acts, the fake/forged letters of St. Paul, and the Apocalypse. And make the the true meaning of the Jesus myth public knowledge.

What conflict between religion ans science? My religion has no conflict. Religion is about the inner life of man. To the extent that psychology is a science, no conflict there either.

Not well said, but somewhere along those lines.

But the world won't be ready for that for a long time yet, but all the knowledge we need is available.

Date: 2010/02/11 16:45:24, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Badger3k @ Feb. 11 2010,13:15)
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 11 2010,04:44)
Robert Byers,
Like dna is not a trail of relationship.

Tell that to the judges ruling in paternity cases! You think you could get away with that?

If DNA was proof of paternity, then that would imply that YHWH had DNA, and since that can't be the case, sic ergo waffle, therefore and thereby, ahem, per se, and suchlike, DNA can't be related to paternity and relationships.  See?  Crystal clear with your patented BibleGoggles!

It's too bad, they cant even get the relationship between God and Jesus right.

Date: 2010/02/12 09:32:05, Link
Author: Quack
Robert svp, what is this:

Merci beaucoup.

Date: 2010/02/13 08:24:37, Link
Author: Quack
This thread with probably end up discussing free will.  If it is an illusion, I don’t see how a person can have any intent fundamentally different than rivers intending to flow to the sea.

Free with respect to what?

Date: 2010/02/13 08:30:30, Link
Author: Quack
... the famous quantum mechanics problem in which one is asked to calculate the time a pencil may be made to balance on its point. The answer is about five seconds. For a real pencil it is even less because of thermal disturbance and wind, but five seconds is the fundamental limit. (R. B. Laughlin in A Different Universe)

Free will or just 'shit happens'?

Date: 2010/02/13 08:42:59, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 13 2010,01:20)
A god that creates life and then leaves the scene is inconsistent with a personal god which constantly interacts with its creations.
Not if you assume He is only interacting with the choosen.

Although when interacting he doesn't bother discriminating between righteous or sinner. A consoling thought for an "evolutionist".

Date: 2010/02/13 09:05:40, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (RupertG @ Feb. 13 2010,08:04)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 13 2010,06:31)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 13 2010,00:16)
glad i missed this.  shit hell fuck.  i never saw a clown climb up on the cross before

Y'all should have seen it coming. For some, being the victim of persecution is all part of being Christ-like*. And since there aren't many packs of Romans wandering around anymore, those folks will conveniently carry their own cross around with them to climb upon at the slightest hint of offense. That is why Casey Luskin keeps a running list of all the nasty names people have called him.  And why the more retrograde of the "Christian" advocacy groups like to feign persecution when the subject of equal rights for gay people comes up.

* Personally, I think they skipped  Mark 12:31 and went right for the slasher-pic ending, but what do I know?

It's something that was taught to me at Sunday School, thirtymumble years ago: persecution validates you. Our teacher, a terribly nice, terribly devout evangelist-end-of-Anglican churchwarden, was telling us all about how the early Christians were hunted down, rounded up, fed to lions, mutilated, spindled and spiked. "Nobody would go through all that unless they knew what they believed in was true", he said.

"Or they were stupid", I said, in one of my early did-I-say-that-outloud? moments.

I got told off for that, but I noticed then (even then!) that a telling-off is not a counter-argument. Since then, I've worked out that there are other reasons than stupidity for entrenched self-delusion - well, that's self-evident, otherwise I'd be stupid too - and for willingly seeking out persecution. Hell, the psychosexuality alone could fill a (rather disturbing) book.

Nonetheless, in the minds of some Christans, Being Persecuted means I Am Right, and it must be endured but _never_ examined.

I jump at the opportunity to
By the end of the second century, the Literalists had begun to establish rules for who was and who was not a Christian. According to them, a Christian must confess the Literalist creed, be baptized, and above all obey the bishops. For the Gnostics, however, the true Church was "invisible" and only its members could perceive who belonged to it and who did not. Gnostics insisted that it took more than baptism to become a Christian. The Gospel of Philip explains that many people "go down to the water and come up without having received anything" and yet claim to be Christians. Nor did profession of a creed or even martyrdom make someone a Christian, since “anyone can do these things." The Gnostics quoted Jesus' saying "By their fruits you shall know them" and demanded evidence of spiritual maturity to demonstrate that a person belonged to the true Church. … Clement of Alexandria writes of those who court martyrdom more sympathetically as children who have "not yet become men in love with God, as the Gnostic is."
(From The Jesus Mysteries, my bolding)

Date: 2010/02/14 03:59:44, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 13 2010,10:35)
Has anyone ever asked one of these engineers how you go about designing a useful protein without being omniscient?

It would seem to me that even an omniscient engineer would have to sort through all the variations and all the outcomes, even if having the advantage of knowing all at once.

Of course the task of any designer would be made easier by arbitrarily limiting each change in design to small steps, consistent with what is observed in biology.

Still, even if you knew your new organism would be structurally viable, you would have to anticipate all the ripples in the ecosystem.

Seems to me that applies to all fields of design: Steam engine design
The history of the steam engine stretches back as far as the first century AD; the first recorded rudimentary steam engine being the aeolipile  described by Hero of Alexandria.[2]  In the following centuries, the few engines known about were essentially experimental devices used by inventors to demonstrate the properties of steam, such as the rudimentary steam turbine device described by Taqi al-Din[3]  in 1551 and Giovanni Branca[4]  in 1629.

Following the invention by Denis Papin of the steam digester in 1679, and a first piston steam engine in 1690, the first practical steam-powered 'engine' was a water pump, developed in 1698 by Thomas Savery. It proved only to have a limited lift height and was prone to boiler explosions, but it still received some use for mines and pumping stations.

Date: 2010/02/14 04:07:47, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 13 2010,08:59)
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 13 2010,01:16)
Hi Albatrossity2,

I didn't want you to feel left out.

Yes, I agree this thread could arguably be called mental masturbation or as Doc Bill might say, "bullshit".

And to you Louis,

I consider it an honor that you joined in the fun.

Most of the time, I'm not sure whether you are being insulting or not.  Either way, your comments are fun to read.

LOL I'm not trying to be insulting. If I am accidentally managing to be so, call it a happy coincidence! ;-)

Ok, ok, an unhappy coincidence, for that is not my intent.

I find the whole notroversy over evolutionary biology to be hilarious. The contortions that IDCists et al will go to to avoid something they don't like are genuinely funny. Please don't disappoint me and retort that "well the scientists do just the same" because to be blunt, they don't. I disagree with Joy that this is a mere matter of duelling metaphysics for both "sides" (yuk, hack, ptui) in this "debate" (cough, spit, bleaurgh), in fact I'd go further, this is Joy projecting her attitudes onto others. An all too common affliction.

Despite being an atheist, i.e. I lack a belief in any form of deity, and a professional scientist (not just someone who plays one on the internet) I actually have no dog in the hunt so to speak. If it turns out that the course of evolution really is teleological and there is a god then, regardless of any further implications, we will have discovered something new and wonderful about the universe. I know there are other people who don't understand that attitude. Science doesn't care what you claim is true, it cares how you claim it to be true. It's about what you can establish to be the best, most coherent, parsimonious, evidence based explanation for a series of phenomena. IDC and sundry creationisms simply don't manage to do this in any sense. Despite all the handwaving and special pleading.

I don't remember if you are an American or not, but from outside the USA this "debate" is largely seen for what it actually is: a faux controversy manufactured by a specific series of religious sects. Of course, as usual huge public apathy and a natural human tendancy to (often falsely) attribute the "truth" to the mid point between two opposed camps covers a mutitude of sins, but the claimed controversy simply doesn't exist in anything like the same way outside the USA.

As for the title and thus topic of the thread, I think it's a false dichotomy, a complete category error. It's the wrong question to be asking.


Bravo. That made a lot of sense. To me, much more so than Mornington Crescent.

Date: 2010/02/14 04:19:23, Link
Author: Quack
I honestly think it would be neat if it turned out there was a God.

I’d rather believe in a non-existent but perfect God than discover that there is a psychotic idiot responsible for all that’s wrong with this world. It makes sense if the world really is what our intellect so far has been able to discover but we would be stuck with a miserable god indeed if it (God forbid) should turn out we are wrong.

Date: 2010/02/14 04:31:38, Link
Author: Quack
Robert, you say  
The confident, logical, use of documented research and conclusions of workers in these areas

Please provide references for 'documents', 'research', 'conclusions' and 'workers' in these areas.

Where are the documents?
What kind of research, where, when, by whom?
What conclusions were drawn by whom, when, and documented where?

You do know the answers, don't you? You are not pulling stuff out of your behind, are you? You made the claims, we want to read the same documents that you have read. Especially concerning the origins of the thylacine.

Fair enough? Be a good sport and let's have something more than hand-waving this time!

Date: 2010/02/14 06:43:40, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 14 2010,04:36)
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 14 2010,09:07)

Bravo. That made a lot of sense. To me, much more so than Mornington Crescent.

{Gasp} Wash your mouth out with soap! How could anything make more sense than Mornington Crescent?

Look, I'll have to explain the rules again. First, the most important thing to remember is...

{sound of internets accidentally disconnecting}

...and those are the rules of Mornington Crescent. Clear now?


P.S. I also agree with fnxtr about moderation, but I will go even further: everything in moderation, especially moderation.

Besides laughing me to tears, yessir, got the rules now...

Date: 2010/02/15 10:31:33, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 14 2010,16:35)
Yeah, I have a hard time with the whole dead cat / live cat thing.  

There's a difference between indeterminate to the experimenter/observer (and the math they use) and indeterminate to the rest of the universe.  

There's probably a dead bird somewhere in the forest behind my house. The fact that I haven't observed it makes it no less dead.


Date: 2010/02/16 01:18:28, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (rhmc @ Feb. 15 2010,20:57)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 15 2010,18:59)
...the point is that if we don't combat them, they will win. I don't look at this as just science vs the DI. The DI is a (particularly mendacious) head of a hydra that has, at the neck, anti-intellectualism. The outcome of having them or one of the other heads win this would be a theocracy, or, at the very least, an idiotocracy. I wish I could discount that as being improbable, but since this country elected Reagan and Bush, I don't ever want to underestimate the power of propaganda over the ill-informed. Your mileage may vary, of course, but I just don't see the value in ceding any ground at all to the would-be theocrats and boobs.


and it seems, to me at least, where ever we find a group attempting to derail public education in the sciences, one or more of the intelligent design covens are to some degree or another involved in supporting that effort.

Klotzen, nicht Kleckern!

I tried Duden but that wasn't of much help. A simple Google search did the trick though,
“Nicht Kleckern, Sondern Klotzen” is a German saying which means doing things in a big way. The title of this photo series is “Nicht klotzen ...

Date: 2010/02/16 04:11:23, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 16 2010,03:31)
As a falconer, should I explain myself to German-speaking people with, "Ich habe einen Vo­gel"?

ETA: capitalization.

I don't know, but I wouldn't show you a bird...

ETA show instead of give.

Date: 2010/02/16 10:21:05, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 16 2010,08:29)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 16 2010,03:34)


Yet no hand wringing....I wonder why?

For some reason, it is common for people without experience or even much exposure to evolutionary science to believe that they understand it at a level that validates their critiques of it. This isn't unique, but it is probably at its most egregious within the realm of biology.

You get the same thing in medicine/chemistry/pharmacology, it's just a bit more subtle and less direct. Just talk to a homeopath or anyone who advocates homeopathy, for example.

I've lost count of the times I've used the "homeopathic alcohol" demonstration on people, only for them to tell me that the mega-dilutions in homeopathy still work. It's at this point I usually refuse to buy the next round.

Ignorance breeds confidence more than knowledge seems to me that someone familiar and relevant said something very much like that once. Hmmmm.


I googled for ’french scientist+homeopathy’ and hit a really bad experiment
What I didn’t know was that even though
Serious question marks remain over the Benveniste paper, but what is not in doubt is that its influence among homeopaths is still powerful and profound 20 years on.

I read an extensive report on this affair many years ago and the conclusion was quite damning.
(My bold)

Date: 2010/02/17 04:33:46, Link
Author: Quack
thanks for another great answer.
I mean general researchers and not creationist ones (even if some are).
I mean the literature on marsupials and fossil marsupials.
I used this and then improved upon it in conclusions.
I'm just saying my research and study is as solid as anyones.
i'm confident I'm right.
The opposition here simply lists a few details of differences and repeats what they have read in books.
Citing authorities is not making a personal case.

But it is not quite complete.
You say your research and studies are solid. Good, now just fill in the details, please!
What general researchers, names?
What literature, titles?
What is the method you use when improving conclusions?
You are not going to quote authorities, are you?

So far you have only supplied words, words, lots of words. Now is the time to give those words some body, some content. We don't care about what you believe, we want to know what you know. Like knowledge, as something different from belief.

We want to see evidence that you know something. Do you understand the difference? I don't think you do, I think you are an ignorant idiot. Prove me wrong!

Date: 2010/02/17 16:55:06, Link
Author: Quack
And how can you have free will if omniscience exists?  The slightest nuance of your most inconsequential thought would be known perfectly before you thought it.

Maybe not quite on topic, but I remember seeing something on the telly about an experiment with decision making: instruments, I don't remember what kind but probably some scanning device, revealed decisions being made several seconds before becoming conscious  in the person making them.

Date: 2010/02/18 06:20:17, Link
Author: Quack
So, I am still wondering why Nelson, Dembski and others (judging by the comments) appear to think that whether free will being real or imaginary is central to ID dogma

I wonder what in this world they don't think is, if not central to ID dogma, at least very important for ID.

Date: 2010/02/18 09:38:03, Link
Author: Quack
Free will: The ability to choose whatever we want

Whatever we want? What makes us want this instead of that?

Date: 2010/02/18 12:21:18, Link
Author: Quack
The only living person I can recall offhand who maintains there is strict determinism is John Davison.

If is not determined, it must be random? We pick and chose whatever enters our mind? Do we have control over what enters our mind?

There may be options but in the end only one choice can be made and is being made before we consciously are aware of it. By then it is too late for a different decision.

Date: 2010/02/18 12:25:24, Link
Author: Quack
I had to google wattles. LOL.

Date: 2010/02/19 04:12:49, Link
Author: Quack
Workers in these areas do not classify marsupials together from anatomy but rather from a few details and a general presumption that these few details trump the great number of details otherwise.

Is superficial similarity all that counts?

What about dogs? Are all dogs dogs? What makes a dog a dog? Do you say a Bulldog and a Chihuahua both are dogs?

Can you describe your classification system? What methods do you use to determine "sameness"? How do you define sameness?

What is the purpose of your classification? Is it useful for anything?

You have not answered some very relevant questions we have asked? Why don't you answer them before posting more of the same idiotic nonsense again and again?

Date: 2010/02/19 04:19:57, Link
Author: Quack
The universe is not a machine. Are you a machine? Is your behavior 100'% predictable, with no random components? All your posting here at AtBC is machine-like, you are machine that have to keep on posting nonsense?  Ever heard of the butterfly effect? Quantum Mechanics?

Date: 2010/02/19 16:48:10, Link
Author: Quack
And boy, is Byers totaly bananas or what?

He isn't even that; there isn't anybody at home. I have an image of Robert in my mind, it looks like the Frankestein's monster in a movie I saw something like fifty years ago. Dialogue like
Are you hungry?
- Food, good.

Date: 2010/02/20 04:19:47, Link
Author: Quack
I believe Robert has made it clear that phylogeny is irrelevant, DNA is just another of those minor details we need not bother with.

I believe I've tried that route but he just ignore it. It looks as there is no thinking intellect at the other end, it seems more like some funny computer program making up replies.

Computers can make poetry, Rob's prose replies look very similar.

Date: 2010/02/20 15:24:00, Link
Author: Quack
And science is of course not among his interests.

Date: 2010/02/21 05:43:55, Link
Author: Quack
We have to realize what is at stake here:
Isn’t it as simple as (IIRC) Kurt Wise says, "The Bible says it, that settles it"?

The Gordian knot:

The Bible is the Word of God.
Jesus saved us from our sins by dying on the cross.
He arose from the dead and became Christ.
The Gospels are evidence, are they not?
His resurrection is evidence we shall be resurrected.
That is all evidence that there is an afterlife in Heaven for the faithful.

Who wants to sacrifice all that on the altar of science? No hope, just a more or less miserable
fourscore years here, and that’s’ that. No harp, no reunion with our loved ones, they’re all gone forever, as we ourselves will be when our time is up.

Why should we be good, why not rape, steal and murder? Fuck morals, be a beast.

Evolution doesn’t stand much of chance against that.

Its’ like you have a $100 million lotto coupon in your pocket and the moment you say RM&NS did it, the ticket is gone.

Date: 2010/02/21 08:17:01, Link
Author: Quack
Just to make it clear, what I had in mind was Paul Nelson.

Date: 2010/02/21 08:17:01, Link
Author: Quack
Just to make it clear, what I had in mind was Paul Nelson.

Date: 2010/02/23 02:36:09, Link
Author: Quack
I don't feel like playing, you seem to have realized that there isn't anything to be learned here that you didn't already know. Dembski's place would suit you better. I believe Dembski would be proud of you, you seem to have all the qualities required to be a contributor and moderator there.

I suppose I do not need point you to AiG, CMI and all the other excellent anti-atheistic forums out there, they most certainly will provide much better answers that you may get here. Evolution fairytale is another place I think might suit your taste.

But by all means, do come back here whenever you think you have learned something we haven't heard before. Don't expect to learn anything here that you didn't learn in kindergarten.

BTW, there is something called books. In lack of education and schooling, that's what I've been using the past 65 years and I am not finished yet. Just in case you'd want to learn something you don't want to know.

Date: 2010/02/23 02:56:20, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 23 2010,00:29)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 22 2010,21:55)
Hayden / Chesterton quote / everyone take one sip of vodka..

We do not know enough about the unknown to know that it is unknowable.”
~G. K. Chesterton

Sounds vaguely Rumsfeldian

Profound. Useful. "We don't know enough about (insert subject here) to know that it is (insert adjective here)"

Date: 2010/02/24 02:46:42, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (sledgehammer @ Feb. 23 2010,20:51)
Maybe Joe should try gargling with H2SO4.  It's got twice as much oxygen as H2O2.
Just a helpful suggestion.

From the ‘sound’ of his ’voice’ here it appears like he already did.

Date: 2010/02/24 16:04:14, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 24 2010,13:20)
Don't forget, Joe G. is multiply tardgasmic.  This could go on for a very long time.

Right, as long as his coprolalia rewards him with -gasms it will continue. Just boring to watch.

Date: 2010/02/25 02:22:45, Link
Author: Quack
When I got into this business 20 years ago, I thought that any Christian (and indeed theist), given good evidence against evolution (again, a materialistic understanding of it)

Poor Bill. Referring to ID as a 'business' (you know more about that part of it than me) and being explicit about what ID is: perceived evidence against 'materialistic' evolution. 20 years wasted that could have been spent researching evidence for "ID" - whatever that's supposed to be.

Date: 2010/02/26 02:59:23, Link
Author: Quack
I only mean there are a few points alike between marsupials. As I always said. I still insist, for example, a marsupial wolf and our wolves are some 90-95 % the same.

Why not 100%? How many % are you 'the same' as your father?

What exactly do your classification term 'same' mean, can you please let us know how the definition?

Since we are already dealing with wolves, could you apply your method to dogs? How many % sameness do schäfer, St. Bernard, and Chihuahua have with wolves? Or just between themselves?

Date: 2010/02/27 03:20:05, Link
Author: Quack
Well now beat this:
My first car was one like this:

Back in Norway, I learned it was called 'hobo in tuxedo'

Best car buy I ever made must have been a ten years old Hillman Minx in 1967. Do I detect the glint of a tear in Louis' eye?

Date: 2010/03/01 11:38:05, Link
Author: Quack
Sadly the Hillman Minx was before my time, even though it was a lovely* vehicle.


*Lovely doesn't necessarily mean it worked!

I thought so. But I drove it for two years without a hitch and with the then new-fangled radial tires it was a dream to drive - for that time in history at least.

It had leather upholstery, what we called a 'sofa seat' and a column mounted gear shift handle.

Date: 2010/03/01 16:07:15, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (sparc @ Mar. 01 2010,11:40)
Wait until Denyse sees this:    
Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women.

Funny, that doesn't even surprise me...

Date: 2010/03/02 04:15:54, Link
Author: Quack
I'm not stupid or dishonest. Of coarse if I was I wouldn't know it or honestly admit it. A line of reasoning.

Foot. Aim. Shoot. Hit. Sic transit ...

Date: 2010/03/02 10:36:34, Link
Author: Quack
Even if it has a few details like the reproductive system or this or that.

Since you obviously are an expert, please tell us more about those this and that's. How many this or that's have you identified? How do you differentiate between relevant and irrelevant this or that?

I hate it when details are left hanging in the air. What would you say to a car mechanic that refused to bother with "a few details like the carburettor and other this's and that's" in your car? Do your employer know about your sloppiness, how you think details doesn't matter?

Date: 2010/03/02 14:32:18, Link
Author: Quack
An obstinate child that only a mother could love? Getting high on foul language? Having the time of his life here. High quality service, satisfaction guaranteed.

Date: 2010/03/03 02:36:30, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 02 2010,14:47)
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 02 2010,19:32)
An obstinate child that only a mother could love? Getting high on foul language? Having the time of his life here. High quality service, satisfaction guaranteed.

AtBC: We do swearing and LOLcats.


It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it.

Date: 2010/03/03 02:58:56, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,08:42)
Edit- how can I edit my post?

Use a word processor, delete expletives, c&p to AtBC

Date: 2010/03/05 03:19:17, Link
Author: Quack
Robert, you have diagnosed yourself (slightly edited quote):

I'm not stupid or dishonest. If I was I wouldn't know it or honestly admit it.

That's what you wrote. Do you understand what you yourself have written? You have admitted that you wouldn't know if you were stupid. Now read carefully:

You are stupid. Beacuse you are stupid, you don't know it. Because you are stupid, you won't admit it.

That's the meaning of the words you wrote. They are your own words, not mine. You've said it yourself. I agree with you. We all know that you are stupid, but you are too stupid to understand.

It is a well known observation, it is already mentioned in the bible: You think everybody else is stupid when they disagree with you, at the same time are blind to your own stupidity.

WRT contribution: You have contributed nothing to man's knowledge. That thylacines and wolves look somewhat similar is not news to us. We know, we knew, we have seen it, we know why, we understand why. We have a huge amount of knowledge contributed by intelligent, non-stupid people. While you just  babble like an idiot about it.

Now please go away. Why don't you register at the
Evolution Fairytale forum? Click here!
That forum is made for people like you. They are brethren of yours and need your special knowledge. Now you have saved us, go and save your brethren in faith!

Over a long time I have done my best to help you, why don't you ever thank me?

Edit: typo.

Date: 2010/03/05 16:07:15, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (MichaelJ @ Mar. 05 2010,15:54)
I think that the guy has serious problems and feel a little guilty about poking fun at the guy

Mentally-wise, he must be completely teflon-ized. Whatever I have said, he just come back with more of the same nonsense as if nothing happened. Remarkable. If he's got a problem, he doesn't  seem to be aware of it. He must be the happiest man in the world

Date: 2010/03/09 09:22:29, Link
Author: Quack
I know you are incompetent, Robert, but anyway:

What you claim about biology and DNA  is like saying that if the builders build something different than the architect's drawings, the blueprint for the building, the the drawings, the blueprint will change accordingly?

You mean the blueprint is useless, real life doesn't bother with made up plans for what to build? So the people at one of Ford's assembly lines may build any car they like and miraculously, Ford's research and design department will have a new set of blueprints?

So what do they use the blueprints for, they are irrelevant.

That's what you say about DNA. What do you think is responsible for the development of a foetus? Are you familiar with the processes called copulation and fertilization? You know about sperm and the double helix?

No, you don't know nothing, that's a fact.

Please disappear from here, you're not even funny, just pathetic. Go to evolutionfairytale, they need to learn the wonderful knowledge that you are in possession of!

Another ten minutes wasted. Allright, for a while it took my mind of the stuff I am working on these days.

Date: 2010/03/11 05:13:52, Link
Author: Quack
I thought about posting a basic lesson in genetics for Robert but decided it would be a wasted effort. He's got a trapdoor in his brain.

Date: 2010/03/14 04:21:34, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (blipey @ Mar. 13 2010,20:51)
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 13 2010,20:32)
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Joe points out places where size=mass and expresses hope that this is a universal phenomenon:

blipey: In what world does the word "size" mean "weight"?

Joe: In boxing, UFC, wrestling- most sports.  I am sure it has a bearing in mechanics too, as well as electronics.  I am sure in science it is perfectly normal to answer the question of size with that of mass... Size is both.  Educated people have a big word- we use DIMENSIONS- if that is what we wish to convey.

Of course, boxers are sorted by weight class, which Joe attempts to define as a combination of height, weight, and anywhere from 13 - 73% reach?

The boxer's size is a combo- height/ weight with a little reach thrown in.

Seems Joe G over-reached himself this time.

Date: 2010/03/21 17:15:42, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (tsig @ Mar. 20 2010,10:18)
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 11 2010,05:13)
I thought about posting a basic lesson in genetics for Robert but decided it would be a wasted effort. He's got a trapdoor in his brain.

Actually it's a god sized hole.

Black body radiating?

Date: 2010/03/23 11:08:25, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 23 2010,10:56)
Why would observation (or not) of daylight saving time matter? Are these Mornington Crescent trips timed?

More like random mutations as I see it.

Date: 2010/03/27 14:08:05, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 27 2010,13:43)
Quote (lkeithlu @ Mar. 27 2010,08:32)
Quothe O'Leary:

"Look, once upon a time, women were forbidden military activities for the precise reason that one must, at various points … as the Scandinavians put it … lie down in the straw [to give birth].

The thought was, as a German once explained to me – you’ve already done your duty. Your country cannot ask more of you than what it has already."

I dunno, but my first thought "lie down in the straw" meant something else....

This is O'Leary, remember.

(Goes to wash his brain out with soap.)

I find high grade beer does quite a decent job of it too.

Date: 2010/03/27 15:31:39, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (ppb @ Mar. 24 2010,21:37)
Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,17:55)
It truly is fascinating to read the majority of these posts trashing a person that many of you have never met.


I have never met Dr. Dembski personally, but my one encounter with him on his own forum showed me he is not interested in free and open discussion.

You will not get such treatment here.  If you are interested in talking science, there are many here who will be happy to discuss it with you.

I just hate this thread, it is so damn boring. Latest bore is cdanner, who is doing his best to avoid discussing science.

ppb, you echo my mind.

I couldn't care less about Dembski's credentials WRT to God, science, dignity, honesty or whatever - the same goes for cdanner, but I really would appreciate a few words about science, in particular WRT to the 150 years old theory of evolution.

cdanner, have you got any questions at all about evolution, something you want to learn?

WRT claims against evolution I am somewhat confused; some creationists say the do not deny evolution, it is just that they have a compulsion about inserting their god-of-the gaps into the theory. That's what Dembski has been doing for twenty years now with pretty little to show in return except for some $$.

I am not a scientist either but you know what, I've read books. some borrowed at libraries, others I've bought, and i also  have availed myself of the rich opportunities at expanding my knowledge and understanding by using the fabulous resource available on the web.

There's no excuse for being ignorant in the 21st century.

BTW, the ToE isn't something you can grasp intuitively like gravity or red-shift; it as an extremely complex subject even though it may look simple when explained as just the theory that mutation and natural selection is all there is to it.

There are megatons of facts and evidence supporting the theory; I suggest both you and Dembski may be a little less than up to par on the subject.

Date: 2010/03/28 15:54:48, Link
Author: Quack
Christians universally loathe Judas. ... Their Jesus had to die, Judas arranged for it to happen.  

I've often wondered why that point isn't being brought up more often; it is so blatantly obvious.

We should all be grateful for the wonderful gift of Judas' sacrifice; without that we'd all be lost.

But seriously, I consider the Judas incident just another of the many reasons to realize that we are dealing with myth; not historical fact.

The power and utility of the myth is lost on many xtians; you can't taste candy with the wrapper on. What's the secret of the myth?  It has after all survived for over 5000 years since it was invented, or maybe 'discovered'.

Date: 2010/03/30 03:38:29, Link
Author: Quack
Robert, you have studied this? Please say you have studied the birth process of apes.

You are not just saying things you happen to believe, you study the subject first to learn how it is, don't you?

I've been told the bible says rabbits chew cud, you believe that, don't you?

If you have not yet performed the required study of ape birth, please get it done then come back and report your findings.

You know, like study, like Galileo studied nature before he announced what he had learned. It usually was something the church denied possible from their understanding of the bible.

But you don't think study is required, you already know, like the sun orbits the Earth, not the other way around?

Date: 2010/04/12 16:16:44, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Louis @ April 09 2010,15:04)
Quote (Robin @ April 09 2010,19:03)
Quote (Wolfhound @ April 09 2010,10:51)

Quote (Robin @ April 09 2010,11:45)
Man...just teed up there for a mental-gutter comment to knock it out of the park. However, I refuse to be the person that goes juuuuuust a weeee bit too far...(sigh)

S'okay, Robin, I'm certain that somebody here will pick up the slack.

*Paging Louis!  Louis, report to the "Can You Do Geology" thread for a dirty-up!

Heh! Thanks for moving this right along, Wolfhound!  :D

I just don't get the joke. I think that there is no correlation between human female pulchritude and intellect, or at least none that I am aware of.

Maybe I'm just not as dirty as you people.

{Haughty sniff}


P.S. ;-)

Isn't it amazing how earthworms look so clean and beautiful emerging out of the dirt? How do they manage it?

Date: 2010/04/15 13:17:29, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (creeky belly @ April 14 2010,16:50)
Quote (fnxtr @ April 13 2010,12:44)
Quote (keiths @ April 13 2010,10:25)
batshit77 thinks we must be at the center of the universe because no matter which way we look, the cosmic microwave background appears the same distance away:
my point was not to contest heliocentrism, which I fully accept as perfectly valid in regards to our relative motion in the cosmos, and indeed I would hold anyone very suspect of scientific integrity who maintained the sun revolved around the earth just to support a particular Biblical interpretation, my post was aimed chiefly to point out the obvious fact that the centrality we observe for ourselves in the universe as a whole in regards to the CMBR, regardless of our motion around the sun, brings us full circle from the mediocrity that was derived from Copernicus’s and Galileo’s geocentrism. Indeed we find ourselves smack dab in the middle of the universe again. Just look at the video I linked. I would think that centrality should at least cause some small surprise to the person who has been told, relentlessly, as I was, through his life that we hold absolutely no special place in the universe (Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot comes to mind).

That's about as dumb as someone who sees his shadow on a sunny day, walks a mile, sees his shadow again, and concludes that he therefore has not moved.

The girl next door and I did a similar experiment when we were about 5 years old. We walked in opposite directions to see which of us the sun was following.

Maybe 4 years old...

Sorry for being TARDy to the party, but this is simply not true.  Kixsen et. al (1996) found that our motion with respect to the CMB in the earth frame is ~371 km/s towards (l,b)=(264,48). The Milky Way center is no better, it's moving at 600 km/s towards (l,b)=(270,30).

** End Transmission **

This is as good time and place as any too present my hypothesis/theory:

"We" are - not at the center of the universe, but right at the outer edge of the university. And so is and will forever be any place and time we might happen to occupy anywhere in the universe if we could go there.

I am talking about the four-dimensional universe, not about the false three-dimensional plus the time-factor model.

This is how my theory works: Any direction we look, the light coming to us left its source sometime in the past. We can not look into the future, the future is yet not here. That means that with respect to the time dimension, we are sitting right at the outer edge/limit of the universe. Looking from where we are and into the universe, we are looking at the past, towards the remote past when the universe began. It is impossible to look beyond that, there was nothing useful there.

It is so simple. Do I get the Nobel prize? ... Sigh, I know there has to be a flaw in my theory. When will the cdesign proponetisists realize all the flaws in their "theory"?

Date: 2010/04/26 04:13:26, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 26 2010,01:06)


BTW, your morality citations do not prove anything but that scientists have written on the matter. What's the foundation for? I propose it's non-material. IE: YOU WON"T FIND IT in some gene somewhere.

From NPR:


The problem is that Isabelle has Williams syndrome, a rare genetic disorder with a number of symptoms. The children are often physically small and often have developmental delays. But also, kids and adults with Williams love people and are pathologically trusting: They literally have no social fear.

Researchers theorize that this is probably because of a problem with the area in their brain that regulates the manufacture and release of oxytocin. Somehow, the system in which oxytocin operates has been disrupted in a way that makes it essentially biologically impossible for kids like Isabelle to distrust.

It turns out that our brains have a mechanism for trusting others, one that has a quite-evident biological (that is, material) basis.

This is not the only behavior that impacts morality that has a biological basis, not by a long shot. It's just one that was covered on the radio a couple of days ago.

May I offer this as further evidence: Children who form no racial sterotypes

Date: 2010/05/02 02:04:35, Link
Author: Quack
Words, words, words:

Science, creationist science, ID science, Behe science, Dembski science, Joe G. science, Slimy Sal science, Ray Martinez science.

When that has been sorted out, maybe we could move on to real issues?

(Not to mention Cornelius Hunter, O'Leary and all the rest ad infinitum...)

To each his own definition of science.

Date: 2010/05/04 16:22:54, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (afarensis @ April 07 2010,18:52)
How to challenge the consensus view and not be thought a quack
In the study, U-M evolutionary biologist Jianzhi "George" Zhang and colleagues Ben-Yang Liao and Meng-Pin Weng set out to systematically test a hypothesis proposed by molecular biologist Sean Carroll in 2005. Carroll posited that changes in morphology (such things as shape, color and structure of external and internal parts) occur through different genetic mechanisms than changes in physiology (inner workings). Carroll backed up his assertion with examples, but the idea, which challenged previous dogma, was controversial, Zhang said.

Lovely, and to think that this was not predicted by ID?

I've got to say this, ToE still continues to surprise and amaze me every day. After pondering for years about a pathway for the evolution of the human larynx - and speech, I realized on rereading Jeffrey K. McKee's "The Riddled Chain" that bipedalism/upright stance must have been the trigger.

Fascinating work on computer simulations too.

Isn't science wonderful?

Date: 2010/05/08 03:13:33, Link
Author: Quack
Maybe I am overdoing it, but I quote from the notes in "The Jesus Mysteries" - a book I recommend. One doesn't have to agree with the authors on anything, the book is a veritable gold mine anyway. Extensive notes and references to both easily accessible sources and some that maybe are not.

The words of the Church fathers, their Gnostic and Pagan antagonists, and of acknowledged scholars.

… 15 centuries previously, fanatical Christian monks launched a cultural revolution that laid waste the ancient wonders and achievements of Paganism, setting Western civilization back 1,000 years.
The wanton destruction of our Pagan heritage is the greatest tragedy in the history of the Western world. The scale of what was lost is hard to comprehend. Pagan mysticism and scientific inquiry were replaced by dogmatic authoritarianism. The Roman Church imposed its creed with threats and violence, denying generations of human beings the right to think their own thoughts and find their personal route to spiritual salvation. While the great literature of antiquity was being consigned to the flames, St. Augustine announced the triumph of Literalist fundamentalism, writing:

Nothing is to be accepted except on the authority of scripture, since greater is that authority than all powers of the human mind.

The ancients had built the pyramids and the Parthenon, but within a few hundred years of Christianity people in many areas of Europe had forgotten how to make brick houses. In the first century BCE Posidonius had created a beautiful revolving model of the solar system that faithfully represented the orbits of the planets. By the end of the fourth century CE it was sacrilegious not to believe that God placed the stars in the heavens each night. In the third century BCE, the Alexandrian scholar Eratosthenes had correctly calculated the circumference of the Earth to within a few percent, but now it had become a heresy not to believe that the Earth was flat.

We found ourselves asking, if Paganism was so primitive and Literalist Christianity is the one true religion, why was Pagan civilization replaced by the 1,000 years we appropriately call the Dark Ages?

D. Fidler in Jesus Christ, Son of God, Quest Books, 1993, cites Augustine:

I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not compel me.


W. Hyde, Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire, 1946, presents a depressing picture of the anti·intellectual nature of the early Church, the destruction of books and temples, the closing of schools, and the killing of adherents of other faiths.
The classical scholar Frank has reconstructed the main stages of Greek astronomy, in an apparently necessary order: development of the understanding of space, of solid geometry and perspective by Anaxagoras and Democritus, discovery of the sphericity of the Earth and the "movements of the planets in the form of geometrically perfect orbits" by the Pythagoreans of Archytas’ circle, first mathematical explanation of the movement of the planets by Eudoxus, discovery of the rotation of the Earth on its axis, and finally the "Copernican view of the world” in the system of Philolaus. The earliest mention of a spherical Earth in extant literature is in Plato's Phaedo, but Bion of Abdera, the follower of Democritus, was acquainted in 400 BCE with the mathematical consequences of the spherical shape of the Earth, and in 430 Hippocrates of Chios projected the celestial circles onto the Earth, obviously presupposing its sphericity. All of these advances took place in the Classical period. The Hellenistic period saw equally momentous discoveries. Eratosthenes calculated the obliquity of the ecliptic and the diameter of the Earth with an error of less than 1 percent.
Hipparchus, his successor at the Alexandrian library, determined the precession of the equinoxes, the size of the sun and the plane of its apogee, the mean motion of the moon, its nadir, its apogee and the inclination of its orbit and also calculated lunar eclipses.

Then suddenly with the triumph of Christianity St. Augustine declared, on the basis of his own limited knowledge of Manichaean astrology, that the Earth was flat. As unchallengeable Christian dogma this belief persisted throughout the Dark Ages. As Draper observes, "No one did more than this Father to bring science and religion into antagonism”

Date: 2010/05/09 02:16:48, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 25 2010,09:56)
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 25 2010,09:40)
I don't want a god into justice. I want one that is merciful, and with a good sense of humor.

You can't always get what you want.
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You get what you need.

Jeffrey K. McKee in "The Riddled Chain":  
Mick Jagger and Keith Richards ... did not have evolutionary biology in mind. But few phrases could better portray Darwinian evolution, conceived a hundred years earlier.

Date: 2010/05/10 16:45:08, Link
Author: Quack
admit that you're coming from the "I believe God did all this" perspective and start doing real science from that perspective.

As always, I may be wrong, seeing things that are not there - but doing real science from what perspective?

Date: 2010/05/12 02:57:33, Link
Author: Quack
My favorite:
Harry Potter

But AFAIK, the Arabs did not invent the zero.

I love fact-checking.

Edit: error fix.

Date: 2010/05/12 05:31:31, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 12 2010,04:39)
If I could prove even one small part of my faith through purely scientific methods that would be highly satisfying intellectually-

He would be an intellectually fulfilled theist.

But he'll never get it.

Date: 2010/05/12 08:40:52, Link
Author: Quack
I have a problem with "I believe God did all this" - isn't that just what Dembski and Behe says, the 'designer did it', wholesale, including bacterial flagellum, cytochrome C and the blood clotting chain? What's left to do science about - emergence, random mutations, natural selection, chaos, chance, autocatalysis?

I admit I don't know anything about TE, but if it encompasses the belief that God manipulate molecules - either by magic or by growing pseudopods,  what's left for science?

OTOH; I find it all right if people adopt a belief in a divine spirit pervading the universe; the universe is awesome!

Date: 2010/05/13 06:39:23, Link
Author: Quack
If IDists were actually interested in testing ID, they'd write articles like this.

I know what I think but don't quite find the words to use...

ETA qualifications...

Date: 2010/05/14 03:04:53, Link
Author: Quack
Shouldn't it rather be where the magic ends?

The way I look at it, isn't it about where or when the creator was done with his job and left the world free to develop on its own although restrained by the rules he'd laid down?

Date: 2010/05/14 16:02:33, Link
Author: Quack
I love this guy. In similar circumstances I'd be fuming, boiling, swearing! What, a gentle soul like me? Yessir!

Date: 2010/05/20 02:48:50, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (JLT @ May 19 2010,16:43)


I took a a peek; FAQ is a misnomer, should be CRAP.

Date: 2010/05/20 10:58:01, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (fnxtr @ May 20 2010,08:59)
Quote (didymos @ May 20 2010,06:42)
Quote (BillB @ May 20 2010,02:02)
Thanks all ... anyone know a good cure for a hangover?

Well, it is partially due to withdrawal, so hair of the dog that bit you.  I.e., do a couple shots. Most people pass on that one, myself included.

Umm, water's always good. Probably want to get your blood sugar up a bit too. Pop a couple analgesics. No matter what though, you're still gonna be feeling it.  But just remember: you've got a Ph.D.

Yeah, lots of water. Preferably *while* you're drinking, but the next morning helps too.  Urban legend cures include lots of vitamin C, and greasy fried eggs. :-)


Milk. Cold. From the fridge. Lots of. Ummmm. For hangovers, that is. Otherwise, no.

Date: 2010/05/20 16:16:18, Link
Author: Quack
As I wrote in my paper, it is tremendously difficult for us to mentally grasp the natural world, since we see ourselves as artificial and separate from it.

Part of the problem may be that our brains weren't made for mentally grasping anything. I suspect my brain was made just to help me survive and 'multiply'. Which I've done.

Another problem may be that the world really isn't really (fully) mentally graspable.

Date: 2010/05/20 16:24:37, Link
Author: Quack
Genetic entropy is predicated on the theological notion that an omniscient God made things perfect in the first place, and that "random" variation can only make them worse. It's friggin' stupid logic. If the biosphere changes dynamically, then "perfect" life has to change also. Who's to say that God should have made life static? Static sounds mighty lifeless to me.

For 'genetic entropy' to be true, ought not life have reached the 100% entropy level by now? Since it has not, isn't that evidence that genetic entropy is as fake as the three dollar bill?

Date: 2010/05/21 16:21:46, Link
Author: Quack
It really beats staying off booze the night before?

Date: 2010/05/21 16:26:15, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (sledgehammer @ May 21 2010,16:16)
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 21 2010,12:20)
Quote (ppb @ May 21 2010,12:33)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 21 2010,13:07)
He's asking me out on a date? How sweet.

Ask him if he's a top or a bottom.

Quark, that is.

He's definitely no charm.

But he is strange.

What  beauty!  I get a charge out of it, no matter which way you spin it.

Why don't we ever see ID humour like that?

Wait a second, guess I overlooked something

Date: 2010/05/22 09:59:50, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 22 2010,09:40)
kairosfocus seems to be taking the criticisms to heart.  Viz his latest tome, in its entirety:
GP: Interesting. G

I will not ask us to consider the meaning of "interesting," or what it could possibly designate.  Rather, I invite you to contemplate the conclusion of this little koan. In particular note the rich ambiguity conveyed by the absence of final punctuation.  What does G mean here?  Is it G[ordon], G[P], G['day], G[EM of TKI], G[angsta (original)]?

I submit: from meaningless long posts, Kairosfocus has leaped completely over the realm of signification and arrived directly at the meaningless short post.  It's some achievement.

Yeah, maybe I may begin reading his posts; something I've been prevented from doing for obvious reasons.

Date: 2010/05/22 10:13:36, Link
Author: Quack
It takes moments to produce and mere minutes after injestion to be remarkably effective.

I'll take your word for it; you strike me as someone who would know such things.
Unfortunately, at my age I am afraid ingesting nectar in quantities warranting such dramatic remedies might be fatal. There's a time for everything; I did my share... But I still enjoy a good beer (i.e. Stockholm Festival) every now and then.
Edited typo.

Date: 2010/05/22 10:20:33, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (sledgehammer @ May 20 2010,22:08)
Nowhere in the vast field of engineering is there any such
thing as "the percentage of the time that corrupted data is
helpful instead of harmful."

It's ALWAYS harmful. Always. Copying errors and data
transmission errors never help the signal. They only hurt

BZZZT! Wrong.
Random noise added to a signal before digitization by an Analog-to-Digital Converter actually improves the resolution of the resulting digital representation by "dithering" the quantization levels.
That's just engineering.  In physics, thermal noise can prevent a system from getting stuck in a local minimum (potential well) and significantly affect the outcome of a process by allowing it to sample a wider range of possible states.

That was news to me. Very interesting. I presume being relevant for physics, it is relevant for chemistry too - and maybe for genetics in ways not encouraging for creationists?
Just speculating.

Date: 2010/05/22 12:05:04, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Louis @ May 22 2010,11:13)
Quote (Quack @ May 22 2010,16:13)

I'll take your word for it; you strike me as someone who would know such things.


I know many, many wonderful things. Everything in moderation. Especially moderation. ;-)


I would feel great if I only knew half of them...

Date: 2010/05/23 02:43:09, Link
Author: Quack
Sorry guys, nitpicking maybe, but something happens inside of me when I read about hz - or other units.

That's the way that I am, can't help it.

Date: 2010/05/23 16:37:20, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (fnxtr @ May 23 2010,11:18)
Quote (Quack @ May 23 2010,00:43)
Sorry guys, nitpicking maybe, but something happens inside of me when I read about hz - or other units.

That's the way that I am, can't help it.

Must have been a radioactivity-induced bit flip.

1101000 ->1001000

hz -> Hz.

Happy now?

edit: binary goof

Happy as a lark...

Date: 2010/05/24 06:15:44, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 24 2010,04:45)
Ok, my appologies for the cap mistake.

won't Happen aGain, evER!

Coming from you, I really believe it!

But seriously, such mistakes are easy to make but I am afraid I have an eye for typographical mistakes. According to Wikipedia, a mistake is an error.

Date: 2010/05/25 02:25:55, Link
Author: Quack
All I can say is µF or µH looks much better than µf or µh.

ETA: For the uninitiated, microfarad or microhenry.

Date: 2010/05/27 12:13:16, Link
Author: Quack
Judging by the publication date, it must be more than forty years since I read Meet My Maker the Mad Molecule by J P Donleavy.

Just wanted to mention it if you, like me,  got f-ed up with current trend of 'bestseller' literature.

(And even longer than that since I read The Sirens of Titan by Kurt Vonnegut. Or Cat's Cradle. Kurt was good back then but I couldn't stand his later works.) Too much nonsense for me, but should go down well for Pratchett lovers...)

Date: 2010/05/30 09:34:16, Link
Author: Quack
There's nothing but idiocy to be expected from Corny so why should I bother bumping his site-o-meter?

Date: 2010/05/30 09:37:02, Link
Author: Quack
What would UD be without him?

Date: 2010/05/30 13:17:54, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (DiEb @ May 30 2010,10:07)
Quote (Quack @ May 30 2010,09:37)
What would UD be without him?

The same?

In some way, but a lot less of the same.

Date: 2010/05/31 15:59:04, Link
Author: Quack
Many thanks to all of you!
I've been waiting all day, will they remember me? Well, I've been hoping it was only the time difference and there you are, while it now is time for me to put myself to bed. I've got some beans to spill, but that will have to wait until tomorrow.

The festivities were dealt with Saturday evening so I am reasonably clear now, just had to taste some of the chateau bottled cognac I got. Yummy-yum.

Date: 2010/06/01 10:17:12, Link
Author: Quack
How swell of you!

Now, the beans I promised to spill. I have a feeling I will be less active from now on but I suppose the lurking will continue. For the rest, there isn't much I can contribute to the war effort.

Sadly, creationism isn't much of an issue here. I'd have enjoyed a local debate.

I decided a while ago that when I passed fourscore, I would make my other identities known.

At and at Pandas Thumb, I am using my real name, Rolf Aalberg.  

At UcD, I am Cabal.
At TT, (very seldom) I am Satolep.

I guess that was all, thought there would have been more.

Date: 2010/06/03 02:43:46, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (CeilingCat @ June 02 2010,20:48)
Ilion stomps his foot and says naughty words:          
Ilíon said...

   Gary "Ritchie: “I'm confused"
   So what else is new?
   Join the ranks of the confused with thorton et al.
   You 2 are amazing at not getting the point"

   Ritchie "I enjoy open and frank debate, and I do not generally take offense to people insulting me or my sensibilities if they are sincerely trying to explain their point or support their claims.
   Name-calling and insults won't get anyone anywhere.
   Make a point which contributes to the debate or shut up."

   You God-damned lying hypocrite! Not only do you hypocritically attempt to condemn others (though, of course, only of “the enemy”) for engaging in *your* own favorite faults, but you lyingly accuse those others of engaging in your own favorite faults so that you may then “call them out.”
   May 31, 2010 12:56 PM

See, only a scientist would take the Lords' name in vain like that, so he must be right.

The thread degenerates from there in a colorful manor and Ilion continues to rage at a world full of people who willfully fail to see the world exactly like he does.


This link works
I am in the habit of testing links in preview...

Date: 2010/06/04 05:05:44, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (sparc @ June 03 2010,22:05)
So, FAI is dFSCI, or something.
I wonder what Behe and Dembski would say if they read this thread.

They don't dare their mind to wander off into that terrain.

Date: 2010/06/04 15:19:30, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Zachriel @ June 04 2010,06:49)
bornagain77: Sea Salt only adds to this thermodynamic problem.

…even at concentrations seven times weaker than in today’s oceans. The ingredients of sea salt are very effective at dismembering membranes and preventing RNA units (monomers) from forming polymers any longer than two links (dimers). Creation Evolution News – Sept. 2002

Gosh, if only there were some natural way to purify water.

But that would obviously violate the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Only a designer can violate the Laws of Thermodynamics.

What would a universe without the 2LOT look like?

Date: 2010/06/04 15:25:58, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (fnxtr @ June 04 2010,11:02)
gpuccio: We have three types of digital information: ...

c) pseudo-random strings, where a recognizable meaning is superimposed to the random structure by an intelligent designer (Hamlet, any software, any long discourse). And, obviouisly, any functional protein. These are dFSCI.


Also, Mozart's "Jupiter" Symphony, and, obviously, any planetary system.


If, as seems like the most likely outcome, that ID won't ever amount to anything of value, it will have left a legacy of fancy acronyms. Dembski will go down in history! While I  won't. The world is unfair.

Date: 2010/06/05 16:07:17, Link
Author: Quack
Just curious, what or where are they coming from, those strange threads that always pop up when I use the search New Posts function?

Date: 2010/06/06 05:36:33, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 06 2010,04:53)
And a quote to get us started:
Many Darwinian Biologists believe they are the only one capable of making additions and clarifying Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species." They somehow use the logic that since Darwin was a Biologist, then somehow only a biologist can understand. Wow - what piety. First let us place this dialogue in a realm so everyone can understand, instead of 'court-room lingo.' I will use common terms, so the common individual who is well-education does not have to wade through the 'windfoggery' of the Scientific Jargon, which comes very close to that of the Legal Profession and the twisted wording of the Politician.

So, not a biologist then....

That certainly got me started. Hi Walter!

Like yourself, I am not a scientist either, and yet I don't think I share your disdain for science, scientists and "Scientific Jargon". I won't bother with your American fascination with firearms; I suppose that is a legacy of your Wild West.

Nor do I think that is a relevant subject for this forum.

If we could limit the debate to issues relating to the scientific issue: Did/do species evolve, and what is the cause? Examining all available evidence is a good place to start. I don't know your position WRT the ultimate origins: How come, why is there life on this planet at all? As far as I can tell, nobody knows - even though many scientists are studying the subject and have yet to find any reason why life could not be the result of natural processes. But WRT evolution that is something we need not bother with; we know there is life on the planet and know it must have started somewhere, sometime - and the geological and fossil record clearly shows a pathway through geological time for the evolution of species.

The field is wide open for anyone to propose causes, mechanisms, hypotheses on how and why, but the record of the history of life on this planet stands firmly set in stone for anyone to examine.

So how does your scientific theory of evolution look? Maybe you prefer a non-scientific theory? Faith-based? The stage is yours.

Edit: typos.

Date: 2010/06/06 08:01:53, Link
Author: Quack
Wow! we have another Robert Byers on our hands!

Date: 2010/06/07 03:25:35, Link
Author: Quack
Awesome! His writing skills are superb; he is crystal clear and a joy to read. I believe he even knows what he's talking about.
Too many people don't.

Date: 2010/06/07 06:37:21, Link
Author: Quack
Anyway, you can have restrictive gun laws and still allow hunting etc.

From my perspective here in Norway, it seems like overkill to have almost unlimited rights to buy & possess firearms to 'protect your family', weapons that I suppose mostly are used for murder besides shooting practice. (Any statistics, i.e. actual protection vs homicide?)

But I guess that's the American way of life, Europe is different in so many ways.

Date: 2010/06/07 11:28:17, Link
Author: Quack
Hi again, Quack. (I hope your not a physician)

Sincerely, I am not much except an old fellow who spent a lifetime trying to learn and understand as much as possible of the universe and mankind. I just register that you have an agenda. That doesn't bode well for your future here. It would be different if you were here for the learning but since you are not, I'll just say goodbye and wish you good luck. I am afraid you are wasting your own as well as our time here. But that's what we are here for.

Date: 2010/06/08 04:18:13, Link
Author: Quack
Walter, you probably won't read this but anyway, just in case:

You struck me as somewhat like an elephant barging into a china store.

In short, your strategy was absolutely disastrous.

A better strategy that might work better for you in future forays into the evil world of science would be to cut down on the crap, make at least your initial message(s) short and to the point. Just state your position, your intentions, and maybe ask a couple of questions about basic, fundamental issues.

It was - and is - most unwise to come charging with a chip on your shoulder, declaring that according to you personal opinion, 150 years of science is only so much bullshit.

I wish you better luck in the future, unless you are too stubborn to learn & take sound advice, but it is, as they say, your own funeral.  (With English not being my language, I may not always get my metaphors right.)

EDIT: A couple of hours later after I have been using the time to think while mowing the lawn:

I told you I am  
I am not much except an old fellow who spent a lifetime trying to learn and understand as much as possible of the universe and mankind.

and feel like asking: Do you spend any time trying to learn and understand?

What I conceive as a fundamental difference between you and the rest of us here, is that it seems you don't do anything to verify your "knowledge". Your dead wrong statements about carbon comes to mind.

Whether you decide that your goodbye was final or not, here then is what I try to do all the time - and what I recommend that you do too:

I check my facts.

I started typing distribution of elements and Google obligingly offered a number of choices, of which I chose in the universe and got 6 600 000 results.

I offer just #4 What Is the Most Abundant Element?

What Is the Most Abundant Element?

Answer: The most abundant element in the universe is hydrogen, which makes up about 3/4 of all matter! Helium makes up most of the remaining 25%. Oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe. All of the other elements are relatively rare.

Ignorance may be overcome, but stupidity is incurable.

Date: 2010/06/09 02:06:09, Link
Author: Quack
What do we need AtBC for? Just redirect to UcD. O'Leary, BA^77 and all the rest are doing a great job in exposing the travesty called ID and at the same time also tearing holes holes in the big tent. Trojan horses?

It is raining today.

Date: 2010/06/09 05:22:27, Link
Author: Quack
I don't know if I can contribute anything of interest here, but I found this very interesting, and yet another reason to ask what the heck does the designer think he is doing? Anyway, just an excerpt I've tried to translate:

It is done by making a complete DNAanalysis of the radiolarian with all its contents.

Even if the parasites cannot be identified with a microscope, DNA analysis shows that they are there.

We don’t know the numbers, but there may be many parasites in radiolarians. Each day we discover some new ones.

It is just the discovery of parasites in radiolarians that makes it possible to solve the mystery of the unknown, biological diversity in the oceans.

It is explained by the strong correlation between DNA-samples from a single radiolarian and DNA-samples of seawater.

Now we know that all sequences inside of the radiolarians are identical with the unknown sequences in the oceans.

We therefore may conclude that large proportions of the unknown strands of DNA in water are from parasites.

- We now are going to map DNA from a number of radiolarians and parasites in order to learn the interplay between them says Kamran Shalchian Tabrizi. (leader of the interdisciplinary group Microbial Evolution Research Group (MERG) at Universitetet i Oslo (UiO) who has for many years been researching at University of Oslo.)

To reach their goal, the researchers wish to sequence the entire genome, i.e. the complete genetic mass, of both radiolarians and their parasites. The problem is the enormous genomes. Incredibly enough the genome of radiolarians may be up to a hundred times larger than the human.

My bold and italics.

Date: 2010/06/09 07:16:30, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ June 09 2010,05:56)
Quite old news, but it seems science has mad a further small step towards abiogenesis. I find this colour of panspermia* theory quite attractive.
*Well, not exactly panspermia, but this type of "contamination" is definitely an interesting thought...

"We wanted to test whether pyrimidine can survive in space, and whether it can undergo reactions that turn it into more complicated organic species, such as the nucleobase uracil."

What, without an intelligent source for fCSI?

Date: 2010/06/11 03:10:33, Link
Author: Quack
Thoughts running through my mind but since it boggles I am left speech & write-less.

Edited to use ampersand.

Date: 2010/06/13 04:48:31, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (1of63 @ June 12 2010,17:43)
Speaking as a newly-naturalized Yankee colonist I have to say do find it hard to open the eyes of the locals - brought up on a diet of Armored Rugby and rounders - to the finer points of the Beautiful Game.

Rugby itself, of course, is a sort of brawl concocted by a bunch of public school yahoos who were too inbred to be able kick a ball and run with it at the same time. "Oh, I say!  Just pick up the dashed thing!  Haw, haw, haw!"

Under the circs, a one-all draw is a result even if the keeper gifted the Yanks a goal.

I wisely ignore all the other comments and declare that 1of63 accurately catches the essence of the Rugby vs. Football controversy. Carrying an oblong, unkickable object around, football?

Date: 2010/06/13 14:20:55, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 12 2010,05:54)
Denial Smith talks about atheists but I think he's really talking about himself:

Déjà vu?

Date: 2010/06/13 14:26:54, Link
Author: Quack
Se non potete tagliare la senape, è migliore da essere pensato un martire alla vostra credenza religiosa che un semplice fuckup.

Wisdom transformed into poetry!

Date: 2010/06/14 03:42:06, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (FrankH @ June 13 2010,15:14)
Quote (fnxtr @ June 13 2010,14:47)
Quote (Quack @ June 13 2010,12:26)
Se non potete tagliare la senape, è migliore da essere pensato un martire alla vostra credenza religiosa che un semplice fuckup.

Wisdom transformed into poetry!
Looks like it would make a great aria.  Not sure how to advise the singer to pronounce "fuckup" with an Italian accent, tho...

I think there's actually an Italian word that is very close to fuckup but I thought that fuckup is just too good to pass up.

Poetry actually is not my cup of tea but in this case, fuckup struck me as almost like gilding the lily, the crowning glory or whatever term may be most fitting, English isn't my cup of tea either.

Date: 2010/06/15 01:58:09, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Hermagoras @ June 14 2010,23:29)
Quote (sparc @ June 14 2010,22:31)
Did Sally leave grad school or does he just spend his holidays at UD?
And why did he change the title of his latest post?


About scordova: time was when I thought Sal was just a delusional creationist.  I even had some polite exchanges with him over rhetoric via email.  But then I started to get to know him, and, well, the "Slimy Sal" reputation began to be confirmed.  I saw the behavior some of you have seen: his unceasing quotemining, his gleeful ad hominem, his repulsive shiftiness, his homophobia.  I'm no psychiatrist, but his online persona seems disturbed: both painfully lonely and (oh the irony) misanthropic.

EDITED for grammar.

IANAP either, but sadly enough, your analysis can't be far from the truth.

Must have been way back in the 90's when I first encountered Sally at ARN. My impression was that there's no limit to the mental acrobatics he may perform to avoid relating to realities. Before I learned *what* he was I even addressed him as Mr. Cordova. LOL.

Edited to remove embedded image

Date: 2010/06/15 14:33:52, Link
Author: Quack
I don't  think I want to hang around. so start a new thread for this if you want  or not ...


Chicken Little's Mammoth truth about Turtle island.

I thought it was time to let some christians know what I believe God has led me to do.

That's all well and good; we are all entitled to believe whatever we want to and to do whatever we think God want us to do. Except we better be damn sure we know God's mind. Do you?

In the meantime, some people are working their asses off trying to figure out what makes this world go round.

You know, like Tales of Milet, Archimedes, Aristotle, da Vinci, Galilei, Newton, Maxwell, Darwin, Einstein, Hawking, Heisenberg, Bohr, Rutherford, Curie, Pasteur - I could go on and on. You think they all were idiots? You don't think science makes sense? Who do you think invent the medicines and methods that cure people from the most terrible diseases and casualties?

Don't you think science and scientists deserve some respect for what they are doing for us?

I get very upset with ignorant people like you. Please stay as ignorant as you like, but I don't think you have anything of value to say with respect to the manifest world.

WRT the spiritual world, it would be your word against mine.
You know the ultimate truth? Go on, show me.

Edit: typos.

Date: 2010/06/16 04:21:41, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 15 2010,10:04)
Jerry makes an ID prediction

Not to put a fly in the ointment but the ID position in no way rest on the percentage of the non coding DNA that has function. It is certainly greater than zero and probably much less than 100%. The higher this percentage the stronger the ID case is but even if it is relatively low it does not make a dent in the ID argument.

So argue all you want and make it interesting but everyone should keep in the back of their mind that the actual percentage may not affect the strength of the anti ID argument. If the percentage is fairly high then it is a very strong ID case and definitely weakens the anti ID position. If it is relatively low then it no way undermines the ID case nor weakens its position. ID can just not claim this particular point. What we have here is a desperate attempt to make sure the percentage is not high because that would be a devastating blow to the anti ID people. It may not be all that high and it will probably be years before we find out the truth.

This is just a caution to the pro ID people. Do not go to the wall on this. The percentage could be fairly low and the complexity so overwhelming in the actual coding and regulatory parts that it boggles the mind that it could happen by chance. The remaining non functional DNA may be there as a result of an extremely functional process that is very complicated but well designed and which leaves excess DNA as a result.


Maybe we need another term: IR; Intelligent Reasoning. Goes hand in hand with ID. Can't have the one without the other. Like Love and Marriage, according to Frank Sinatra.

Date: 2010/06/19 05:40:44, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (JLT @ June 19 2010,03:13)
Quote (Hawks @ June 18 2010,22:00)
Quote (JohnW @ June 18 2010,12:22)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 18 2010,10:02)
Heads ID wins, tails ID wins. Again.

Mr Cordova:
Even supposing (purely for the sake of argument) that these regions have no function. Well, that doesn’t negate the design hypothesis in the least, in fact it would be just as much a design inference if not stronger.

The intelligent design track record in a nutshell.

Correctly predicting the already discovered since 1802.

IOW, ID predicts X. If X is not found, ID predicts ~X even more.

Good on them...

It's getting better and better. Sal:
What is apparent is what ever assumption is made, in each case the design inference is difficult to suppress.

You assume the things aren’t functional, it leads to a design inference. You assume it is functional it leads to design inference. You assume it is protected by error correction, it leads to a design inference. You assume it is not protected by error correction, it still leads to a design inference.

I wonder whether there really is no one on the designerdidit side who realizes that a scientific prediction has to follow logically from the hypothesis and is not just reading tea leafs. Or that a "hypothesis" which isn't affected by whatever you might find doesn't explain anything.

I tend to think I have a rational mind. I find it sickening to read Sal and all the rest of them. It hurts.

Date: 2010/06/20 16:10:52, Link
Author: Quack
We discuss actual ideas and science here,

You do, eh? I can too: Goddidit, QED. Case closed.

The entire exchange here 19th to 20th June, It can't get much better than that, TARD-wise. It makes me sad, though, to witness so much undiluted stupidity on display.

Date: 2010/06/21 00:27:32, Link
Author: Quack
You suspect rightly about not being around too long

The predictive power of ID?

Date: 2010/06/21 01:10:14, Link
Author: Quack
I had a writer friend posit the idea once that rewrites are never as good as the original, even if it was just a rough draft. HA!

Maybe not quite the same thing, but no written text of mine ever approaches the clarity and stringency of the superbly worded chain of thought that triggered my attempt at writing it down; only to decide that the c**p isn't even publishable. So there.

Date: 2010/06/24 03:00:44, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Raevmo @ June 24 2010,01:17)
StephenB sets a new record:
Because O’Leary knows how to write

My distance-from-the-truth metric just went way beyond infinity.

I can't help it but O'Leary's writings always make me think of no one else than Herr Adolf Hitler himself.

The words may be different but there is something about the mind behind them that bothers me.

Date: 2010/06/27 05:54:44, Link
Author: Quack
I don't think Darwin is much to blame; This people, among others, were subjected to sterilization as late as the 1950's - you know, we just had to get rid of the trash. Can't have travellers roaming the land.

Date: 2010/06/27 08:17:36, Link
Author: Quack
I sent my grandson of 19 a link to your post. He plays the drums and is a Metal 'fiend'. Unfortunately he lives in Sweden so I have had very little with him to during most of his life. I had hoped I could get somebody in the family interested in real jazz - from Armstrong, Ellington and Hawkins to Gillespie, Parker and Monk.

He surprised me one day in an email saying he had found quantum physics 'interesting'. So I explained the origins of your nick to him. He is a very bright kid, but lazy. Had to redo one termin in college. Kind of like me, except I've never learned to play a damn instrument.

He sent me this link to some 'modern jazz' made by a friend of his. I may not be the best judge for that sort  of thing but it appears the guy is talented as far as I can tell.

Dimman: Fog.
Mitt Interplanetära Gammasvärd: My Interplanetary Gamma Sword.
viljan att drunkna: the will to drown.

ETA link + info.

Date: 2010/06/28 02:10:27, Link
Author: Quack

I don't care much one way or another about what people do, what count's is they do something out of love for whatever they are doing. (except creationism.)

Date: 2010/06/29 15:49:54, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 29 2010,13:40)
Slimey sal...

...I cannot say formally whether an Intelligent Designer (God, ET's, whatever) was invovled. My philosophical belief is that God was the Designer, but that is not a scientific inference, only a circumstantial an personal view. My belief might be true, but there is an insufficient amount of evidence to make a direct inference, only a circumstantial one….

The question of whether evolutionary processes can make such structures is in principle a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. I'm not so sure the best in the mainstream really think Natural Selection is the primary answer. I expect there will be continued debate over which mechanisms can effect certain structures.

Right now, there is not even agreement over what parts of biology function, much less how they evolved. 20 years from now, our knowledge could be substantially greater than what we're working with today. I don't think there is any need to try to settle the issue today as I trust that the scientific method of observation, hypothesis forming, and experiment will bring us closer to the truth.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 28, 2010 @ 6:57 pm

And yet you think the earth if 6000 years old you queef. Yes, queef. I went there.

Some do; some don't. And my English vocabulary has been, ahem, enriched.

Date: 2010/07/01 05:21:48, Link
Author: Quack
All IDiots are hereby invited to come to Norway and study the evolution of languages. Richard Fortey in "Life, an Unauthorized Biography" even used the dialects evolved over hundreds of years in the many more or less isolated communities along the Norwegian Atlantic coastline, broken with fjords of length up to 200 kilometers, as an example.

One of the dialects has even been elevated to the status of a language on its own: nynorsk (New-Norwegian). NRK, the national  broadcasting company is required to use a minimum of 25% nynorsk.

It is estimated that less than 10% of the population are regular users of nynorsk.

All laws are written in nynorsk and are not even translated into our main language, "riksmål". I don't know if they are translated into foreign languages.

The 'problem' probably is a result of national-romantic sentiments associated with getting our own constitution (while still in union with Sweden) in 1814. We celebrate the date, 17th of May with lots of pomp and circumstance.

Date: 2010/07/01 14:54:52, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Texas Teach @ July 01 2010,10:54)
Quote (Quack @ July 01 2010,05:21)
The 'problem' probably is a result of national-romantic sentiments associated with getting our own constitution (while still in union with Sweden) in 1814. We celebrate the date, 17th of May with lots of pomp and circumstance.

But do you blow things up?  It's very important to blow things up.  Secondary fires are a bonus.  If you want to make it classy, you can add musical accompaniment.

I am afraid we're a little backward in that respect; except I've read about a tradition of young people very early May 17th blasting dynamite or whatever they could lay hands on.

Otherwise I am afraid we are a peaceful people. At least we used to be; modern times are making themselves noticeable here too.

But I did my best to blow up an air raid shelter on new year's eve 1945/46 though...

Date: 2010/07/02 17:19:59, Link
Author: Quack
I'll never forget the evenings spent 'well puked' during my adolescent days and they were no fun then and I could do without those memories. But the flipside is they may have spared me some uncomfortable pregnancies. Well, not quite mine, but you get the gist.

Date: 2010/07/03 02:17:25, Link
Author: Quack
Just one proud point: I never, ever, do drugs!

If and when you come of age you'll be thankful towards your old self for that.

Date: 2010/07/03 02:22:44, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (blipey @ July 02 2010,17:15)
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 02 2010,17:08)
Interesting strategy, taking a red card rather than allowing a goal. The goal was certain. Penalty kicks score 84 percent of the time.

The guy who stopped the goal won against the odds and won the game for his team.

I'm sure you meant this, but that was the only play.  Certain defeat avoided for a chance at almost certain defeat.

You may have decided it was time for a change but I loved that cute avatar you used before.

Date: 2010/07/06 13:30:42, Link
Author: Quack
I know this isn't making a lot of sense and I know that the ID people don't have a clue.  I'm just trying to see if there's another effective argument against IC here.

I am more interested in the process of implementing genetic engineering, ID style. Dembski wouldn't have a clue, but has Behe ever said anything about that?

Say we modified a pig and let it loose; how to ensure the modification reach even the next generation?

As far as I can tell, ID must be the emptiest bag in the universe. But lo and behold a miracle, it drips $$$.

Date: 2010/07/08 00:15:48, Link
Author: Quack
we see hugely impossible improbabilities associated with “random” construction of proteins. Both of these observations lead one in the direction of seeing design at work

Autonomous design?
A great and clear thinker, that PaV.

My bold.

Date: 2010/07/15 17:05:38, Link
Author: Quack
The stated purpose of UcD is to serve the "Intelligent Design Community".

What I see is a great source of fun...

Date: 2010/07/18 05:30:33, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (sparc @ July 18 2010,02:34)
BTW, why can't Sal mention Nature without putting "the prestigious scientific journal" or even "world's most prestigious scientific journal" in front of it. This time even capitalized:      
the Prestigous Scientific Journal Nature
(Spelling mistake in the original)

Because creationism is a game of words.

Date: 2010/07/18 08:01:45, Link
Author: Quack

If you come upon a sand model of a Corvette Sting Ray on the beach, there are only two possible explanations. Either it was the result of wind, water, and time [natural causes] or else it was designed [intelligent agency].
This is a multiple choice question for which there are only two answers. What is your answer?

If you come upon a birds nest ...

The Intelligent Designer@TM is - a bird!

Date: 2010/07/21 11:22:18, Link
Author: Quack
My relief is that I am 80. We were happier with Thor, Odin and Valhalla.

Date: 2010/07/21 11:42:27, Link
Author: Quack
This is the _URL I use to access AtBC:;f=14

The bottom line on my screen reads ”topics sorted by last post date in ascending order from the beginning”

6 threads are listed, with Book club at the top, date of last post July 20.
Bathroom Wall at the bottom, date of last post July 21.

the list used to be in the opposite order, a descending list  with the newest entries at the top instead of at the bottom.

Now I am unable to get back to that order. Has anything been changed at the forum, or is the problem here with me? How can I get back to the old ordering of topics?

Date: 2010/07/21 16:14:20, Link
Author: Quack
Just to make it clear - I have of course tried changing all of the parameters but they all are even worse than what I am using now.

Which works all right in every respect - except for the inverse order.

Besides, the problem suddenly was there for no reason that I am aware of.

Date: 2010/07/22 16:30:56, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Henry J @ July 21 2010,17:19)
To change the order in which topics are listed, click on the check mark beside the "descending order" or "ascending order" box, then click on one of the items on the pull down menu that should appear, then click the "Go!" button that's to the right of the selection boxes.

Dammit, I was trying to compose a reply but hit the wrong button.

There are just three parameters, what selections should I use?

I want the last page to show the latest posts in descending order.

That's what I used to see, but there's something funny about this, I am am confused.

Date: 2010/07/22 16:37:08, Link
Author: Quack
Then Oramus give us comedy gold:    

Gold? That common, vulgar metal? More like some trans-Einsteinium element.

Date: 2010/07/23 09:31:07, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Henry J @ July 22 2010,16:50)
Mine reads "last post date", "descending order", "the beginning", which sounds like what you want. If yours has a different setting on one of them, pick the one that's wrong, by clicking the little check mark beside it, then selecting the option you want for that item.

Yes, that's what I want.

But when I use that and the board/forum selection is Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes...

The first item in the list is Page 59, Dilbert Does ID"St   (All)   Last action May 16 2005,00:24

Page 1 shows the latest activity today.

IF I change from descending to ascending, Page 59 contains the latest activity but in ascending* order.

What I can't understand is that I've always used to open the last page number, and it has always shown the latest activity in descending order.

The only way I can find to achieve that  now is  to start reading from page 1 instead.

Maybe that's what I'll have to do and forget about how it used to be.

*Edit: correction: descending; was ascending.

Date: 2010/07/24 14:46:31, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Henry J @ July 23 2010,12:23)
Huh. Must be gremlins.

I made an error in my previous post, it has been corrected.

But as I see it; I can have posts listed with the newest at the top of the page - but ordering will be from page 1 downwards, with the earliest post on the highest numbered page.

As said before, I used to have the same ordering on the pages - but with the newest post on the highest numbered page. There is something illogical about that but I can swear that is how it used to be.

Date: 2010/08/03 16:39:14, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 03 2010,02:52)
From that same Gil post
Real science — the search for the truth, in both cosmology and biology — has been corrupted for a century, especially by the academic elite.

Yet the uncorrupted truth is not provided by Gil. Wonder why.

Just thought it deserves at least one repeat. "Honorable mention" is another phrase that just entered my mind. but that's little weak. I have a fondness for that phrase though.

Date: 2010/08/03 16:43:27, Link
Author: Quack
Have been awfully busy for a while but spent a little time this late evening trying to catch up. This must me one of the greatest hangouts you can find.

Date: 2010/08/04 06:50:58, Link
Author: Quack
Yesterday I found a link posted byTom English

I don't know if it was at PT or AtBC, but the subject and the discussion was most interesting and I want to study it in more detail and maybe make a comment too. Anyone tell me where I can find the post/thread where he included the link, please?

Date: 2010/08/06 06:44:15, Link
Author: Quack
WTF, evolution in Canada? Canada?

RDH Barrett a.o.: Rapid evolution of cold tolerance in stickleback,  The Proceedings of the Royal Society B  (Aug. 4. 2010)

OMG, not again, wasn't Tiktaalik enough?

Date: 2010/08/07 04:49:05, Link
Author: Quack
I consider myself an outsider at AtBC. Being just an old European, there may some fine details that I am unable to sense.

But anyway, it beats me why you bother with that venomous-fanged creature, (or maybe -tongue would be more accurate)?

She isn't even fun  like UcD, Scordova and all the rest of our chewtoys; just compulsively obnoxious. But that's your own business; I won't waste any more time on this thread.

Date: 2010/08/08 09:30:02, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Maya @ Aug. 08 2010,08:55)
An evolutionary algorithm has been used to generate soccer playing strategies.  One interesting result is that, without any explicit coaching logic, the system self-organized different player roles (defender, striker, etc.).

I'm sure that Marks, Winston, Atom, and of course Gil will be admitting that their understanding of GAs was incorrect any moment now.

But of course, goes without saying...

Date: 2010/08/12 13:19:12, Link
Author: Quack
This must be why Zachriel was silently banned from Telic Thoughts.

Well deserved too.

Date: 2010/08/14 03:52:46, Link
Author: Quack
I don't see much reason in reading anything Slimy Sal writes; there's something disturbing about it, like reading a Ray Bradbury novel. He's a master at conjuring up weird images in your mind.

But even if only half of what TARD of his that you kindly provide for us (semi-)lurkers here was accurately reported, I still fell like the only conclusion I can draw is that Sal must be suffering from some serious cognitive disorder.

If Sal is an example of what Intelligent Design can do for the mind, just consider what it is doing for the entire biosphere! Need no natural forces, directed application of intelligence can do wonders.

This may not be my best but I felt I had to say something. It is saddening to see such display of abuse of the human mind.

Date: 2010/08/18 11:11:42, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (ppb @ Aug. 11 2010,15:23)
Looks like Afarensis figured out that you need to bang the rocks together.


VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDbHVjeXNwZWNpZXN1]Lucy species used stone tools[/URL].

ETA: Nature article here.

A chimp at zoo in Stockholm collecting pile of rocks in the morning in preparation for visitors.

Date: 2010/08/20 02:53:07, Link
Author: Quack
Right. I am a nobody from Norway and I know that the initials GEM of TKI stands for "Gordon E Mullings of the Kairos initiative."

A change of pseudonym might help with the anonymity he seeks. something like Gems of Tard.

On a more serious note, I often ponder the obvious fact that the good double Dr. runs a blog where the apex of tardology is put on display for all the world to see. O'Leary, Gordon and the all the nincompoops, his footsoldiers in the war on secularism and science, I am alwasy reminded of the oft shown film sequence from the last days in the life of Adolf Hitler where he greets the new recruits to the defence of Berlin against the awesome war machine of Joseph Stalin's: A bunch of miserable, frightened 16-years old kids maybe with a Mauser slung over their shoulders, to fight the most massive collection of artillery pieces ever to be seen on this planet.

I once tried to to figure out how many piece per kilometer;  I don't remember what I got to.  

Here we have a presumably above average intelligent person, wasting his life & probable talent on this display of
religiosity run wild.


Back to assembling my new satellite dish antenna...

Date: 2010/08/27 15:11:42, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Tom Ames @ Aug. 27 2010,15:02)
Has anyone ever figured out WTF "Coffee!!" means?

(Other than that UD is run by people with 2nd-rate intelligence, I mean.)

Not quite, although I suspect it has got something with brains - or lack thereof, and dregs to do.

Date: 2010/09/01 06:31:21, Link
Author: Quack
I promise never to mention it again but since the subject has been raised:

"I may do that some day soon."

How many times have we heard that Nelson old fruit, how many?

I may write my monograph.  I may write a book.  I may do this.  I may do that.

That's nothing compared to what I might have done but never did and never will do.

Hi there, Nelson: I believe our paths on the web may have crossed sometime long ago. Seems you are still stuck in the same groove.

Date: 2010/09/01 14:59:59, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 01 2010,14:48)
I guess not everybody can do rock science.

My best laugh today. Still laughing.

Date: 2010/09/03 15:57:23, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Sep. 03 2010,13:38)
Sal Cordova lifts his little hindleg at AtBC:, quoting the Darwinist gunman's manifesto:
Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people’s brains until they get it!!

Darwinist Gunman Lee

That could be the slogan for PandasThumb, the NCSE, Nick Matzke,, and Wes Elsberry’s ATBC!

That's how Sal looks at the world; belonging to a crowd of experts at saturating peoples brains with crap.

Date: 2010/09/04 16:19:36, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Sep. 03 2010,11:25)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Sep. 03 2010,11:11)
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 02 2010,07:27)
God Didn't Create Universe, Says Hawking
Bonus point: how long before a commenter drags Hawking's disability into it?

Amadan can haz predicshun, too: Someone dragged his disability into it, Gordon, IIRC.

Found it. Actually, Gordon makes a very friendly comment:    
First, let us note the inspiring example of a man who has fought a terrible disease for decades, and prevails in his work despite such odds.

On talkorigins, the miserable Ray Martinez displays his  misanthropy:

> Much better to be a physical cripple like Hawkins than to be a moral
> cripple like you- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -

Imagine that; criticizing a pathetic cripple railing against God is immoral?




in thread Re: The Concept of "Ape"

Date: 2010/09/06 04:23:40, Link
Author: Quack
I know I'm going to hell. Fuck it. If it exists, so are all my friends. We'll have a blast.

Hope to see you all there soon in the TARD-free zone; we'll be having a fiery ball! (Fried balls?)

Date: 2010/09/09 15:27:49, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 09 2010,11:51)
Quote (Robin @ Sep. 08 2010,13:44)
Quote (Pilchard @ Aug. 30 2010,18:25)

The fact is that monkeys and humans do not behave similarly in key ways, as should be obvious. Otherwise, why are they in our zoos and we are not in theirs?
Has she not seen Planet of the Apes?

How 'bout because monkeys think it's unethical to have zoos in the first place, nevermind their feelings against keeping humans.

I know, I know...I'm chiming in waaaay late on this, but I'm just back from vacation and catching up on my giggles.

There is a common assignment in Physical Anthro classes to go to a zoo with a "behavioral checklist" to be filled out watching some monkeys.

I would send 1/2 my students to the shopping mall instead of the zoo, and we would then compare their results.

I have often in a shopping mall looked at people around me, wondering what's the difference?

Date: 2010/09/10 03:11:56, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Quack @ Sep. 09 2010,15:27)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 09 2010,11:51)
Quote (Robin @ Sep. 08 2010,13:44)
Quote (Pilchard @ Aug. 30 2010,18:25)

The fact is that monkeys and humans do not behave similarly in key ways, as should be obvious. Otherwise, why are they in our zoos and we are not in theirs?
Has she not seen Planet of the Apes?

How 'bout because monkeys think it's unethical to have zoos in the first place, nevermind their feelings against keeping humans.

I know, I know...I'm chiming in waaaay late on this, but I'm just back from vacation and catching up on my giggles.

There is a common assignment in Physical Anthro classes to go to a zoo with a "behavioral checklist" to be filled out watching some monkeys.

I would send 1/2 my students to the shopping mall instead of the zoo, and we would then compare their results.

I have often in a shopping mall looked at people around me, wondering what's the difference?

In the house's smallest room before going to bed, the subject was still rummaging my brain and I got to thinking about a certain chimp researcher in Africa and all 'her' chimpanzees eternal search for and effort to get bananas. The only name that came up was Dian Fossey, probably because the story of her life made such an impression on me but googling today got me the name I knew was there, of course Jane Goodall.

But I have never been able to remember the family name of Birute, the Orang Utan member of the triumvirate, even if I once decided I wanted to keep all three names in my memory.

It is all just me. You may now proceed with your usual business.

ETA chimpanzees instead of monkeys

Date: 2010/09/10 16:48:26, Link
Author: Quack
Birute Galdikas! Can't forget a name like that!

There's something funny about remembering names. As far as I can tell, in the 20th century there were two great, blind pop artists. I seldom have a problem remembering the name of Stevie Wonder. But I can't for the life of me even now remember the other one's.

I think Galdikas somehow belongs to the same category but maybe this exercise may help.

I even misspelled Galdikas as Galkidas at first. I'll try to think of that as soon as I wake up tomorrow. If there only were something I could associate that name with.

But this all belongs onto the the Wall.

Date: 2010/09/11 05:22:34, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 11 2010,04:27)
I'm a big BarryR fan. He wrote to StephenB:
—You say you know graph theory. Great. What are the universal laws of graph theory and how do you know they’re universal? I’ll bring home my Scary Yellow Springer Book o’ Graph Theory tonight and we can compare notes.”

To which StephenB replies:
We don’t need a discussion about Springer’s Graph theory

Of course StephenB doesn't know that the publishing company Springer published a well-known series of yellow-colored books on mathematical topics. Instead he thinks there's such a thing as Springer's Graph theory, a subject of which he claims to "know  enough about it". Bwahaha. What an ignorant liar.

Not only that; you are too kind with him. Seems to me his reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.

Edited to fix possible ambiguity.

Date: 2010/09/12 07:52:27, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 04 2010,12:23)
Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 04 2010,08:35)
Bradford lives in a bubble.

Bradford: ID critics and leftists can comment to their hearts content as long as they are not trollish or uncivil. The fact that there are ID critics who have been commenting at TT for years, and still do, is evidence of that.

The last comment by Zachriel that appeared on Telic Thoughts was on May 16, 111.094 days ago. During the interim, all Zachriel's comments have disappeared into the mist.

(Xposted to Telic Thoughts, but never appeared.)

It's a shame, because TT couldhave be relevent to the ID / EVO dialogue. But it's just another right-wingnut site.

What would the terms of a proper dialogue have to be? Is a proper dialogue thinkable, possible? I am afraid the answer is no. Isn't there always an element of science denial and lack of effort in research or study and understanding of evolutionary theory on the creationist side of the divide? The problem is the desire to believe creationism of some sort and/or the incapability of evolutionary science to point at a piece of irrefutable evidence like for example the fact of gravity.

If it isn't information theory it is the fossil record, radiometric dating, continental drift,ice ages, the Grand Canyon or just the Bible. There's something there for everyone wanting to be a creationist.

People want to be creationists; the alternative is too frightening. Although by and large, that problem seems to have been solved here in Europe.

Date: 2010/09/15 04:34:33, Link
Author: Quack
Quote (JLT @ Sep. 15 2010,04:02)

21 percenters of the world, unit