AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: RDK

form_srcid: RDK

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.205.236.46

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: RDK

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2009/08/11 17:44:41, Link
Author: RDK
I'm a long-time lurker who just decided to make an account here; being active mostly on Panda's Thumb and Uncommonly Dense, I've heard this place name-dropped a few times and decided to check it out.  Great to see a place where evil Darwinist cabal members can hang out and oppress the innocent ID advocates!

Fucking great timing, too, because Joel Brofskotknesteinenberg just made a thread about our camp's constant bombarding of Dumbski, et al:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/philosophy/i-r-edumakated/

I got in the first post, but don't expect it to show up anytime soon, as I'm still under moderation by Clivebaby:

Quote
I laughed.

Joel, we engage in ad hominem only because the ID camp has refused, since the day of its conception, to give up the ridiculous assertions, lies, distortions, scare tactics, quote mining, and censorship that is now become cliche among the ID community.

Date: 2009/08/11 19:50:09, Link
Author: RDK
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-329695

Quote
"T M English":  Come on, Clive, take me out of moderation.

"Clivebaby":  No.


A wonderful victory for free speech!

Ah hell, being in moderation isn't so bad, if you discount Clive and Gil's penchant for approving posts only after they've been buried and forgotten under the creotards' most recent clusterfuck of nonsense.

Date: 2009/08/11 20:41:15, Link
Author: RDK
http://www.uncommondescent.com/philoso....-329711

[/QUOTE]"Joel Brofskotknesteinenberg":  

Naka – so, you’re dissenting, you’ve mocked UD in two posts (that I’ve read at least), and you’re seriously claiming that UD is “locked down?” If UD were locked down, how could you claim that it’s locked down?

Tajimas – one constant that I’ve witnessed among students (including myself) is an unwillingness to relent. Once someone takes the time to put 200 words on a hostile site – granted, 200 words isn’t A LOT – my guess is that most students will return to defend their initial statements. Certainly not for eternity, but at least for a few interesting rounds.

"Skew Jones":

He might mean “locked down” in the sense that the first comment on this article was mysteriously deleted for having a dissenting viewpoint of the article in question.[QUOTE]

Don't expect that last one to stay up very long, folks!

Seriously, they are toooooo good at setting themselves up; it's like we're not even doing any work.

Date: 2009/08/11 22:24:33, Link
Author: RDK
Quote
20
Clive Hayden
08/11/2009
10:00 pm

Tajimas D,

 
Quote
I think it’s more than a little hypocritical for him to maintain a website that disallows criticism, while at the same time requiring his students to post criticism elsewhere.


How many times do I have to say it? Do you dissenters just not get it? Dr. Dembski also said that the new moderation policy provided for a “kinder gentler” treatment of dissenting opinions. His words, his choice. Here you are dissenting, and saying that it’s tantamount to you dissenting on a site that doesn’t allow dissent. You’re making a criticism on a website that you say doesn’t allow criticism and calling Dr. Dembski a hypocrite for it. You don’t make any sense. And for the hypocrite comment, you can credit me, and me alone, for moderating you. You’re lucky I don’t ban you outright on principle.


Sometimes I wonder if Clivebaby thinks his posts over before he sends them screaming through the inter-tubes and into my brain via my optical cords, making me weep for humanity.

Quote
Oh noes!!1! Slew is falling for Joel's "absurd but helpfully distractive" gambit!


Oops.  I'll tell him not to.   ;)

I've recently achieved full bannination over at Uncommonly Small Dick, so I've had to use other resources to access the site un-moderated.

Date: 2009/08/11 22:56:47, Link
Author: RDK
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-329744

Quote
8
GilDodgen
08/11/2009
10:30 pm

Michael Behe and I have something in common


Your ass and your mouth were switched at birth?

Date: 2009/08/11 23:25:32, Link
Author: RDK
Dvunkannon,
Quote
Be sure to have your bannination recorded on the Blogczar thread. I was watching it fall off the first page here at AtBC, waiting for the current meltdown at UD to start causing casualties.


Will do.

I keep pressing my luck with Clive in the hopes that he'll put me in moderation as well.  After swinging the warnhammer at Tajimas it can't look too good for UD's current state of "open-mindedness" if he deletes a shitload of comments in the course of just a few hours:

 
Quote
26
Skew Jones
08/11/2009
11:10 pm

 
Quote
After all, in all those years he hasn’t heard anything that made him change his mind. Of course, he could always try listening.


After years of having creationist nonsense shoved down my ears it’s no small wonder I haven’t lost the ability to hear, or listen for that matter.

 
Quote
As a quick aside – the idea that Dawkins engages in “science for the most part” is hilarious. The man put practicing science behind him quite a long time ago. He has a different calling now.


I assume by another calling you mean defending science, in which case I really don’t blame Dawkins; it takes a lot of energy to do either one of those things, what with the constant advances of the Intelligent Design crowd.

Date: 2009/08/11 23:32:12, Link
Author: RDK
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-329275

My original account recently achieved full bannination for posting on two different accounts, one of which was made after the original was put under unprovoked moderation:



 
Quote
40
Clive Hayden
08/08/2009
9:03 pm

Ardeekay,

For the sake of continuity, I’m going to delete this account. You can still post under RDK.


Unfortunately, Clivebaby must have forgotten, lied, or both, because minutes later my posts were no longer displayed on the blog, but sent to...

the Phantom Zone.

Date: 2009/08/21 19:51:57, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Aug. 21 2009,14:38)
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 21 2009,02:53)
 
Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 21 2009,10:21)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 21 2009,17:58)
Before they go:
<snip>

...add to that BillB's comment:            
Quote
PZ’s critisism concerns the representation of Dawkins WEASEL algorithm in Dembski and Marks paper. Dembski and Marks represent the algorithm incorrectly.

If D and M want to claim that WEASEL actually includes extra components that Dawkins never included in his description, then they need to make these claims clear in their paper, and provide some argument or evidence to support them.

As it stands the description of WEASEL in their paper misrepresents Dawkins algorithm. A reader who is familiar with Dawkins book, or who follows up the reference, will also see that is is misrepresented, and that can cast doubt on the validity of D and M’s conclusions. A bit more checking and it would become clear that D and M have had this pointed out to them prior to publication, and yet they never corrected the mistake, or acknowledged that their representation was unorthodox.

The bottom line is that it is wrong to misrepresent other peoples work. Dembski and Marks are providing a very good reason for readers doubt or dismiss their papers conclusions so they really haven’t done themselves any favours.

Clive (hi Clive!) has essentially reopened comments for Dr Dembski's closed thread, in a well thought out plan.

lol

The question has to be asked.

Where the Hell do Marks and Dembski think they are going?

Where ever it is, they have the front seats on the bus.

The bus is so short the back seat is also the front seat.

Haha.  Every time I need cheering up I come to this thread.

Date: 2009/08/23 00:24:58, Link
Author: RDK
Anyone else under the impression that Dembski and CliveBaby are one and the same?

I've never seen them post in the same thread, and after comparing their writing styles I've come to the inference that CliveBaby is just Dembski, pounding away at his keyboard, giggling like a Catholic schoolgirl, trying to give his blog credibility by making it seem like more people than just the journalist nanny with sand in her vag and Gil the elementary school math teacher actually care about his nonsense.

Date: 2009/08/24 13:22:03, Link
Author: RDK
In the "Is Richard Dawkins a Stage Magician" thread, I treat the newbie contributor to some good-old-fashioned reductio ad absurdum.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-331166

Expect CliveBaby to bust a gasket, therefore removing his function and status as a working machine.

Edit: I take that back.  Maybe Dembski can use him as a doorstop.  Thanks Ken Miller!

Quote
As for the OP:

William A. Dembski has a new book out soon; ‘The End of Christianity: Finding A Good God in an Evil World.’ An unfortunate title perhaps, bearing in mind the steady decline of Christianity, as well as its failed attempts to invade the scientific realm: creationism and intelligent design. So is Dembski no more than a harbinger of doom tolling the bell that brings about the destruction of science?

Let’s be frank, Dembski is in reality more dangerous than your average stuffed bear – the type of twisting rhetoric and obfuscatory language that Dembski engages in is the type that leads to tyranny, not to respectful dialogue or family entertainment. He should be more careful, but he seems to have sacrificed his cares on some high altar; perhaps the hundred dollar book deals are clouding his judgment, but in reality his theism leaves him unaccountable to anyone but himself or his theist friends in the Discovery Institute (yay lying for Jesus). Yes, his rhetoric often appears to be as dangerous as that of the ravaging theism that has scourged humanity since the dawn of time, and led to such tragedies as the Inquisition, the Crusades, and even the suicide bombings of the modern day Middle East, all of which abuse human rights and lead to the deaths of millions.

Date: 2009/08/24 17:20:57, Link
Author: RDK
Apply the Explanatory Filter!

Date: 2009/08/26 02:22:51, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 26 2009,00:29)
Someone just posted a link to here..


http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v13i11f.htm

From farther down the page:

Quote
Although a better understanding of the evolution of drug resistance has helped shape the use of antibiotics, when it comes to evolution, "medical schools are mostly oblivious," says Nesse, a psychiatrist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 2


Quote
Do you want to go to a doctor who believes that your lung disease can be cured by holding you underwater to make you evolve gills? :)


Quote
Seriously, ophthalmologists don’t waste time speculating about how a light-sensitive spot could have evolved into an eye. They don’t believe random changes will, in the long run, make things better, so they don’t treat your vision problem randomly.


Here's the best part:

Quote
Evolutionists intentionally confuse drug resistance (which is simply a change in the proportions of an existing bacterial population) with evolution. DRUG RESISTANCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF NEW FORMS OF LIFE. Just because drug resistance is called, “evolution,” doesn’t mean it has anything to do with the evolution of new forms of life.


Emphasis mine.

Needless to say I struck my palm upon my forehead using a gee force comparable to that of one Whoredon E. Mullings of The Kick-a-baby Initiative when he collides with the unforgiving wall of reason.

Are these people serious?  Maybe I have too much faith in humanity, but I'd like to believe that nobody can be this utterly delusional.

And then I remembered Dembski.

Date: 2009/08/27 12:34:45, Link
Author: RDK
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i71/zack431/DembskisCamel.jpg

ID's Big Tent.

Date: 2009/08/27 12:36:12, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (RDK @ Aug. 27 2009,12:34)
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i71/zack431/DembskisCamel.jpg

ID's Big Tent.

Teehee editing mistake.  How does one go about editing posts on this phorum?

Date: 2009/08/27 14:30:53, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (deadman_932 @ Aug. 27 2009,13:28)
Quote (RDK @ Aug. 27 2009,12:36)
 How does one go about editing posts on this phorum?

I think an "edit" button magically appears after a certain (FSCI'd) number of user posts. Seriously.

P.S. Nice work! It has a kind of sultry, sexah  "Midnight at The Oasis" quality to it :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K-hF-Tlp0Y&feature=related

All we need to do now is add farting noises and grunts and we're good to go.

Date: 2009/08/30 20:41:28, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Ptaylor @ Aug. 30 2009,19:30)
DO'L:
 
Quote
It all sounds a bit hysterical to me, and well below Dawkins’s usual standard of writing.

Words (almost) fail me.

As if she's ever read a paragraph of anything written by Dawkins.  And I mean actually read, not glance over the first couple lines and then go right back to jacking herself off with Dembski's hand.

Date: 2009/09/12 22:37:10, Link
Author: RDK
Quote
What do you expect from somebody who wrote a  manual for running a fundamentalist cell.


From Grandma E. Mullings of The Kick-a-baby Initiative, Manual on How To Be A Young Fundamentalist Blowhard for Jesus:

     
Quote
3.4 Evolutionary Materialism


The intellectual powerhouse that energises secularism is Evolutionary Materialism.19
Consequently, we must take its measure, and understand then respond to its claims, strengths and
limitations, if we are to be effective as educated Christian thinkers and leaders in our region.
Now, except in intellectual circles, Evolutionism is not yet an openly dominant influence in our
region, due to the lingering hold of the Bible on the popular mindset. As time goes on, however,
the secularist trend is clearly gathering momentum, and so it is imperative for us to respond to it
without further delay.
The core issue, of course, is that the biological Theory of [Macro-] Evolution is often held to
"prove" the philosophy of Materialism, thus discrediting the Bible and the Christian Faith. This
leads to four critical questions:

(1) Is biological macro-evolution a proven fact?

(2) Do the various evolutionary philosophies and theories in various fields of study
necessarily follow from biological macro-evolution?

(3) Can these philosophies and theories stand up as proven facts?

(4) Does Evolution therefore disprove the existence of God?

The critical issue is the linkage between observable data, the inferred theory of macro-evolution,
and the claimed implication, materialism. If the inference is good and the implication holds, then
God is dead, full stop. So would be Man.
19 Often called “Naturalism.” Evolutionary Materialism is used here because it is a more descriptive phrase.
90
First, a clarification. It is macro-evolution which is at stake, not the minor population variations
commonly called micro-evolution. We are not discussing well known small scale changes, such
as Darwin’s Finches or Industrial Melanism, but rather the grand theory that seeks to explain the
origin and diversification of life into the many forms in the fossil record and those existing
today.
All such macro-theories face three major difficulties: explaining the origin of life; explaining the mechanism that allows, say, a fish to evolve into a man in several hundred million years; explaining the all-too-characteristic "sudden appearances and disappearances" of life-forms in the "almost unmanageably rich" fossil record, which is the major evidence.
For, as many competent commentators have repeatedly pointed out,20 the leap from amino acids
formed in spark-in-gas experiments to a complete and functioning life-form is vast. Colour
changes in moths are one thing, "amoeba to man" quite another. A fossil record of gaps and
postulated but still all-too-missing links is more of an embarrassment than a proof (and has
always been so).21 In short, it is hardly proper to conclude, after more than a century, that
macro-evolution is proven fact.
Of course, to many, macro-evolution "must" be true — the alternative, creation and/or intelligent
design, "is incredible." Their basic reason, of course, is that they are philosophical materialists —
they begin by assuming that there is no God, rather than with an open-minded assessment of the
evidence. Plainly, this is a circular argument — one obvious alternative is that God/the
Intelligent Designer used evolution as his means of creation! Another, given the problems with
the evidence, is that macro-evolution simply did not happen. (This may be intellectually
unfashionable, but it is definitely not ruled out by the available evidence.)
In short, while macro-evolution may well fit into an atheistic view of the world, it is itself open
to significant challenge and simply cannot prove materialism to be true.
Philosophical materialism, however, has deeper problems. It argues that the cosmos is the
product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature.
Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of
purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance.
But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus,
what we subjectively experience as "thoughts" and "conclusions" can only be understood
materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the
electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. (These forces are viewed as
ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic
inheritance and psycho-social conditioning, within the framework of human culture.)
Therefore, if materialism is true, the "thoughts" we have and the "conclusions" we reach, without
residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity.
20 See the references at the end of this module.
21 In Darwin’s day, it was confidently expected that the “gaps” would be filled in, hence the search for “missing links.”
The persistence of the gaps in the fossil record — though often denied in debate — is sufficiently serious that the late Steven Jay
Gould (of Harvard), Niles Eldredge et al proposed an alternative to Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory: Punctuated Equilibrium.
91
Of course, the conclusions of such arguments may still happen to be true, by lucky coincidence
— but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we
have “proved” them. And, if our materialist friends then say: “But, we can always apply
scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must note that to
demonstrate that such tests provide empirical support to their theories requires the use of the very
process of reasoning which they have discredited!
Thus, evolutionary materialism reduces reason itself to the status of illusion. But, immediately,
that includes “Materialism.” For instance, Marxists commonly deride opponents for their
“bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians
frequently dismiss qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of
strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? And, should we
not simply ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is simply another operantly conditioned rat trapped in
the cosmic maze?
In the end, materialism is based on self-defeating logic, and only survives because people often
fail (or, sometimes, refuse) to think through just what their beliefs really mean.
As a further consequence, materialism can have no basis, other than arbitrary or whimsical
choice and balances of power in the community, for determining what is to be accepted as True
or False, Good or Evil. So, Morality, Truth, Meaning, and, at length, Man, are dead.
As Francis Schaeffer and others have so ably pointed out, this inner contradiction explains
modern man's dilemma and confusion. For, his soul — created by God, our real Maker — tells
such a man that he is significant, but what he thinks he knows tells him that he is nothing but a
random bit of rubbish cast up by an ultimately chaotic and purposeless universe. He therefore
knows not which to believe, and so lives under a cloud of hopeless despair, "a double-minded
man, unstable in all his ways.”
It is consequently no surprise to detect the consistent theme that all of reality is ultimately
meaningless in modern and post-modern Literature, in contemporary Philosophy, and in the Arts
generally. Equally unsurprisingly, when materialistic evolutionary frameworks are applied to
academic/professional disciplines such as Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, Linguistics,
Economics, Management, or Media and Communication, it is the implications of materialism
that invariably are the root of anti-Christian bias.
In Law, Government, and Public Policy, the same bitter seed has shot up the idea that "Right"
and "Wrong" are simply arbitrary social conventions. This has often led to the adoption of
hypocritical, inconsistent, futile and self-destructive public policies.
"Truth is dead," so Education has become a power struggle; the victors have the right to
propagandise the next generation as they please. Media power games simply extend this cynical
manipulation from the school and the campus to the street, the office, the factory, the church and
the home.
92
Further, since family structures and rules of sexual morality are "simply accidents of history,"
one is free to force society to redefine family values and principles of sexual morality to suit
one's preferences.
Finally, life itself is meaningless and valueless, so the weak, sick, defenceless and undesirable —
for whatever reason — can simply be slaughtered, whether in the womb, in the hospital, or in the
death camp.
In short, ideas sprout roots, shoot up into all aspects of life, and have consequences in the real
world. Paul therefore aptly summarises the bitter fruit of dismissing God from our thoughts:
since they did not think it worth while to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over
to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every
kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife,
deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and
boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless,
faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who
do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also
approve those who practice them. [Rom. 1:28 - 32; cf. 18 - 27, which shows the
significance of widespread sexual perversions in a culture.]
However, since evolutionary materialism has become the orthodoxy of the academic community
and that of many policy-makers and opinion leaders, it is often simply embedded in the
foundation of contemporary academic discourse, public discussion of issues, and the policymaking
and implementing process.
Therefore, educated Christians must learn how to unearth these hidden assumptions, and then to expose the resulting contradictions, foolish policy recommendations and their likely bitter fruit.22
Once that is done, we can then set about separating the wheat of sound insight from the chaff of
anti-Christian bias, then work towards a sounder, more sustainable future for our region.


Atheist materialists are bitter fruits?  Strange.  That's the exact mental picture I get when I think of Grammy Mullings: a bitter fruit.



Edit: If I had (cover your eyes, FL) millions and millions of years available to me, I'd go through and try and break actual paragraphs into that gem of a GEM passage, but alas, I'm going to go ahead and actually study something useful instead of babysitting giant walls of text written by anti-materialist Jamaican preacher-terrorists.

Edit edit: just weeks ago, didn't GEM make fun of some woman who filed for a sexual abuse suit because she was a skimpy dresser or some other misogynist shit?  In the above picture Gordon is clearly asking for it.  Somebody should throw him into a bathroom stall and pull a Chris Brown on him, and when he goes to file a law suit tell him to stop actin' a ho.

Date: 2009/09/13 19:38:03, Link
Author: RDK
Is the $2.69 price tag indicative of how much it costs to attain an education in Pop-Tard?  Someone should Photoshop a picture of Kent Hovind holding up that sign in front of Patriot U.

I like the phrase, though; it almost sounds like a bona fide major.  Or maybe it could be short for Popular Tard, like Pop Music or Pop Art.

Date: 2009/09/28 10:49:07, Link
Author: RDK
Dennis-O on reindeer antlers for felines:

 
Quote
In these parts, people will distribute anything they think will sell.

One of my kids once brought home fake reindeer antlers for our cat (a Christmas gimmick).

I recall pointing out that the cat wouldn’t like them.

He didn’t.

But someone designed, manufactured, distributed, and sold them. Just shows you …


Yeah, and you're the stupid jackass that bought it, Dennis.  Simple supply and demand.

Add economics to the list of things she he it doesn't get.

Date: 2009/10/02 10:42:04, Link
Author: RDK
Quote
Unless the measuring stick is separate from the thing being measured, you can do no measuring, to paraphrase C. S. Lewis. That is one difficulty.


Clivebaby attempts a refutation of biological evolution with.....C.S. Lewis and the metric system!  Brilliant!

Or this could just be another case of Clive being butthurt at the thought of reality being relative.  His entire argument is just a TARDy re-wording of the moral dilemma.  If there's no objective morals, then blah blah blah, you can fill in the rest.

At least I think that's what he's doing, it's fucking hard to tell.  For example, this:

 
Quote
What is outside the circle of evolution that is used to compare evolution to? If all living things evolved, what are we using to determine that against? Something has to exist to be used as a basis for comparison that isn’t itself the thing being compared.


The fuck does this even mean?  That's like saying "What is outside the circle of [insert any biological term ever.....metabolism / photosynthesis / fetal devlopment / etc.]  that is used to compare [same term] to?"

HOLY SHIT!  How can we determine gravity if there's nothing outside of gravity to compare it to!  Gravity is a tautology!  LHJDO:NIGONQ{NA{F!

He's the Grand Poo-Bah of WTF posts.

Date: 2009/10/03 16:32:19, Link
Author: RDK
http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....omments

Quote
[Insert 5-comment back-and-forth between Dr^dr and the chimera]

RDK
10/3/09
5:30
The hilarious thing about this post, Bill, is that so far nobody but yourself and Dennis have commented on it.

Wouldn't it be a more prudent use of your web hosting funds if you guys just slipped each other notes under the cafeteria table at Baylor?


I can picture them sitting in the bat tard cave, giggling like schoolgirls (at least in Dembski's case) over their witty anti-Dawkins banter.

Date: 2009/10/04 17:24:02, Link
Author: RDK
Quote
It is not even shallowly dishonest. And I don’t appreciate your slur on KF either. Maybe this should be the post which acts as a clearinghouse of all you who want to get off your chest what you really think and risk being banned.


Clivebaby admits that saying what you really think over at Dembski's Dungeon warrants a ban?  It seems as though our Clive's been hitting the strawberry daiquiris a little bit too hard.  Or whatever they allow Baylor undergrads to drink over there.

Quote
"hence a defense"? What on earth is Clive trying to say in this comment?


Blame it on the a-a-a-a-a-alcohol.

Date: 2009/10/04 20:00:20, Link
Author: RDK
Dennis-O attempts to edumacate the masses on pornography:

 
Quote
- Little pornography is prepared for women. This fact tells you something right away.


......that our boy Dennis has been poring over its private collection of naughty videos in search of positive evidence for female-oriented pr0n?

 
Quote
- I doubt this can be proven


--but fuck the truth!  Who needs it anyway?  We're not scientists or journalists, after all!


 
Quote
but pornography is probably a factor in violence against women. A police officer once told me that it was rare NOT to find pornography when searching the flat of an accused perp. So pornography probably functions as a lure for sex tourism.


A birdie once told me that extended blowdryer use is directly linked to global warming.

Relevant?  You decide!

 
Quote
- Pornography is NOT a fact of life, any more than public profanity is.


Here's Dennis-O denying the existence of both pornography and public profanity.  And I thought I'd had my fill of stupid for one lifetime.

 
Quote
- As a free speech journalist,




News Flash.  O'Leary is leery.....of laws

Quote
- As a free speech journalist, I am always leery of laws in these areas, because laws are useless compared to public distaste and disapproval. Of course I think sexual abuse of minors should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and I assume that all decent people agree. But the first step is broad public disapproval of the practices and the mindset that leads to them.


Sure, Dennis.  Let's abolish all laws protecting minors, because, well, they're so gosh-darned useless.

I don't know how they do things up thar in Canader, but down here, we have a little thing I like to call Mountain Justice.

Quote
Of course I think sexual abuse of minors should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and I assume that all decent people agree.


^ I love how she just throws that in there, as if anyone is going to jump out of the woodwork and accuse her of being a pedophile.  Anyone have any idea of where the hell this came from?  We're talking about porn in that thread.

Date: 2009/10/11 18:59:12, Link
Author: RDK
Quote
He did, and I have. I sacrificed my first and second child to Him. All Christians are obligated to sacrifice everything to the Lord. Nothing is otherwise safe in our own care.


My sock is dead, so one of the survivors of the Great Bannination please ask Brentfag over there why it's not okay to make your own decisions concerning your children, but it is okay to make a decision to give all your potential future decisions up to god?

You have to make a personal, selfish value judgment somewhere.  Fucktards.  I swear, they all have their heads so far up each others' asses every single one of them is chewing on the same piece of gum.

Date: 2009/10/11 22:56:46, Link
Author: RDK
[quote=Erasmus, FCD,Oct. 11 2009,21:27][/quote]
Quote
lost another one?

i mean, since Are Dee Kay?

lololololol  

the funniest thing about that is it took those fools a while to catch on.  i think, until you brought it up yourself.


Yes, sadly enough my most recent sock was killed in the fetus stage.  I had nought but made a paltry 2 or 3 posts (all of which were moderated) with it, cleverly pretending to be an ID proponent (ingenious, I know), but apparently Clivebaby saw through my ruse.  I'm guessing the username "Squilliam Dembski" might have tipped him off, but who knows exactly how the mind of our Clive works.

R.I.P. Squilliam, Dembski's retarded 2nd cousin.

Quote
Heh. I know it's petty, but I couldn't help poking at him.


Shame on you.  That's like knowingly giving a dog laxatives, sitting back, and laughing as you watch it shit all over itself.

Date: 2009/10/14 10:04:44, Link
Author: RDK
Wait, WTF?  The Design Inference, No Free Lunch, and The End of Christianity aren't science fiction?

Goddammit.  I want my money back.

Date: 2009/10/14 15:31:16, Link
Author: RDK
[quote=FrankH,Oct. 14 2009,12:49][/quote]
Quote
Lemme guess, everyone's favorite, female(?), Canadian "writer"?


The information in the above statement is lacking.

Quote
Lemme guess, everyone's favorite, female(?), Canadian "writer(?)"?


By Jonathan Wells' standards, does this constitute an increase in information?  I admit I'm a little rusty on informatics myself.  Ooh, I know, somebody ask Newton Dembski.  I think he's got a couple books and / or papers out on the subject.  Or something.

Date: 2009/10/16 10:49:30, Link
Author: RDK
While we're in the business of predicting future UD posts...

http://edition.cnn.com/2009....ex.html

       
Quote
Scientists say a very rare find of some 20 fossilized pterodactyls has produced the first clear evidence of a controversial theory of evolution.


       
Quote
Traditional evolutionary theory suggests that one feature -- a tail for instance -- would slowly evolve over time.


       
Quote
The researchers say more study is needed to substantiate the idea of that evolution could occur relatively quickly, and that whole parts of a plant or animal's body could change at once.


Emphasis mine.

More evidence that anything spewing forth from Dennis-O's mouth about the mainstream media being in "Darwin's camp" should be met with a swift slap to the face.  Alas, if only I could tell her coocher from her face.

Edit: Dr^dr is STILL bawwwwing about Dawkins' book?  Good Christ.  Someone who's still alive over there please ask him for a comparative flowchart of the sales of Dawkins' books vs the sales of the good Dr^dr's books over the course of a 30-year period.

I'd like to see Dembski fight a landslide a tornado the pavement at 600 miles per hour.

Quote
The old "ID is science because evolutionists are lecherous sluts" gambit.

Or is he implying that evo is teh ghey.


Well, simple logic demands that since the Hebrew war god Yahweh EVILOOSHUN created everything, homosexuality must obviously be attributed to the Hebrew war god Yahweh EVILOOSHUN.

Date: 2009/10/16 11:47:04, Link
Author: RDK
Quote
The science - actual science, not the rituals by people in lab-coats


I'm sorry....is there another type of science that I don't now about?

After seeing that quote I literally laughed so hard I hurt myself.  And then I wept.  I wept for humanity, even though there's a little voice inside of me that wants me to believe nobody can be so stupid.

Edit: was that choice nugget from Vox or one of his goons?

Date: 2009/10/19 14:59:51, Link
Author: RDK
[quote=sparc,Oct. 19 2009,11:39][/quote]
Quote
You can download Dembski's draft for "The search for the search" here.

He describes it as    
Quote
forthcoming pro-ID peer-reviewed article in the math/eng literature (name of journal will be announced when the article appears in print).


Does anybody find it laughable that the good Dr^dr keeps coming up with these ridiculously obfuscated math papers to refute a biological concept?  Dembski has got to be the densest person to ever attempt a peer-reviewed paper in the history of peer-review.

Get a fucking clue, man.

Date: 2009/10/23 10:08:18, Link
Author: RDK
[quote=BillB,Oct. 23 2009,06:31][/quote]
   
Quote
I'm surprised that Clive passed it through moderation, I didn't think contradicting evidence was allowed.


Well apparently it was Thirsty Thursday over at the ID community college, so I'm assuming he had had one too many green apple daiquiris before hitting the blog.

Our boy Clive is slipping!

   
Quote
In short, the UK MPs in question hope to use colonial power to impose on unwilling Caribbean people of Judaeo-Christian heritage the novelty of so-called same-sex marriage, which is both repugnant to the overwhelming majority of the peoples of the Caribbean and which is credibly destructive to family life, the provision of a safe and stable environment for the nurture of children and corrupting of public order in general.


I wonder if the American government has followed up on that tip they got warning of a dangerous individual by the name of Gordon E. Mullings of the Kick-a-Baby Initiative planning on taking a visit to the States...?

My guess is that Gordon's staying on the down-low so as not to arouse any suspicion.  I'd probably even bet that the area of the Caribbean he lives in isn't as Judeo-Christian as he fantasizes about, and over there he's looked at as being a moron even more than he is by every sane and decent person who reads his internet drivel.  I can't imagine he's a very pleasant human being in person.

Does anybody know what the dominant religion of the Caribbean is?

Date: 2009/10/26 11:23:38, Link
Author: RDK
Quote
BA77 has teh refarences

 
Quote
Nak,
Here is more stuff for you to pretend that doesn’t matter:

The human genome, according to Bill Gates the founder of Microsoft, far, far surpasses, in complexity, any computer program ever written by man.


I love how Bill Gates is suddenly a credible source of information on the human genome.

Quote
Someone should see if DO'L will cough up a link to her prose about the SCUBA incident.

Here is what a couple of journalists wrote about it.

It might be fun, for certain meanings of the word, to compare the two efforts.


If she can't produce the original documents with signed papers by at least 5 eyewitnesses, then she obviously made the entire thing up, a la weasel.

I suggest everyone here make a concerted effort to demand verification of every single one of Dennis's claims in this way from now on.

Date: 2009/10/26 20:00:33, Link
Author: RDK
[quote=Advocatus Diaboli,Oct. 26 2009,19:22][/quote]
   
Quote
   
Quote
If you don’t mind a further opinion, the atheists position seems to be no amount of evidence is enough to warrant belief in God, whereas God’s position seems to be, believe in me and will provide you with more than enough evidence.




^ My Explanatory Filter is tingling.

Also, the idea that randomly selected letters of the alphabet--when pooled together--create a better argument than anything that has spewed forth from the Tard Mines That Time Forgot seems to be extremely relevant to the conversation at hand.

It's like taking a random, but selective process--say, snowflake formation--and comparing it to a paper mache' snowflake made by a fourth grader in parochial school art class.

Date: 2009/10/28 10:04:43, Link
Author: RDK
Quote
It's a reference to this infamous blurb on the back cover of Intelligent Design -- The Bridge Between Science and Theology:

 
Quote
William Dembski is the Isaac Newton of information theory, and since this is the Age of Information, that makes Dembski one of the most important thinkers of our time. His 'law of conservation of information' represents a revolutionary breakthrough.

Rob Koons, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas


Once again, I like how a philosophy professor is suddenly an expert on the relevance of a freelance "information" scientist (mathematician) who claims to be an expert on why a known biological process is impossible.

 
Quote
They liking stroking each other don't they?

Their egos of course


I think the good Dr^dr is too busy stroking himself to notice anybody else.  The proportional difference between the surface area of his hand and the size of his twinkie just doesn't really allow for more than one stroking to go on at at once.

Date: 2009/10/28 11:16:34, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 28 2009,10:12)
Quote (RDK @ Oct. 28 2009,10:04)

 
Quote
 
Quote
It's a reference to this infamous blurb on the back cover of Intelligent Design -- The Bridge Between Science and Theology:  
Quote
William Dembski is the Isaac Newton of information theory, and since this is the Age of Information, that makes Dembski one of the most important thinkers of our time. His 'law of conservation of information' represents a revolutionary breakthrough.

Rob Koons, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas
It's a MIRACLE of course don't you know!  
Quote
I think the good Dr^dr is too busy stroking himself to notice anybody else.  The proportional difference between the surface area of his hand and the size of his twinkie just doesn't really allow for more than one stroking to go on at at once.
I'd like to thank you for that mental image.

I need to lose weight and I was going to get a snack out of one of the vending machines.

Now I really don't want one.

Well now you don't need to worry about those pesky extra calories!

And just in case surfing UD for extended periods of time has hindered our brains from doing actual science, here's the Fun Fact of the day: the "calories" on the back of your candy bar from the vending machine are actually Kilocalories.  1 Calorie = 1000 calorie = 1 kcal = 4184 Joules.

Date: 2009/10/29 22:45:32, Link
Author: RDK
My most recent foray into the Tard Mines after a school-focused hiatus had me stumble on this juicy nugget from the latest post up at UD:

   
Quote
11

JGuy

10/29/2009

5:53 pm

Bachfiend.

       
Quote
Even simple arithmetic seems to be beyond the abilities of these scientific geniuses.


Why do you attribute the math of the author, of the conference flier, to the scientists that he noted will be at the conference?

Apparently, even simple reading comprehension seems to be beyond certain perfectionist critics.


Suddenly grade-school accuracy is now demanding "perfection[ism]"?  Can these guys be any more dishonest?

No scientist, professor, or academic organization would be caught dead making ridiculous mistakes like that on a public announcement.  Although the DI's most recent "flyer" debacle is pretty good reason to believe they don't really give a shit what they let slip out into the public.  Normally this would be the part where I make an immature sexual joke about how this correlate's to 'x' ID proponent's 'y' body part slipping out into public (x and y being the variables here), but we don't want Frank getting anorexic so I'll let him get back to the vending machines.

Oh yeah, and add grammar to the list of things creotards just can't seem to get right.  JGuy's mind-boggling use of commas has me thinking he might be a deep-cover Denyse sock!   :O

Date: 2009/10/30 15:15:07, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Reg @ Oct. 30 2009,14:25)
 
Quote (cogzoid @ Oct. 30 2009,14:14)
What's going to happen first?  The ToE being overturned or Rapture?!?!

I'm on the edge of my seat...

Rapture Ready's Rapture Index is all the way up to 165 right now and anything above 160 counts as "Fasten your seat belts", (130-160 merely counts as "Heavy prophetic activity"). But that's still lower than the record high in September 2001 and the Rapture didn't even happen then. Really, I wish Rapture forecasting could be put on a more reliable and rigorous footing.

Don't you know?  The Rapture already happened; we just don't know about it because all the godly people were whisked away to the great blue yonder.

I'm eagerly awaiting Dr^dr Dembski's (or should I say Robo-Dr^dr Dembski's) upcoming book on the statistical probability of the Rapture already having happened without our noticing it, as well as random Bible verses from the Old Testament (that have nothing to do with anything) used to formulate a hypothesis about how God is actually deceiving those left on the earth by switching all the True Christians with exact robot replicas at the time of the Rapture so we don't know that we're actually in the Tribulation period.

Expect it to oversell Dawkin's book by at least a googolplex.

Edit: I apologize for going Denyse on this latest post; I just had a shit-ton of caffeine and I just let teh crazy flow out.

Date: 2009/11/01 15:05:24, Link
Author: RDK
Batshit77 puts on his labcoat for a New York Minute, but doesn't realize he's donned it ass-backwards:

Quote
And just how did Hitchens come to the conclusion there is no hell? Did he do research and study and prove there is no soul?


He then proceeds, to no one's surprise, to link to various Youtube videos and overuse the comma button in place of ellipses.

Poor Seversky, after valiantly pointing out to Batshit that he is indeed a stupid dumb fuck, is met with this shining jewel of a response:

Quote
Seversky, You know you are about the most rabid atheist I know, who will not accept anything no matter what because of your personal hated of all thing pertaining to God,,, not a very fair position to do science to put it mildly,,,but I will try anyway seeing as I pretty hard-headed myself


Emphasis mine.  Anyone here know how the fuck you can "hard-head" yourself?  It sounds dirty.

Quote
I could get into the technical details of why this scenario is completely off the wall, but


,,,but I'm a living example of human scum and pandering to your materialist pack of hyenas' definition of "evidence" is a waste of both mine and Jebus's time,,,

good day to you sir,,,

Date: 2009/11/02 15:51:44, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 02 2009,12:54)
The most ominous words ever to flow from O'Leary's keyboard?
         
Quote
I have always counselled my students...

She teaches? Oh those poor students.



   
Quote
D'Oleary: I have always counselled my students...

Date: 2009/11/02 16:27:42, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 02 2009,16:03)
Sir, you ascribe to her a competence that is not readily apparent.

After much consideration I agree with you.  However I was struck by the odd similarity between Palpy and our old dog O'Leary.

Although after even more consideration I think that's an insult to Palpy.

Date: 2009/11/02 21:49:35, Link
Author: RDK
LMAO at "deep-seeded"...what a dumbfuck.

In any case, judging by his most recent nugget, Batshit must get an enormous DEMBSKI'S EGO-SIZED high off of stroking his own wanker to the whole 'persecution' schtick.  Someone could literally write an entire paper about how they project their own fucked up psychology onto other people.

A new thread may be in order: Tard-Psych, and its implications on mental health.

Date: 2009/11/04 11:06:08, Link
Author: RDK
If any of you are missing out on the ginormous "morality" debate raging within the fiery tard mines, I encourage you to participate as soon as possible.  Brent and Rude are reppin' some big-ass tard over there:

   
Quote
Don’t have time to read all what’s said above, but will risk weighing in anyway even though y’all may already have said it.

There are only two approaches to morality: Traditional morality and utilitarian morality.

Traditional morality begins with a moral code made known before the fact and people are judged for infractions of that code. Neither the judge (be he God or man) nor the sinner is to finagle the code after the fact.

Utilitarian “the end justifies the means” morality is just the opposite. Socialist elites who know what is best for us make up the rules as they go along. They know what kind of world they want and, because there are no absolutes, are generally willing to do whatever it takes to get us there—witness the tens of millions dead at the hands of socialists during the 20th century.

My sense is that justice today means the judge asking, “How does that make me feel?” Never—no never!—what actually was the intent of the Constitution.

For a wonderful read I suggest Thomas Sowell’s The Quest for Cosmic Justice (Free Press, 1999).


(Emphasis mine).

Socialist elites Yahweh, who knows what is best for us, makes up the rules as he goes along. He knows what kind of world he wants and, because there is no subjectivity involved, is generally willing to do whatever it takes to get us there—witness the tens of millions dead at the hands of socialists Israelites and other men of God during the 20th century entire lifespan of the Old Testament.

My sense is that justice today means the judge [God] asking, “How does that make me feel?” Never—no never!—what actually was the intent of the Constitution.

For a wonderful read I suggest Thomas Sowell’s The Quest for Cosmic Justice (Free Press, 1999) the entire OT, which, to save you some time, can basically be summed up quite nicely as: "And Jehovah doth strike the atheist, evolutionist, homosexual, liberal, communist, and whore, and shall indeed cast them into the fiery pit of doom because it gives him a tingly feeling in his marbles.  And all was good."

Date: 2009/11/04 12:10:06, Link
Author: RDK
Human eyes are supposed to be perfect?  Fuck, did I get jipped...

Date: 2009/11/04 20:07:44, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 04 2009,19:13)
 
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,18:54)
 
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,16:43)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 04 2009,13:59)
   
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,14:32)
   
Quote (jerry @ Nov. 04 2009,whenever)
I know he has a PhD in mathematics but he failed to understand the implications of Behe’s Edge of Evolution and on his blog mocked him because of his short sidedness.

On behalf of all small polygons, I object to this slur.

It's a deep-seeded short sidedness, too.

It's a doggy-dog world, for all intensive purposes.

Jerry is a bowl in a china shop.

Jerry deserves a pullet surprise, but this is a mute point.

Indeed, for it seems Jerry could care less about what you have to say.

Date: 2009/11/05 15:03:56, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2009,14:42)
 
Quote
Infect otherwise hookers with the religion meme? ” That would be a big problem according to many current pundits because the otherwise hookers would live a lot longer and have more children who survive. Like, they might even actually marry guys who care about them, or something, and care about their children. Can’t have that, can we?  ... I guess if the selfish gene is better propagated by Western sex tourists forcing themselves on starving girls, maybe Dawkins must support it.

O'Leary can't honestly believe this horseshit.

Can she?

Does a bug believe that it's an insect?

Date: 2009/11/06 16:36:53, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 06 2009,11:55)

In a survey, most Catholic Priests prefer 13 year-old boys.


Well at least Polanski passed the heterosexual test.  What do Catholic priests have to say for themselves?  Buttsecks is a one-way ticket to the Fiery Pit, no matter how many Jebus-shaped chocolate bunnies you gave the young 'uns after confirmation class.

 
Quote (Chayanov @ Nov. 06 2009,11:55)
But she doesn't need to!

   
Quote
That is why I admire Dr Dembski’s work (though I imagine we differ on matters doctrinal!): by giving us logical proof of design, he has made it unnecessary to join the Darwinists in their foetid laboratories. Excelsior!


Oh my god.  I think I've found my signature.

Date: 2009/11/06 18:53:00, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 06 2009,12:30)
I chat with a NASA engineer at another site. He would confirm that some NASA engineers are creationists. Of course we already know that engineers are not scientists and often have no interest in or competence in biology.

The same could be said of doctors.

I take offense to this.  The medical field - at least the one I signed up for - requires a very vigorous background in the biological sciences.  In fact, at the university I attend, there is no such thing as a "pre-med" major; for all intents and purposes I am a Biology major, and none of the professors I know suffer any creationist nonsense inside or outside of the classroom.

To paint doctors as "not real scientists" because of a select few (who seem to be able to slip through the cracks without actually believing any of the stuff they're studying) is unfair.  I know a good handful of people of the kind you're describing, but it's truly the exception, not the rule.

I can't speak about engineers because I don't really know any, much less their specific views on origins.

Date: 2009/11/08 13:24:52, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 08 2009,13:06)
 
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 08 2009,12:09)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 08 2009,09:30)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 05 2009,07:25)

   
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 05 2009,00:03)

   
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,23:02)

   
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 04 2009,18:07)

   
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 04 2009,19:13)

   
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,18:54)

   
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,16:43)

   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 04 2009,13:59)

   
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,14:32)

   
Quote (jerry @ Nov. 04 2009,whenever)
I know he has a PhD in mathematics but he failed to understand the implications of Behe’s Edge of Evolution and on his blog mocked him because of his short sidedness.

On behalf of all small polygons, I object to this slur.

It's a deep-seeded short sidedness, too.

It's a doggy-dog world, for all intensive purposes.

Jerry is a bowl in a china shop.

Jerry deserves a pullet surprise, but this is a mute point.

Indeed, for it seems Jerry could care less about what you have to say.

That's because he's a naval gazer.

I thought he won the Noble Prize for naval grazing.

It's time for him to shit and get off the pot.

BA77 warms the coggles of my heart. Yours?

RB, I think you need to curve your enthusiasm for these eggcorns.

They say the pun is mightier than the sword.

I have nothing but the up-most respect for BA^77, irregardless of his rather lengthy posts.

Date: 2009/11/08 13:27:14, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 08 2009,13:22)
 
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2009,10:17)
   
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 07 2009,04:10)
   
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 06 2009,17:36)
       
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 06 2009,11:55)

In a survey, most Catholic Priests prefer 13 year-old boys.


Well at least Polanski passed the heterosexual test

More power to him, that sucker is hard.  I had to take it like six times before I finally passed.  Fortunately I had a patient instructor.

Did you keep finishing the final exam too early?

Or no lead in the pencil the first five times?

Fail the oral?

Apparently you lose points for arriving prematurely.

Date: 2009/11/09 14:56:57, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 09 2009,14:37)
Correction to my previous post:

It's almost as if they think that different branches of science are independent of each other.

I think your previous post made more sense in the context of what we're talking about.  ID Creationists constantly use people from completely different fields to bash evolution when said fields have absolutely nothing to do with biology (psychology), or sometimes even nothing to do with science (philosophy), and yet they still feel qualified to be the final authority on whether or not evolution is scientific.

Date: 2009/11/09 15:12:25, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 09 2009,13:29)
Tomorrow's UD headlines today - the Times* prints a lament about how Darwin's turned our children into nihilistic killers. None other than Barry Arrington is quoted:

       
Quote
As the attorney for the families of six of the students killed at Columbine, the Denver lawyer Barry Arrington has come across more in a similar vein. “I read through every single page of Eric Harris’s journals; I listened to all of the audio tapes and watched the videotapes… It became evident to me that Harris consciously saw his actions as logically arising from what he had learnt about evolution. Darwinism served as his personal intellectual rationale for what he did. There cannot be the slightest doubt that Harris was a worshipper of Darwin and saw himself as acting on Darwinian principles.”


* Also known as the Times Of London in North America.

Exactly what is it with these guys and constantly being on Darwin's dick about morality?  If I have to say it any more times I might explode: even if he was the most evil bastard on the face of the earth, nobody gives a flying fuck just how naughty Charles Darwin was.  Charles Darwin being morally twisted has no bearing whatsoever on the scientific theory of evolution.

This is literally like saying "Isaac Newton was a faggot, and god hates faggots; therefore gravity is wrong."  WTF?

They think that if they slay the Great Figurehead of Materialist Philosophy (Darwin), then the entire scientific establishment will come crashing down.  It's just a sad testament to the fact that these people are very likely the victims of some sort of psychological disorder.  They think the game is about protecting our respective 'deities'; they see us attacking Jesus and the Hebrew war god Yahweh, and they think that if they show Darwin to be a moral fraud they can make everyone completely forget about the merits of evolutionary biology.

It's sick; these people need help.  And I would personally pay their way through rehabilitation if it weren't so goddamn funny.

Date: 2009/11/09 15:25:21, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 09 2009,14:45)
  Sure, but they have to want the help before it would actually help them.


Good point.  I suppose we could try waterboarding them; they seem to be fond of that...?

 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 09 2009,14:45)
   
Quote (DiEb @ Nov. 09 2009,14:39)
I'm still trying to get in contact with W. Dembski:
 

Try offering him $20,000.

And if that doesn't work, try offering him $2,000.  Dembski's not too good with math.

Date: 2009/11/09 15:33:08, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 09 2009,15:25)
Sal gives a shout out!

   
Quote
Salvador T. Cordova: I will not visit ATBC, they are an uncivil mean cesspool.

Hey Salvador!

Apparently anyone who is not moronic enough to fall for ID talking points is a bully.

Date: 2009/11/09 21:15:38, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 09 2009,20:45)
 
Quote
Joseph: All the finches on the Galapagos Islands are considered one species.

No. They're not. Darwin didn't even recognize them all as finches. They were originally determined to be separate species of finch by John Gould in 1837, and they've been considered separate species ever since.

Grant & Grant: The adaptive radiation of Darwin's finches in the Galapagos archipelago stands as a model of species multiplication. The radiation began two to three million years ago, and resulted in 14 species being derived from the original colonizing species ...The role of natural selection and adaptation to feeding niches in the allopatric phase of speciation has been demonstrated repeatedly, Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 2006.

Sato et al., Darwin's finches comprise a group of 15 species endemic to the Galápagos (14 species) and Cocos (1 species) Islands in the Pacific Ocean. The group is monophyletic and originated from an ancestral species that reached the Galápagos Archipelago from Central or South America, Molecular Biology and Evolution 2001.



Gould, Birds: Part 3 of The zoology of the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle, 1841.

BUT IT'S STILL A BIRD!!11!!!

Don't you see, Zach?  It's still of the bird species.  That finch will never be a dog; it will always be a bird.

Edit: Whoa.  Something rotten in the water supply over at UD?  And I mean more than usual, because O'Leary's latest post is some mighty strong Tard.

Date: 2009/11/09 22:16:08, Link
Author: RDK
Loungehead disproves [eye] evolution using gravity:

 
Quote
Lounghead: There is no way something that complex could occur in evolution. Nature and its processes are simple. Just look at how objects fall. They go down.


Whoever discovered EFT seems to have struck some deep, deep tard gold.  That place is better than UD, especially since Dr^dr and Co. have gotten a little predictable as of late.  Except for O'Leary going off the deep end, that was pretty funny.

COFFEE!!11!

Date: 2009/11/10 12:28:32, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 10 2009,12:03)
     
Quote
Getting Over Our Love for Darwin

William Dembski

After you get over your 'love' for Darwin, Billy, you might try getting over your envy of Dawkins.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3XGjnQgsJA

Date: 2009/11/10 13:31:54, Link
Author: RDK
Robbie, time to get off mommy's computer and let the adults talk.

Date: 2009/11/12 11:51:14, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (REC @ Nov. 12 2009,10:38)
Bear meets cat No! No! Not what you might think!

Pray tell, what might I think?  What world of bear-cat relations am I unaware of?  What deeper truth lies in these videos of a bear literally meeting a cat?

   
Quote
In this next one, the cat wins, and you will see why: This is a defence of angry cats. But, if you watch it through, it is not a defence for bear behinds.


WTF?

O'Leary is amazed and wishes to share with us the secrets of the universe, akin to the way a pothead is amazed by the seemingly impossible geometry of a mobius strip, or how savages are amazed by a simple Bic lighter.

Date: 2009/11/12 12:20:21, Link
Author: RDK
Robert, do you have any background in the biological sciences?  If so, what branch?  Are you a biology major or have you taken classes relevant to the field?  If so, what school do you currently attend?

Date: 2009/11/12 13:15:59, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 12 2009,12:50)
 
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 12 2009,04:32)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2009,06:23)
   
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 11 2009,20:25)
       
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 09 2009,04:33)
       
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 08 2009,16:20)
         
Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 08 2009,10:14)
             
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 08 2009,14:38)
             
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 08 2009,13:24)
               
Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 08 2009,13:06)
                 
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 08 2009,12:09)
                   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 08 2009,09:30)
                   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 05 2009,07:25)

       
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 05 2009,00:03)

       
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,23:02)

       
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 04 2009,18:07)

       
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 04 2009,19:13)

       
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,18:54)

       
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,16:43)

       
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 04 2009,13:59)

       
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,14:32)

       
Quote (jerry @ Nov. 04 2009,whenever)
I know he has a PhD in mathematics but he failed to understand the implications of Behe’s Edge of Evolution and on his blog mocked him because of his short sidedness.

On behalf of all small polygons, I object to this slur.

It's a deep-seeded short sidedness, too.

It's a doggy-dog world, for all intensive purposes.

Jerry is a bowl in a china shop.

Jerry deserves a pullet surprise, but this is a mute point.

Indeed, for it seems Jerry could care less about what you have to say.

That's because he's a naval gazer.

I thought he won the Noble Prize for naval grazing.

It's time for him to shit and get off the pot.

BA77 warms the coggles of my heart. Yours?

RB, I think you need to curve your enthusiasm for these eggcorns.

They say the pun is mightier than the sword.

I have nothing but the up-most respect for BA^77, irregardless of his rather lengthy posts.

Is this what you folks call a nested hierarchy?

I have it on good authority that no such thing exists.

Wes'll be so mad if you break his forum!

Like BA77, you speak with undo bias.

Anyone have more eggcorns? Speak now or forever hold your piece.

Noledge is power, sayeth Frost122585. And just saying your a Chrsitain does not make you one. It simply doe snot.

Stare at the squares.  Innie or outie?

I wonder how many more of these it will take to squeeze the central square into  a vertical column of characters.  Let's find out!

This was clearly Intelligently Designed.  The entire thing is one big oxymoron.  You're all refuting Darwinism as we speak!!11!!

Date: 2009/11/12 15:06:58, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Nov. 12 2009,14:55)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 12 2009,12:26)
     
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 12 2009,11:15)
       
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 12 2009,12:50)
         
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 12 2009,04:32)
           
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2009,06:23)
           
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 11 2009,20:25)
               
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 09 2009,04:33)
                 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Nov. 08 2009,16:20)
                 
Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 08 2009,10:14)
                     
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 08 2009,14:38)
                       
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 08 2009,13:24)
                       
Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 08 2009,13:06)
                           
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 08 2009,12:09)
                           
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 08 2009,09:30)
                             
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 05 2009,07:25)

                 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 05 2009,00:03)

                 
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,23:02)

                 
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 04 2009,18:07)

                 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 04 2009,19:13)

                 
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,18:54)

                 
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,16:43)

                 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 04 2009,13:59)

                 
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 04 2009,14:32)

                 
Quote (jerry @ Nov. 04 2009,whenever)
I know he has a PhD in mathematics but he failed to understand the implications of Behe’s Edge of Evolution and on his blog mocked him because of his short sidedness.

On behalf of all small polygons, I object to this slur.

It's a deep-seeded short sidedness, too.

It's a doggy-dog world, for all intensive purposes.

Jerry is a bowl in a china shop.

Jerry deserves a pullet surprise, but this is a mute point.

Indeed, for it seems Jerry could care less about what you have to say.

That's because he's a naval gazer.

I thought he won the Noble Prize for naval grazing.

It's time for him to shit and get off the pot.

BA77 warms the coggles of my heart. Yours?

RB, I think you need to curve your enthusiasm for these eggcorns.

They say the pun is mightier than the sword.

I have nothing but the up-most respect for BA^77, irregardless of his rather lengthy posts.

Is this what you folks call a nested hierarchy?

I have it on good authority that no such thing exists.

Wes'll be so mad if you break his forum!

Like BA77, you speak with undo bias.

Anyone have more eggcorns? Speak now or forever hold your piece.

Noledge is power, sayeth Frost122585. And just saying your a Chrsitain does not make you one. It simply doe snot.

Stare at the squares.  Innie or outie?

I wonder how many more of these it will take to squeeze the central square into  a vertical column of characters.  Let's find out!

This was clearly Intelligently Designed.  The entire thing is one big oxymoron.  You're all refuting Darwinism as we speak!!11!!

This would make a tarderiffic sweater pattern.

Could it grow large enough that a single post could fill an entire page and/or match the screen area taken up by a single kairos-kaa-kaa or batguano77 post?

Of course, but it would take deep deep time and many cumulative additions before it would occur.  Only a fool would deny the power of such a process.

Date: 2009/11/12 16:52:03, Link
Author: RDK
Barry on school shootings:

 
Quote
scrofulous, I have personally proven parts of the “official” report to be not only wrong but wildly inaccurate. Thus, a statement in the report does not settle the matter as you seem to imply.


What sort of sick fuck twists the factual happenings of a school shooting - ignoring personal eyewitness testimonies as well as police reports - just to make a point about how a scientific theory leads to immoral behavior according to a 4,000 year old holy book?

Fuck you, Barry Arrington.  I hope you read this.  You're a sick little shit.

Date: 2009/11/12 17:46:43, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 12 2009,17:43)
Why did you slit your wrist with a white raven? Not that I think you shouldn't have slit your wrists--indeed, it seems like a good Darwinian idea--but why a white raven?

It's no doubt a deep-seeded Freudian hatred for negroes perpetrated by his materialist philosophy.

Date: 2009/11/12 17:55:33, Link
Author: RDK
McFrosty207839047063406 rails against American sex education:

 
Quote
I think the US has disintegrated in the quality of it’s people as it has become less and less openly Christian. And this is shewn by Church Attendance going down- and pubic education increasing relative to Christian private schooling


Isn't private school and pubic education the same thing?  Or am I missing something?

In any case, I'm pretty sure Frosty is not qualified to speak on hoo-hahs and johnsons, seeing as how he's probably never seen either before.

Date: 2009/11/12 18:18:33, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 12 2009,18:06)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 12 2009,18:00)


Does anyone think Robert Marks' eyes look photoshopped blue?

Does anyone else think that would be a weird thing to do?

http://marksmannet.com/RobertMarks/Bob/Marks_2008.html

When his hair turns naturally blond, the transformation will be complete.

Indeed.  Here he is in his earlier stages:

Date: 2009/11/13 10:00:54, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 13 2009,04:08)
   
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 12 2009,18:00)


Does anyone think Robert Marks' eyes look photoshopped blue?

Does anyone else think that would be a weird thing to do?

http://marksmannet.com/RobertMarks/Bob/Marks_2008.html

Someone's been eating too much spice.


MOOOAAARRR SPICCCEEEE!!!11!!!

Date: 2009/11/13 22:54:56, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 13 2009,17:45)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 13 2009,15:16)
I wonder if Demski's ever had Marks in his pants?

Or in his sweater.

Have we forgotten that quickly one of the mainstays of the ID camp?  They call it "The Big Tent" for a reason.

Date: 2009/11/14 13:21:19, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 14 2009,11:58)
They also have a forum, which was once inundated with 3 members at the same time. I'm sure Wes is envious of that sort of traffic.

What I find absolutely hilarious is the fact that UD wouldn't even have that much activity if it weren't for us going over there to annoy the shit out of the handful of regulars they do get.  If it weren't for us, UD would just descend into one big circle-jerk, and they would most likely get bored of that after a while.

Although I've been wrong before.  Batshit and Kairosfocus sure do like to hear themselves talk.

Speaking of Granny Gordo, anybody report any sightings of him recently?  He must have gone into hiding somewhere to train his Montserrat Fundie Youth Army.  I'm so bored of Batshit's Youtube dumbfuckery that I almost miss Gordo's autistic ramblings.

Date: 2009/11/14 22:02:34, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 14 2009,16:47)
The Holy Spirit moves Frosty to glossolalia:
 
Quote
Bob were are doe here.

He could at least have the courtesy to wait until Bob gathered his clothes, and perhaps show him the door.

Date: 2009/11/15 12:59:06, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 15 2009,12:38)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 15 2009,11:27)
   
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 15 2009,11:20)
Ah, so it's Casey who is among the 99% who give the other 1% a bad name.

Casey comes up on the youtube thread Sal posts his video on (have a look at his 2 subscribers btw)
       
Quote
Oakram,

Casey is with IDEA. IDEA is not the same as the IDCS Netork. Casey has nothing to do with the IDCS? Network.

Any more falsehoods you wish to post?

If this is in fact the same IDCS Network I have mentioned above the unused adress is quite telling: http://idea.bkc-inc.com/


My favorite (and possibly the only) functional feature of the site:

 
Quote
Time left until launch: -470 Days


HAHAHAHAHAHA!

There's just so much work to be done that Sal simply has no time for IDCS anymore.  On to bigger and better things!  And this next one will definitely topple Darwinism; you just wait!

Date: 2009/11/15 16:20:25, Link
Author: RDK
Kattarina, a good strategy that I've often employed is starting out your first few posts by being overbearingly pro-ID.  That almost always gets you off the moderation queue immediately, and then you're free to commit more naughty deeds.

Date: 2009/11/15 21:57:53, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 15 2009,21:23)
Interesting that Dembski is so concerned about copyrights. If I didn't know better, I'd suspect that he had a bad experience with copyright issues in the past.

Didn't Dembski litereally just get done pissing and moaning about Big Brother knocking on people's doors and demanding access to your hard drive because some corporate slimeball wants reparations for the mp3 you downloaded?

Christ, this guy is a character.

Date: 2009/11/15 23:30:08, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 15 2009,22:47)
   
Quote
3
johnnyb
11/15/2009
11:13 pm
Although they have reproduced large portions of it, it seems to all be intermixed with commentary. This, I thought, put it in the bounds of fair use. The only exception to this is section 1, which is copied but no commentary is made.




4
William Dembski
11/15/2009
11:30 pm
johnnyb: Where are you getting that adding commentary somehow absolves people from copying vast portions of text? If I tried that with C. S. Lewis’s writings, his estate would be on me in a heartbeat. Do you have a reference to copyright law?


erm you better tell Clive,baby.  I am pretty sure that he has at some point or the other quoted every thing the codgy old cigar smoking MILF hunter has ever said

Our boy Clive keeps his complete catalogue of the works of C.S. Lewis on his handy-dandy floppy disk, right below the C.S. Lewis fetish doll and adjacent to the collection bin of William Dembski's skin and toenail clippings.

Date: 2009/11/16 10:28:06, Link
Author: RDK
Leviathan makes a Freudian slip:

 
Quote
niwrad
11/16/2009
9:44 am

As a consequence when evolutionists, to deny design, object that organisms self-reproduce and artifacts do not, they shoot themselves on the foot.


 
Quote
Leviathan
11/16/2009
11:24 am

Dr. Dembski,


:O

Date: 2009/11/16 11:41:48, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 15 2009,05:18)
   
Quote
Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life

Sig-worthy!

Holy sweet Jesus that is some big-ass tard.

I have too much faith in humanity to believe that Robert Byers is not a troll.

Date: 2009/11/16 15:26:41, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 16 2009,14:22)
HEY!  We can't forget this one by noted Archivist / Dumpster Diver Sir Richardthughes:


Wow, how did I miss this?  PoTW material.  The part about God revealing IC to Mike Behe and then "Mike Behe destroys IC" had me in stiches...

Date: 2009/11/16 19:37:01, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Marion Delgado @ Nov. 16 2009,18:29)
Speaking of puppetry, could a brouhaha between Casey Luskin, Bill Dembski, and Denyse O'Leary be worked up? I want the most value for my internet reading time.

I suggest that everyone who's interested should go to UD and start making weird socks, with barely coherent viewpoints, except posing as supporters of ID.  Someone can be "the journalist", another can be "the lawyer", and another "the mathematician", and then just start throwing around random criticisms at the various Powers That Be.

I've already begun the Great Work, but I fear that I shall soon be overwhelmed unless we implement a full sock task-force in there to usher in the final blow.

Date: 2009/11/16 19:49:55, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 16 2009,19:43)
 
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 16 2009,19:37)
I suggest that everyone who's interested should go to UD and start making weird socks, with barely coherent viewpoints, except posing as supporters of ID.  Someone can be "the journalist", another can be "the lawyer", and another "the mathematician", and then just start throwing around random criticisms at the various Powers That Be.

I've already begun the Great Work, but I fear that I shall soon be overwhelmed unless we implement a full sock task-force in there to usher in the final blow.

I think this has already been going on now for @ 3 years...

Exactly, my post was meant as a satirical piece.   :p

In any case I long for the days when Grand Poo-bahs of Tard such as jerry and herb scoured the vast moors of UD...half of the socks over at UD are currently dead or not being used ATM.

Date: 2009/11/16 21:04:43, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 16 2009,20:47)
What is that supposed to be, a blog or "The Village People"?

I tend not to see UD as an actual blog; it's more like a highly dysfunctional family with a really really bad gene pool.  Oh, and they all inter-marry.

Think about it: it has all the ingredients that make up a good "weirdo next-door neighbor household".  The rotten, resentful drunk of a father who constantly lives in the shadows of those greater than him.  The bratty little son who is so pathetic he gets picked on by everybody else.  The eccentric uncle who plays piano and has a "thing" for frilly shirts.  The overbearingly aggressive nephew who was beaten as a child so he takes it out on all those around him.  The bearded brother-in-law who just can't seem to get his shit together.  The Monstserattian "family friend" who is a total pain in the ass and not to mention a raving lunatic, but they put up with him anyway because he's on the run from the Jamaican government and has nowhere else to go.  Of course there's the curmudgeony old grandma who's past senile and nobody really seems to give a flying fuck about.

And lest we forget, there's poor old Uncle Dave, but they're not allowed to talk about him too much around the house.

Date: 2009/11/16 22:15:05, Link
Author: RDK
Quick question: is there some backstory to the loony bin that is John Kwok?  Is he some sort of failed experiment gone wrong?  Because I've seen him post at PT ever since I started going there and it almost seems like he's a liability to the group as a whole.

Date: 2009/11/16 22:19:14, Link
Author: RDK
Wow, holy shit.  Just read his Rationalwiki page lol.

Date: 2009/11/17 12:24:22, Link
Author: RDK
Bragging about receiving a Ray Comfort book is like bragging about having a brain tumor.

Date: 2009/11/17 14:46:26, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 13 2009,12:25)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 17 2009,23:08)
   
Quote (afarensis @ April 17 2009,22:15)
I think what ERV meant to say is that Luskin is as useless as tits on a boar... I could be wrong though...  ;)

Coming soon to an Academic Freedom Day presentation near you!!!  But don't worry none, Arfie, Casey fergives you! He is good that way.  In fact, I am pretty sure I saw stigmata when he was presenting at OU*.

* Speaking of which, the OU IDEA Club appears to have gone off the grid after it's Academic Freedom Day program.

EDIT:  The website for the OU IDEA Club is registered to a Mario Lopez in California.  

So, I was reading back through this thread and came across one of my comments referring to the University of Oklahoma IDEA club, which popped up to support the infamous Academic Freedom Day program featuring John West and Casey Luskin.  I thought I would take a look and see what mischief the OU IDEA club was getting into lately.  

See for yourself.


Find a booty call, eh?  Dembski must have referred that one to IDEA's sponsor list.

Date: 2009/11/17 20:29:48, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 17 2009,17:22)
There's something distinctly unnerving about a discussion going on about IQ when the main participants are O'Leary and Frosty. However, I spotted this by Denyse:    
Quote
A woman I know had one of her kids diagnosed as low IQ when the kid was three months old – and simply walked out of the office, carrying the kid, and never bothered with those people again. A similar thing happened when that kid was about eleven. The same kid went on to have a great career. Go figure.

What's the bet the woman is Denyse's mother? [/cheap shot]

That's what's sad about this entire affair.  I can only imagine the feeling of horror and hopelessness that people like Dembski and O'Leary feel at home in their bed, all by themselves, when they reflect on the fact that their greatest accomplishment in life is getting publicly made into fools on an obscure internet blog by a bunch of anonymous hooligans.

Although the money seems to be good so I assume Dembski's not that bothered.

Date: 2009/11/17 22:46:13, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 17 2009,22:13)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 17 2009,22:00)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 17 2009,14:34)
 
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 17 2009,13:23)
   
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 17 2009,01:24)
I'm always curious about what makes people tick.

Chocolate truffles, a bottle of Grey Goose, and a fresh pair of "C" batteries.

Just sayin'...

Batteries for the game controller thingy, no doubt ;)

Yes.  It is, indeed, a joystick.

You folks need to get a handle on this dirty pun business.

Pssh.  Wolfy's been handling it so long his thumbs are sore.

Date: 2009/11/18 09:43:25, Link
Author: RDK
Bad Mr. Frosty:

 
Quote
Interesting how they yearn to get rid of the misleading notion of “IQ.” Basically they want a world which does not care about intelligence and only seeks to create it’s own truths that everyone must accept (probably as “scientific consensus”) regardless of whether naturally intelligent people can see and articulate the obvious flaws. That is, they want a scientific religion where the value of the individual is replaced with the individual’s value to the community.

What they are really trying to say and make true is-

“If IDists, or religious people are winning the intellectual debate, then to hell with the intellect.”

And of course this would be a popular doctrine among the stupid followers of the world- who would rather not have to compete with minds and ideas greater than their own.

“Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his own intelligence.”

-Albert Einstein


The tard is too great for me.

I'd like to see Frosty fight the circus bear from O'Leary's documentary.

Date: 2009/11/18 11:07:09, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 18 2009,04:47)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 18 2009,05:32)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 17 2009,22:49)
 
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 17 2009,23:46)
   
Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 17 2009,22:13)
   
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 17 2009,22:00)
     
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 17 2009,14:34)
     
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 17 2009,13:23)
         
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 17 2009,01:24)
I'm always curious about what makes people tick.

Chocolate truffles, a bottle of Grey Goose, and a fresh pair of "C" batteries.

Just sayin'...

Batteries for the game controller thingy, no doubt ;)

Yes.  It is, indeed, a joystick.

You folks need to get a handle on this dirty pun business.

Pssh.  Wolfy's been handling it so long his thumbs are sore.

ummm... who's gonna tell 'im?

Umm, I believe Wolfie is from the distaff side of the species.  But, you too homos keep fantasizing that she is a he.

HOMOS.

I was gonna let him figure it out.

Quote
Suddenly, RDK's eyes widened and the whole conversation made perfect sense. He felt a little foolish that he hadn't seen what had been staring him right in the face all along, but he sprang into action...

hahahaha the tard has infected me

Date: 2009/11/18 15:39:14, Link
Author: RDK
Sweet mother of Christ.  Vox's blog must be one of the worst seething cesspools of tard on the face of the Earth.  I've literally never seen so much tard.  These guys give UD and EFT a run for their money.  Every time I find an impossibly stupid quote in that thread, I mentally mark the place where the post is so I can go back and quote it, but I end up finding an even dumber one a few posts down.  This process is repeated almost ad-nauseam.

Here's a particularly juicy one that does a good job of representing the average Vox Day underling blog post:

 
Quote
SteveKay, pedantry will not get you very far in this. The phrase "an order of magnitude" is used enough colloquially to convey one or several orders of magnitude. Your literal reading of the phrase is just being snippy. The point still stands that AG was utterly and completely wrong in his "millions of degrees".


Bible much?

These people are so morally selective it's not even funny.  Actually, it is funny; it's outrageously funny.  My favorite part is the constant brown-nosing going on, as if Vox were some sort of demi-god.  Their heads are so far up Vox's ass they might as well be wearing him as a hat.

Date: 2009/11/18 21:58:23, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 18 2009,18:12)
I'm seeing Signature in the Cell at #10 at Best Books of 2009: Top 10 Books: Science 9http://tinyurl.com/yd7p9f6).

Perhaps a tad less than impressive, considering Dawkins' Greatest Show, Coyne's Why Evo Is True and Wright's Evolution of God are still beating the shit out of it.  I mean Christ, Coyne's book came out in January, and I expect Dawkins to still be up there come same time next year if the sales for Delusion are any indication of how well his latest one will do.

And WTF is with Meyer's book being under Astronomy?  Amazon is so confused.  Don't they have a fiction section?  They should get in contact with Borders and take a few notes.

   
Quote
I knew that guy was a sell out. Next thing you know, he'll have white box posting priveleges and be wielding the ban hammer. Mr BA^77, you are first against the wall, come the revolution...


If Nak is that big enough of a genius to orchestrate a site-wide infiltration I wouldn't put it past him that he is indeed BA^77.

Date: 2009/11/20 11:33:15, Link
Author: RDK
Quote
The molecular level in your example is not the atomic bits of a creature but actual life at a atomic level. So parasites is biology but the atoms of a creature I see as not biology in a real way of a living system.


What.  The.  Fuck?

Okay, whoever is controlling Mr. Byers behind that curtain should just come out now.  Joke's over; it's stopped being funny and has started to become disturbing.

Date: 2009/11/20 12:18:57, Link
Author: RDK

Date: 2009/11/20 15:21:58, Link
Author: RDK
The newest addition to the ID Team, Dave Anderson, takes up the Good Fight, tackles the big questions, and comes out looking like shit:

   
Quote
No, Richard Dawkins does not exist. I have never seen him. Science has given a full and satisfying explanation of the book alleged to be his handiwork. It is but a collection of fortuitously ordered a's, b's and c's, recombined from previous patterns. There is the alphabet, there is a book of nursery rhymes and there is "The God Delusion" - and one developed from the other, though some of the details of which is the most primitive remain to be sorted out. The links between them may still be missing, but Science will have that worked out at any moment. Anyone who doubts this fact is either lying, mad or stupid (or wicked, but I'd rather not think about that possibility).


There's more, but I'll spare you the details for those with weak constitutions.  Let's just say that TARD ensues:

 
Quote
Having settled the case, I congratulated myself on my acute use of logic and reason.


Yes, Andy, you've performed quite the smackdown on Dawkins there.  "You say Jebus doesn't exist, so I say you don't exist!  NYAAH!"

But what's this?  Our boy Andy ain't done just yet.  He rolls up his sleeves yet again:

   
Quote
After lunch, I have another pressing question to tackle.

Do I exist?


No, Andy, you don't exist.  You are a carefully concocted internet persona created by the good Dr^dr, just like Clivebaby and Nirwad, so that the occasional random fool who stumbles across UD and sees the list of contributors might think that there is actually a grain of support for Dembski's coven.

Date: 2009/11/22 17:09:26, Link
Author: RDK
I love how Gil tries desperately to bash us evil Darwinists over the head with intelligent design nonsense, but when it comes to the man's own father he doesn't even have the balls to tell him the Good News and save him from fire and brimstone.

Perhaps there's more to the story that Gil isn't telling us?  Maybe that ID is hogwash and he knows it.  That, or that Gil's dad is actually a fairly smart guy and if Gil tried to pull all his ID bullshit on him he would smack Gil around and tell him to stop being an IDiot.

Date: 2009/11/22 17:15:49, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 22 2009,17:04)
Flannery keeps up the high quality of reporting at UD:
   
Quote
Keith M. Parsons, writing for Eugenie Scott’s National Center for Science Education (largely an organization devoted to fear-mongering against ID)

Funny, I thought the NCSE was devoted to defending science education against the political attacks of anti-science religious wackjobs.

Reading even further I found this juicy nugget:

Quote
Of course it is easy enough (persistent conflations of creationism and ID aside) to discount such stereotyping as itself the product of ignorance and ideological prejudice. A recent Zogby poll, for example, showed that self-identified liberals supported the teaching of evidence both for and against Darwinian evolution by a significant percentage over self-identified conservatives. Quick and easy typecasting does not, it would appear on closer scrutiny, hold up. In fact, critics of Darwinian evolution can be found across the ideologicial spectrum, from the conservative right to the radical left, a fact worthy of further investigation.


The problem is, Flannery, nobody in their right mind would be against teaching evidence against anything (unless you're a right-wing fundie).  ID is not evidence against - or for - anything.

Actually, I take that back.  ID is evidence of just how ignorant the human race can get when religion and politics mix.

Edit: also, of self-identified liberals would be more open to teaching evidence contrary to evolution than conservatives; Flannery demonstrates well enough that right-wingers don't even really know what science is.

Also, anyone else catch how long Flannery's post is?  Sweet Jesus, that right there is a mountain of TARD.  I had to stop and catch my breath after a few minutes of mind-numbing irony.  As if anyone from UD is actually going to read that shit.

Date: 2009/11/23 17:35:55, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (khan @ Nov. 23 2009,16:38)
I still want to know which of the 8 folks on the Ark carried all the STDs.

It was probably Ham, the dirty bastard.  No doubt he was an evolutionist.

Date: 2009/11/23 19:08:17, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 23 2009,18:28)
 
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 22 2009,18:10)
   
Quote
Succeed or fail, I have an advantage over the Higgs Boson particle. I definitely exist.
Golly, I can remember the days when science was not ridiculous.

I know this can be difficult to understand, Denyse, so sit down and I'll try to explain it for you. These people are called scientists, they have a hypothesis about how the universe works and they've built a machine to test that hypothesis. Novel concepts, but important ones.

But that's all IDiots seem to be able to do. They postdict things that they know are already true, and they think they are doing science.

Date: 2009/11/24 09:18:35, Link
Author: RDK
Speaking of wingnuts...is it just me, or does Ken Ham have a weird aura about him?  He just gives me the heebie-jeebies.  Every time I see a picture of him I get the feeling he's going to touch me inappropriately.

Date: 2009/11/24 11:00:34, Link
Author: RDK
What's with all the Canadian creotards all of a sudden?  It seems Denyse has been getting more ass than we previously imagined.

Date: 2009/11/24 20:47:57, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 24 2009,17:55)
I've been trying to get a new chew-toy over at PZ's , but no luck so far: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....ous.php

He's single-mindedly obsessively focused on PZ. I think it's a one-sided bromance.

Could it be?!  A Kwok sock!

It seems our boy Johnny may have taken up the Noble Art of Sockery.  Let's go down the list of things to look out for when attempting to identify the wild Kwok:

1.  Shameless name-dropping.  [check]

2.  Unwarranted self-importance.  [check]

3.  Hatred of PZ Myers.  [check]

4.  Mindless, mechanical responses that seemingly have nothing to do with the topic at hand.  [check]

5.  Says things in two paragraphs that could be expressed in a simple sentence.  [check check]

Date: 2009/11/25 10:06:08, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 25 2009,08:57)
<---- likes horsebotherer's assessment.

dumbski needs to feel adequate.  dissing those who are smarter and more accomplished than him, purely on some ideological grounds that he just made up, is just what he does to attempt feeling adequate.

Well at least Dembski subconsciously drops his pants and admits to everyone he's not a scientist.  I wonder if anyone from UD will notice that?

I doubt it.  They're probably too busy sharpening their pitchforks and lighting their torches.

KILL THE BEAST SYENSSE!!!11!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=917Q8dbpRLE

Date: 2009/11/25 15:02:23, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (REC @ Nov. 25 2009,14:43)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 25 2009,11:52)
Dembski's opinion on global warming is of no importance. What is important is that this is a politically heated issue possibly involving massive industrial changes and possibly significant personal sacrifices by billions of people.

You simply can't generate the political will to make these changes if the data and methods of analysis are not transparent.

This is a fiasco, regardless of where the science leads.

Instead of making fun of fools like Dembski, the science community should be discussing some process to rescue the analysis. A mini-Manhattan project, perhaps.

Agreed-though there is probably no way to convey actual investigations, corrections, and what real impact this has on consensus through the noise that will come from this theft.  There should be several careers investigated, but this doesn't kill the field, except in the minds of those who never believed it anyway.....

And anyway, its more fun, especially when Dembski goes for twofers that:

1) Violate movie copyright*
2) Violates Godwin's Law in a not-particularly funny way....

Hitler-always fun for laffs

* (Maybe you could claim parody, but I don't think new subtitles fly, no matter what their content-otherwise, I could pirate anything as long as I add a running commentary.)

Dembski's fallen off; I'm disappointed in his latest offering to the art of film.

Where are the fart noises?!

Date: 2009/11/27 12:58:13, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 27 2009,10:28)
CONTEST!!

Reading at Uncommonly Densey this morning, I came across this literary gem   by ID's high priestess of fractured prose:

     
Quote
(regarding alleged "atheists" who, without any evidence whatsoever, are claimed to be responsible for disrupting a website)

"I can’t prove new atheists did it, any more than I can prove that an outlaw motorcycle gang runs drugs.

But one must ask, who would want to do this?
"


And now for the contest. What was Densey's intended meaning there? Was she asking:

1) "Why would one want to prove motorcycle gangs run drugs?"

2) "Would motorcycle gangs want to run drugs?"

3) "Why would anyone want to show atheists hacked a website?"

4) "Who would want to hack such a website except atheists?"

Winner gets a copy of Densey's book, "Teh Spatula Brane" -- maybe. Runners-up get two copies. Losers are punished with more copies.**

**Copies were salvaged from the local landfill, where some poor, tortured kindly person left them to check erosion.

Thank Jebus she's not the lawyer.  I can only imagine how one of her trials would go.

Date: 2009/11/27 16:29:56, Link
Author: RDK
So can anyone give a brief outline of what's actually going on with the whole "Climategate" scandal?  All I can find on the topic are ridiculously biased Washington Times opinion pieces.  From what I currently understand it has something to do with an unused variable in the so-called fudged data?

I know almost nothing of climate models or predictions, so it would be great if somebody posted some no-bull sources.

Date: 2009/11/27 16:54:43, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 27 2009,16:41)
 
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 27 2009,16:29)
So can anyone give a brief outline of what's actually going on with the whole "Climategate" scandal?  All I can find on the topic are ridiculously biased Washington Times opinion pieces.  From what I currently understand it has something to do with an unused variable in the so-called fudged data?

I know almost nothing of climate models or predictions, so it would be great if somebody posted some no-bull sources.

But I have learned from UncommonDescent that this makes you perfectly qualified to speak on the subject with authority. It's really all so much easier than you might think. Those who know almost nothing of climate models or predictions, or the type and relevance of the data being processed by software, or the transforms the software is applying to the data or the language in which that software is written can get to the bottom of the puzzle by simply reading the comments in a handful of the source code files.

PS: like RDK, I would also appreciate a beginner's synopsis of the "climate smoking gungate" story.

I checked a few pages back and apparently I hadn't noticed that Badger posted a very good collection of Scienceblogs articles on the subject:

Quote (Badger @ Nov. 27 2009,16:41)
I know that, while not in Austin, I don't get a lot of TARD directly here in TX, but other than denialists and idiots, are the hacked emails really something people are bothered about?  I haven't heard anything except scientists (esp climate scientists) response to it.  It has made a bit of noise at both Real Climate (here and here) and scienceblogs:

This island of doubt: here, here

Deltoid: here, related, more, more

Is the concern that this is not getting to the major "mainstream" media?  I don't waste my time with that, so I can't tell.  Of course, this is the media that is credulously broadcasting that Facilitated Communications bullshit (so I hear), so why should we expect them to get anything right?


Props to Badger.

Date: 2009/11/28 10:17:48, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 28 2009,09:39)
 
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 28 2009,09:30)
Not gone yet.

Anybody else find this claim by O'Leary hard to believe?
       
Quote
Laughable at 1, as a woman who has faced sexual assailants myself on several occasions

To be fair, she didn't claim the assailants were human.

Don't mean to sound like the Thought Police, but that reflects some outdated and distasteful myths about sexual assault that attackers only go after attractive women or that sexual assault isn't a worry for "ugly chicks".

Wouldn't you have to actually be a "chick" in the first place  to qualify for such an esteemed position?  I'm not sure Dennis fits the bill.

And I'm still torn between calling her a liar and actually believing her.  I've seen firsthand how unruly some gangs of chimpanzees can get when badgered with half-assed prose and exclamations about brewed morning beverages.

Date: 2009/11/28 14:11:41, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (socle @ Nov. 28 2009,13:53)
Does anyone here recall ever seeing Dembski address the mathematics of climate science in any of his posts?  All I've seen is him parroting BS denier talking points about conspiracies, fraud, etc, without engaging any actual substance.  Even when other posters have tried to bait him into a discussion of the technicalities, he has studiously avoided the subject.  I simply can't accept that Dembski, with degrees in math and statistics, believes much of what he posts on AGW.

But yet you find it easy to accept that Dembski's been spewing nothing but obfuscatory rubbish disguised as scientific papers and books for the past decate?  It's not that big of a stretch to envision him joining the AGW-denier circle-jerk; he's conditioned himself fairly well for it.

Date: 2009/11/28 22:43:03, Link
Author: RDK
I'm not a fan of Howard Stern, but I found it absolutely hilarious when this video popped up on the Youtube homepage when I went to look a random video up.  It's pretty funny; listen to this guy that calls into the show to talk about Kirk Cameron and the Comfort fiasco:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j54RWoTS1nc&feature=popular

TARD in HD!

Date: 2009/11/29 22:05:21, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 29 2009,21:27)
 
Quote (dvunkannon @ Nov. 29 2009,20:09)
(According to Amazon (via Michael Behe's site there), B,,,A^77 is really Phillip Cunningham. News to me, but some old timers knew that already.)

Yes, and his nickname there, hilariously, is Raven. He might even be the same person who published a book about Jesus, surprisingly enough! Dunno how many YouTube links are in the book, though.

I have a hard time believing they're the same person.  According to Amazon.com, that book is only 176 pages.

Date: 2009/11/30 10:15:14, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 30 2009,08:45)
i am amazed that in the midst of the tardstorm surrounding "climategate" that you lot have the dedication for mining the thin seams at UD.  That my friends is True Love.  Not that much of a surprise at re-reconfirming what we had already rererererereconfirmed, namely denialists deny everything, but it is at least comforting to see that the banana is indeed yellow no matter what color the goddamned raven is.

I myself haven't decided which is worse; arguing Climategate with fundie denialists or arguing morality with fundie denialists (which is what the End of Christianity thread is quickly turning into).

For example, gaze upon this shining diamond of tard, courtesy of tribune7:

     
Quote


magnan, what I am saying is that without natural suffering — innocent, animal or otherwise — evil increase exponentially.

Cancer is not evil. What is evil is not having compassion for or being able to empathize with someone who has cancer.


[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/william-dembskis-interview-on-new-book-the-end-of-christianity-finding-a-good-god-in-an-ev

il-world/#comment-341511]Right.[/URL]

And if that wasn't enough, here's a juicy one from [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/william-dembskis-interview-on-new-book-the-end-of-christianity-finding-a-good-god-in-an-ev

il-world/#comment-341523]vjtorley:[/URL]:

     
Quote
I have one question though, relating to animal suffering, which the book does not appear to address: has Dr. Dembski ever expressed an opinion regarding the possibility of some sort of afterlife for animals? The reason why I ask this if there is no afterlife for them, then we have a wrong (the suffering of innocent animals) that is never righted in the grand scheme of things.


I thought animals didn't matter, seeing as how humans are not animals and are a separate "kind" altogether?  Besides, in order for animals to make the afterlife cut they'd have to accept Jebus into their hearts, and everyone knows that animals aren't smart enough to do that.  Just ask Bobby Byers.

Edit: has anybody peeked the "What is Intelligence Thread" by niwrad recently?  Read through the writing style of that article and then tell me that guy isn't Dembski.

Date: 2009/11/30 10:16:30, Link
Author: RDK
Attack of the extra-long UD links!!11!  Waterloo!

Date: 2009/11/30 11:39:00, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 30 2009,11:33)
God's iPod is a 9-11 Truther!

   
Quote


8

Gods iPod

11/29/2009

10:15 am

“for those of us STILL attached to reality”

Yeah, and for those of us that are still attached to SCIENCE, the EVIDENCE that 911 was an inside job is astounding. I thought we believed in following the evidence where it lead? Your reaction to 911, is the same that AGW’ers have towards you. Maybe you should think of that!

http://www.ae911truth.org/


:O

The only thing astounding here is the idea that God's iPod thinks Bush was smart enough to pull of 9/11.

And can someone with a working sock please ask why the Intelligent Design camp doesn't see design in AGW?  Surely they would be the experts in the case of recognizing when something is constructed, or at least influenced, by an intelligent agent (man).

Someone ask Dembski to put global warming through the Explanatory Philter.

Date: 2009/11/30 15:30:07, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 30 2009,11:52)
 
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.

Can we even consider him to be living?  I'm starting to wonder if our boy Bobby is not a robot.  Or at least one of those garden rocks you see around the magnolia bushes.

Date: 2009/11/30 17:44:34, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 30 2009,16:35)
 
Quote (RDK @ Nov. 30 2009,08:15)
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/william-dembskis-interview-on-new-book-the-end-of-christianity-finding-a-good-god-in-an-ev





il-world/#comment-341511]Right.[/URL]

And if that wasn't enough, here's a juicy one from [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/william-dembskis-interview-on-new-book-the-end-of-christianity-finding-a-good-god-in-an-ev





il-world/#comment-341523]vjtorley:[/URL]:

         
Quote
I have one question though, relating to animal suffering, which the book does not appear to address: has Dr. Dembski ever expressed an opinion regarding the possibility of some sort of afterlife for animals? The reason why I ask this if there is no afterlife for them, then we have a wrong (the suffering of innocent animals) that is never righted in the grand scheme of things.


I thought animals didn't matter, seeing as how humans are not animals and are a separate "kind" altogether?  

To a literalist, every single word in the Bible must be true (except the hard parts they ignore). There is a Genesis exception of animals that are "clean" and those that are not. The "Clean" animals are suitable for sacrifice because they are ensouled, or "nepish." So, if you are "nepish" you get an afterlife.

Nepish?  Sounds dirty.

I think I might throw my sock back on and engage in a healthy conversation with the IDiots using this newfound information.  For example, how does one tell the difference between ensouled animals and non-souled animals today?  I did a quick search and, strangely, the Bible was uncharacteristically vague on the topic, sometimes even contradicting itself:

 
Quote

Deuteronomy 14:19
   And every creeping thing that flieth is unclean unto you: they shall not be eaten.


 
Quote

Leviticus 11:21-23
   Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.


I'm eager about the abomination listed in the above passage (flying creeping things which have four feet).  Anybody know of such a creature?  And sorry, Robert Byers doesn't count.

Edit: moar sources:

http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/clean/animals.html

Date: 2009/12/01 11:46:46, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (dvunkannon @ Dec. 01 2009,08:50)
If anyone doubts Nakashima is working hard for those MSF contributions...

   
Quote
Through communion with the FSM, the Pasta, the Meatball, and the Holy Sauce, I was granted a vision of Aristotle, who spake thusly,

Nakashima thou fool, canst thou not see? Consider my explanation of causes, and stop bothering Joseph to explain that which he knoweth not.

The material cause of the eye of a fly is the protein and other bits and bobs – the crystallin after its kind, the rhodopsin after its kind, etc etc etc.

The formal cause of the eye of a fly is the genes of each cell, both the cells that constitute the eye and the cells which precede the eye, back unto the egg. And by this thou shalt include the genes of the mother fly, that secreteth a gradient in her eggs to guide their development.

The efficient cause of the eye of the fly is that agent whose agency designeth, and outsourceth, which thou know well. (Marinara, pray for us!)

The final cause of the eye of the fly is to guide the fly in its way of life, to clean up the world. Its niche, if thou willeth.

And thou art a fool, Nakashima, for not grasping immediately that my servant Denton hath used ‘influence’ only to mean the formal cause, and ‘determine’ only to mean the efficient cause, which distinction Joseph canst not articulate. Nor elucidate. Nor play on the sackbut. But I digresseth.

And Aristotle said, Nakashima thou worm, what doest thou?

And I said, It is the twelth month, on the first day of the month, in the fourth year since the Hanshin Tigers won a championship, and I am standing on the banks of the Setagawa eating okonomiyaki.

And Aristotle said, Get your nose out of your plate and look upward.

And I looked upwards, and beheld the blue sky, with some clouds and haze, and in it the shining orb of the sun.

And Aristotle said, See now, but not directly or you will hurt yourself, the efficient cause of which Denton hath said it determines the eye of the fly. Without the agency of this star, to give out frequencies of light of wavelengths after their kind, without this atmosphere, to absorb some of those frequencies and let others through, then the eye of the fly would be determined to be something else, or nothing at all, as happeneth in dark places and the bottom of the sea, and in the refrigerator before you open the door. But I digresseth.

And I looked, and saw, but not directly, the agency to which Denton alluded. And I was filled with great joy, for I had finished my okonomiyaki. And also for understanding a little more about the world. I looked down, and saw that a fly had landed on my plate and begun to eat a crumb I had left. I smiled.

POTW.  Apparently several UD denizens agree.

Date: 2009/12/01 12:00:54, Link
Author: RDK
Anyone else currently experiencing UD explotions?

Quote
WordPress database error: [Can't create/write to file '/var/lib/mysql/#sql_7f5f_0.MYI' (Errcode: 12)]
SHOW COLUMNS FROM wp_users LIKE 'knr_author_order'

WordPress database error: [Duplicate column name 'knr_author_order']
ALTER TABLE wp_users ADD `knr_author_order` INT( 4 ) NULL DEFAULT '0'


And BTW, the scordova username is already registered...should we make a subtle change to it to make it look like the original?

Date: 2009/12/01 23:03:53, Link
Author: RDK
This part really had me in stitches:

Quote
Some of the best points came later in the debate, when Sternberg slammed Prothero with factual put down after factual put down, citing the current literature time and again. His command of the subject matter — from population genetics to junk DNA — was so far and above beyond Shermer and Prothero's knowledge, so far above their pay grade, that it was almost painful to watch him school them point after point.


You really can't write this stuff, people.  It has to just flow freely with the TARDwinds.

Date: 2009/12/02 09:36:05, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 02 2009,09:08)
I just stumbled over this

HAHA, this is too good:



But at the end of the day I have to say I like ED's scholarly article much better.

Date: 2009/12/02 11:00:17, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 02 2009,10:38)
 
Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 02 2009,08:32)
Don't look now but the DI's pulled out the Big Gun:  Jonny "the Brush" Wells.

And what does Jonny do?  He Haeckel's Prothero.

Prothero must have really gotten under their skin (or slime, or whatever Wells has on the outside). Good job!

Will they sic Egnor on him next? Can Paul Nelson be far behind?

I can only imagine how that would go.  Probably something along the lines of Egnor yelling his head off at Prothero about genetics being one big tautology.

Or he could just go the Joseph route and complain that houses are not composed of the bricks that make them, therefore evolution is wrong, therefore Jebus.

Date: 2009/12/02 11:42:22, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 02 2009,11:04)
From "Is backwards or forwards time travel really possible?"
       
Quote
2
Gods iPod:
Yes. And I can prove it from the Bible alone :)

       
Quote
5
Gods iPod:
Denise, I’d love to share my theory here, but since I am fairly certain that I am the only person that has ever seen this in the Word, at least among the living and posting thoughts online, I am keeping it to myself for a future book.

I know, sounds like a cop-out crackpot*. I would be open to sharing it with you privately.

For those that missed my first post. I believe there is a crystal clear example of time travel in the Bible. So clear that when I explain it to you you’ll slap yourself for not having seen it before. I have shown it to about a dozen people, and the reaction is the same each time**, and no one needs to be “convinced” It’s just obvious.

Time travel is possible because there's an example of it in the bible. ALL SCIENCE SO FAR. And he is the only one who has ever seen it although "it's just obvious" and "crystal clear". Right.


* fixed that for him

** they very carefully back away?

I'm tempted to take some obscure passage from the books of the minor prophets, torture it into a certain interpretation saying that intelligent design is impossible, and then present it to tribune, batshit, and God's iPod as evidence against ID.

Oh and maybe a Youtube link to Jackass: The Movie for good measure.

Date: 2009/12/07 08:43:20, Link
Author: RDK
Two creotards at one time?  Sweet Jesus Christ.

This could be one of two things:

1. A pair of Dembski's students looking to stiffen up their grade in class as finals approach ever closer.

2. Debmski wielding the power of not one, but two socks, to create the illusion that more people support ID than really do.

When all else fails, just lift up the dress (I.E., check the IP's.  That is unless you're into that kind of thing).

Date: 2009/12/07 12:28:31, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (utidjian @ Dec. 07 2009,09:57)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 06 2009,16:20)
   
Quote (Reg @ Dec. 06 2009,15:54)
Dembski:
         
Quote
olin: I doubt the ID community has a single view about global warming and humanity’s role in it. What many of us in that community have a problem with is the abuse of science to further political ends, which we find exemplified both among proponents of Darwinism and among proponents of AGW.

My irony meter just went off-scale and needs resetting.

Seriously, if there is a suicidal sock out there, he/she should remind the good Doctor2 of s couple of the 20 year goals in the Wedge Document.
       
Quote
To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.

To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

Done

Since I have been such a wussy UDer I don't need no steenking moderation! Perhaps that will change soon. See how long it lasts anyhow.

-DU-

Dembski's response rips open yet another steaming gold-mine of TARD from beneath the surface of the earth, as yet undiscovered by sentient beings.

Seriously, has anyone actually taken time to look over the evolutionary informatics website?  Jebus knows I haven't:

   
Quote


   "It is possible to fail in many ways, while to succeed it is possible in only one way."

   --Aristotle (384 - 322 BC).


Science must seem very boring and complicated for IDCs.  Which might explain why they hate it so much.

ID almost blatantly advertises itself as "the shortcut" for science.  But I guess it's appropriate because it would be outright lying to advertise it as anything else.  "We want answers and we want them now!" scream the fundies; and answers they get; in the form of "we don't know how this works, so instead of spending our time, effort, and money on actually finding out how it works, we're going to throw up our hands and say....."

Well, you know the rest.

Date: 2009/12/07 12:29:48, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,11:59)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 07 2009,09:15)
 
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

By new species I was referring to new in nature (kind) That plants produce plants is one thing. Reproduction within a species is empirically verified. I'm not asking for proof of that.

Inquiry, what is your scientific definition of the term species?  Perhaps after you've answered that we can get somewhere.

Thanks in advance for not answering this question and / or answering it in a vague and non-specific manner.

Date: 2009/12/11 00:48:13, Link
Author: RDK
Not sure where to put this; I was going to make a new thread for this, but apparently I don't have enough posts.  Hopefully I don't interrupt the TARDflow too much.

In case any of you bastard evilutionists didn't know, I'm currently and undergrad in the biological sciences, and am thinking about moving into a career centered around communication of biological concepts to the public.  I made this video as a final project requirement for one of my advanced writing / communication courses, and thought you all might enjoy it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKZsfe0GBhI

Viva la materialism!

Date: 2009/12/11 09:03:04, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (utidjian @ Dec. 11 2009,01:27)
RDK,

From your YouTube link:

Quote
This video has been removed because it is too long. Regular YouTube videos must be 10 minutes or less.


Try again?

-DU-

Yikes!  That was quite the Youtube fail for me there.

I'll chop it up into segments since supposedly Youtube is gay and doesn't allow you to upload videos longer than 10 mins...

Date: 2009/12/11 10:33:49, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 11 2009,10:12)
 
Quote (RDK @ Dec. 11 2009,09:03)
...Youtube is gay...

I think I know where chatterbox went.

Censored for Jesus?

Date: 2009/12/11 15:48:04, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (utidjian @ Dec. 11 2009,01:27)
RDK,

From your YouTube link:

 
Quote
This video has been removed because it is too long. Regular YouTube videos must be 10 minutes or less.


Try again?

-DU-

Re-do:

Parts Uno, Dos, and Trois.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODwvMM8h2M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA-eMI9ENG4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR5SZeOZrv8

It's a bit lengthy, but I feel it's a good introduction as to what ID is and why it's wrong.  Most of the students in my comm. class aren't aware of any such controversy, and some are even ID supporters, so I don't get too esoteric with it, but there is some meat to it that veterans of the game might enjoy.

Date: 2009/12/11 17:24:19, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 11 2009,17:04)
Bleh.

I haven't figured out how to use this format to juxtapose the pictures of Stephen C. Meyer and Jack McBrayer.  

So imagine them side by side.

"Just sayin'"


Spot the difference!


Date: 2009/12/11 18:01:07, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 11 2009,17:45)
Just sayin'

Good Christ, Marks, lay off the melange, will ya.....

Date: 2009/12/11 20:11:28, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (olin @ Dec. 11 2009,20:01)
PS... I'm male...

Well then, good news for RichTARD, eh?

Edit: Also, I'm now going going to make another shameless plug about my undergraduate video project that has been re-posted above.  For every 5-star rating, you get a copy of Stephen C. Meyer's Signature in the Cell, incredibly useful for those times when you find yourself without sufficient stock of toilet paper.

Act today!

Date: 2009/12/12 12:13:10, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 11 2009,23:14)
 
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Dec. 11 2009,21:52)
ERASMUS !!!!1111!

Clive Hayden:

     
Quote
Water runs downhill because it is bewitched


http://tinyurl.com/ybwhagb

Holy Feth!  Damn, I wasn't prepared for that.  I usually don't waste my time (and give them a hit) going to read, but I had to for that.  Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish!  Fetid Dingo's Kidneys!  Gah.  I forgot my Tardhelmet and my head nearly imploded.

WTF

that's all

WTF

Christ, you guys are gullible.  He's obviously mindfucking you all.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if our boy Clive is the deepest sock we have ever witnessed.

That, or he's insane.

Edit: can't wait to read Ras's response.....grabbing my popcorn and running out to buy a Laz-e-boy......

Date: 2009/12/12 13:06:43, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (khan @ Dec. 12 2009,12:19)

He's quoting: G.K. Chesterton

Aaaaahhhh, it all becomes clear.  GK Chesterton probably ranks right up there with CS Lewis as the ultimate fundie fapping material demi-god.

Oh, how I hate The Man Who Was Thursday.  I was forced to write a book report on it once.  It made me cry.

Date: 2009/12/12 16:42:10, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 12 2009,15:45)

You guys missed my FAVORITE Boob Marks pic:

From his website.

The same website where he photoshopped his eyes a preternatural blue in a diff. pic. Notice the background wallpaper, depicting his true love.

Yeah, the boy has issues.

I have a hard time believing he really A) made this picture and B) has it on his website.  You're pulling my leg.

What did he do?  Set up a timer camera on a tripod, run over to the greenscreen wall in he and Dembski's apartment, and pull his shades down?

Lol what a dumbfuck.  There has to be some sort of psychological disorder that these guys suffer from.  ID attracts the strangest, most creeper-ish people humanity has to offer.  The ID camp is like one big inbred hick family; they're probably all related via some creeper gene and just don't know it.  Someone should run a restriction endonuclease analysis on the entire ID roster and see what shit floats to the surface.

I mean taking just one look at the lineup over at Uncommon, along with their track record, is enough for any psychologist to diagnose them with something.

Date: 2009/12/12 20:50:45, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (someotherguy @ Dec. 12 2009,19:16)

I think he's doing his Christopher Hitchens impression.

Seem's he's failed even at that; he's missing the essential half-empty bottle of Brandy and Newport cigarette.

Date: 2009/12/13 11:19:57, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Dec. 12 2009,23:46)
 
Three questions per RJMII's ASA presentation:

1. Is Baylor U aware of the prevalent use of their logo in a presentation that also promotes the previously Expelled EIL website?

2. On page 27, is it the inner prankster of Marks purposely misspelling "Weasel Wear" while promoting the EIL webpage with "Weasel Ware"?

3. Given the plethora of RJMII illustrations throughout the presentation (many with DaVinci-inspired, backward artist's marks), which of the following best describes Marks' real GodIntelligent Designer-given role in life?:

  a. Evoltionary Informatician
  b. Cartoonist/Illustrator wannabe
  c. Consummate ID clown
  d. Utter, senseless waste of human life
  e. all ^


I front-loaded an "all of the above" option in there for moar justice.

Also, a free copy of The End of Christianity to anyone who gets that Marks audio file working; it'd be interesting if he lives up to the Casey Luskin / Kent Hovind ideal of inane-sounding creationists.

Date: 2009/12/13 11:20:59, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 13 2009,09:57)
Jerry says ID is not science,

   
Quote
jerry: ID is not a theory. It is an approach to science.

But metaphysics.

ALL SCIENCE APPROACH TO SCIENCE SO FAR!!11!!

Date: 2009/12/13 21:22:58, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 13 2009,21:03)
Why are these IDiots so obsessed with abbrevations? E.g., Signature in the cell:According to the DI:      
Quote
SITC Named One of Amazon.com's
Top 10 Bestselling Science
Books in 2009

According to abbrevations.com:      
Quote
SITC = Sex In The City

It's part of their psychological mind-fucking.  They like using esoteric jargon that only their inner circle understands so nobody knows what the fuck they're talking about.  The more mysterious, elite, and science-y they sound, the tastier the Kool-aid.

Edit: am I all alone, or is there anyone else here who would vote for Sex In The City over Siggy in the Cell as one of the Top 10 Bestselling Science Books in 2009?  What a sad reflection on Meyer.

Date: 2009/12/20 22:15:57, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 20 2009,16:20)
O'Leary's reading comprehension is exceeded only by her writing skills:
   
Quote
Seversky at 2, “Of course, there is nothing wrong with a climatology journal publishing papers which are skeptical of AGW, as long as they are held to the same standards as all other papers. What is wrong is where a paper that would not otherwise have passed muster is finagled through peer-review by an editor sympathetic to its views.

Richard Sternberg, anyone?”

Sorry, I didn’t understand. I hadn’t realized so clearly as now that it is all just a tankerload of propaganda, and the key to getting published in a journal is not to have a new or challenging idea but to be “sympathetic to its views.”

Clearly "as long as they are held to the same standards as all other papers" is too complex a subordinate clause for Canada's premier journalist.

Dennis O'Leary - turning perfectly understandable phrases ass-backwards since 1809.

Date: 2009/12/21 20:55:06, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 21 2009,19:29)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 21 2009,20:35)
How the ID world works, Part 1:

GrannyTard:      
Quote
I am a Canadian free speech journalist

But you have no free speech, at least on UD.

To be fair has she ever personally banned anyone? I think that she is probably pretty oblivious to what is happening at UD and buys the line that people are banned for rudeness rather than to hide embarrassing arguments.

I do think that she is a loathsome bigot in almost every other area.

Why would Granny mar her own impeccable reputation when she can just log on as Clivebaby and do it while still maintaining her charming appearance?  No need to kneel down in the mud and play with the pigs.

That's what everyone seems to do at UD anyway.  Except for that asshole Barry, but that's one mental disorder topic I'd rather not revisit.

Date: 2009/12/21 22:30:54, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Chayanov @ Dec. 21 2009,17:16)
Quote (khan @ Dec. 21 2009,17:04)
   
Quote (Chayanov @ Dec. 21 2009,18:02)
     
Quote
What reason is there to think the distinction is just the reproductive system? Kangaroos seem quite distinct from anything else, afaik.


Wasn't there a Loony Tunes where a baby kangaroo was mistaken for a giant mouse? Maybe Robert's getting his ideas from old cartoons.

Yes, involved Sylvester the Cat & his nephew.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippety_Hopper

ETA link

And on "The Beverly Hillbillies" Granny thought a kangaroo was a giant jackrabbit. So which is it? Are kangaroos mice or rabbits?

Perhaps it's time to consult

THE ROBERT BYERS GUIDE TO CREATION CLADISTICS



No, but seriously Robert, riddle me this one.  How do you explain comparative homology?  Vestigial structures?  Gene sequencing?

What is your SCIENTIFIC explanation of the similarity of all living organisms at the molecular and cellular levels?  What is your SCIENTIFIC explanation for the DNA and RNA system of information processing?  What is your SCIENTIFIC explanation for things like the Electron Transport Chain and ATP Synthase, which are both present in virtually all species that use oxygen?  What about the fact that nearly all living organisms can metabolize glucose via the glycolotic pathway?  What about two completely different antifreeze proteins being expressed in the sea raven and the longhorn sculpin, two completely different species of fish that occupy similar habitats?

What about convergent species?  I know that marsupials and placentals are your favorite topic lately, but I have yet to hear a good SCIENTIFIC explanation from you about how these animals came about and why they share amazing similarities while being relatively far apart on the evolutionary tree.

Date: 2009/12/22 00:37:45, Link
Author: RDK
Damn, must've missed that post.  Oh well.

A summary of every Bubba post ever written:

"You're all radical evilutionist priests!  Damn you, you leftist, liberal, democrat, hippie, tree-hugging environmentalist, commie, pinko sons of DiTcHeS and your micro-phones -chips -soft -scopes!"

Come on now, Bubba.  Everyone here has played your creationist waltz for the past couple months.  Now present some evidence.  I'm sure there's at least one or two books over there on the Byers farm, isn't there?  Crack one open.  For us.

Edit: sons of ditches has a nice ring to it; I think Dennis is on to something here.  Who knew that wet rag could start a trend!

Date: 2009/12/22 01:04:07, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 22 2009,00:46)
What's his method?

"Thunderous bong hit" and "childhood brain damage" were the first possibilities that came to mind, but we can't be sure which one without examining him in person.

And Ras I'm pretty sure Byers wouldn't know what science was even if it flew down and violated him in inappropriate ways.  The man is either lost, or a new prototype built by Dembski raid to the internets for Jesus.

I'll shut up until he responds; gotta go get my popcorn.

Date: 2009/12/22 12:19:53, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (dnmlthr @ Dec. 22 2009,11:27)
Just adding some padding, nothing to see here, move along.

ETA: Huh, strange. Looked like a classic pagination bug.

I was just about to say, that page number bug we had was fascinating......I was about to ask if posts had been deleted to account for that phantom page at the end, but apparently Wes's server was just out for a crap for a few minutes there.

Date: 2009/12/22 12:23:05, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 22 2009,10:49)
   
Quote (RDK @ Dec. 22 2009,00:37)
Damn, must've missed that post.  Oh well.

A summary of every Bubba post ever written:

"You're all radical evilutionist priests!  Damn you, you leftist, liberal, democrat, hippie, tree-hugging environmentalist, commie, pinko sons of DiTcHeS and your micro-phones -chips -soft -scopes!"

Come on now, Bubba.  Everyone here has played your creationist waltz for the past couple months.  Now present some evidence.  I'm sure there's at least one or two books over there on the Byers farm, isn't there?  Crack one open.  For us.

Edit: sons of ditches has a nice ring to it; I think Dennis is on to something here.  Who knew that wet rag could start a trend!

You forgot "feminazi".

Women aren't people, remember?  The Bible and notedscholar tell me so.  I didn't think them worth mentioning.

Getting angry with women for being feminazis is like getting angry with a puppy for shitting on the floor.

Date: 2009/12/22 13:00:45, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 22 2009,12:47)
Here's his latest business 'idea'



http://www.engadget.com/2009....-pretty

Sun (owners of open office) have told him not to use the logo any more...

OMG, it's The Incredible Vox Controller!  The mouse for people with incredibly small penises.

Has he explained what all those fancy buttons do yet?  Or are they just for show?

Date: 2009/12/23 11:00:21, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 23 2009,10:25)
Which reminds me, any sign of the UD charity status income info as yet?

How much has the likes of Joseph and Gordo given to the cause I wonder?

I would assume it'd be pretty hard to donate from a cave somewhere in Montserrat, but even if Gordo could contribute, the money would most likely be used to fund his Young Men's Christian Boot Camp Police Force Mafia For Jesus.

Date: 2009/12/23 11:19:44, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (FloydLee @ Dec. 23 2009,08:52)
But how do you KNOW that it's never going to happen?

But Floyd, how do you KNOW that communist alien mutant cows aren't controlling your brain via a femtotech chip from the safety of a planet millions and millions of light years away?

Oh and they're invisible.

Date: 2009/12/23 17:06:31, Link
Author: RDK
Floyd I'm still waiting for a response to my cows.  Why do you believe in the rapture but not in my cows?

A prediction that gives no details as to even a vague idea of when it will happen or, in this case, what the hell is even happening, is not a prediction at all.

It's exactly like prayer; your god always wins.  If some random event happens to correspond even vaguely to what you prayed for, then god answered yes.  If nothing happens, he either answered no, or he wants you to wait.  How is that indicative of anything except the fact that you're a crazy loon and you're so emotionally and mentally unhinged from reality that you need an imaginary friend to soften the blow of how miserable your life is?

Date: 2009/12/23 17:44:03, Link
Author: RDK
Quote
Research has led, at least for animals, to locating the ‘created kind’ typically at the family level of classification (Scherer, 1993). This implies, in the case of bears, that the Ursidae species are all descended from one created kind represented by two animals on the Ark. The evidence for this has been discussed previously by the author (Tyler, 1997).


Interestingly enough, apparently the creos have indeed narrowed down the possibilities for a definition of "kind".  They've settled on family as the probably taxonomic equivalent of the baraminological classification of the Biblical "kind".

More info here (emphasis mine):

   
Quote
As Williams (2004) noted, character selection was a serious problem for phenetics. I have already found this problem in baraminology in the analysis of sulids, phalacrocoracids, and curculionids (Wood, 2005a). Future research projects need to address this issue. Some of these future projects will involve studying the datasets already analyzed by baraminological techniques. Other projects must focus on analyzing additional datasets to expand the pool of baraminological studies that can be evaluated. Projects on fossil and extant cetaceans,   Hyracotherium, snakes, and chickens have already been initiated. Since there are so few baraminological studies published (Table 1), the ?eld is wide open for future contributions.

As we expand the number of groups studied by baraminology, we should also get a better idea of what baramins are and how many species they contain. Currently, it seems as if Price (1924; 1938) was right that baramins can be approximated by the rank of family, but this needs far more examples before we can be sure. As more studies become available, we can validate or invalidate Price's idea, and we should get a better perception of the capacity for variation within baramins.

Most lay creationists are interested not in baramins of grasses or ducks but in the more well-known "transitional forms." Whereas I do not believe we should orient our research priorities according to the demands of laypersons or perceived political needs, intermediate forms are of considerable scienti?c interest. While some appear to be legitimate intrabaraminic intermediates, others do not. Cavanaugh et al. (2003) found evidence that the fossil horse series is a monobaramin, which they interpreted as post-Flood intrabaraminic diversi?cation. Initial results with the archaeocetes (Cavanaugh and Sternberg, 2005; Mace and Wood, 2005), which are thought to be intermediate between modern cetaceans and land mammals, suggest instead that they are discontinuous with both groups. More studies of morphological intermediate groups such as these will help us to interpret them in a creationist context.

Most important to the future of baraminology is training, which will require the development of software that enable baraminologists to conveniently analyze groups of organisms. In the meantime, those interested in the work of baraminology can attend the annual conference of the BSG: A Creation Biology Study Group (http://www.bryancore.org/bsg). This is a ?ne opportunity to meet with others interested in baraminology and to hear about the latest research results.

We have come far since Frank Marsh ?rst coined the term baramin from the Hebrew for "create" and "kind." Much of what Marsh proposed has been modi?ed now, but the current form of baraminology provides many new opportunities for growth and development. As we continue to work in this ?eld, hopefully we will come to know the Creator better as we discover His creation.


Indeed.

Oh and their site even has pretty graphs so I'm sure the research is legitimate.  However I have yet to see the original source code for their computer programs, so I'd take it all with a grain of salt and perhaps some vicodin.

Date: 2009/12/26 00:12:16, Link
Author: RDK
Happy fuckin' birthday Jesus!

Date: 2009/12/26 00:15:45, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 25 2009,04:42)
In all fairness, I wonder why he considers himself being a biologist.

"Animal-lover" just doesn't have the same professional flair.

Date: 2009/12/26 00:17:37, Link
Author: RDK
It's good to see we're helping Dembski and Co. put the "academic free speech" back into "academic free speech".

Date: 2009/12/26 18:31:02, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (didymos @ Dec. 26 2009,09:49)
Voice Coil gots a question for StephenB:
   
Quote
At any rate, I’ve witnessed some of your many trips around the “irrational Darwinists abandon causality” Maypole. Do you really want to travel that route yet again?


Of course he does. StephenB is a sucker for the circular.

True on more than one level.

:O

Date: 2009/12/26 18:35:22, Link
Author: RDK
The 2009 Summer Seminar - I'm assuming this hasn't happened yet?

 
Quote
The Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute announces an extraordinary opportunity for college students in the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities to participate in an intensive nine-day seminar that will prepare them to make research contributions advancing the growing science of intelligent design (ID).


Translation:

"Since we just can't seem to find the time to contribute research to the growing science of Intelligent Design due to our tight fuck-around-and-do-nothing schedule, we're going to seduce retard Bible-college kids into doing the research for us."

Quick - to the TARD Cave!

Date: 2009/12/26 21:10:44, Link
Author: RDK
Gotta hand it to good old Gil, though.  Using words like "nefarious" and "ilk", I half expected him to pull a tophat and monocle out of his ass and start whacking evil Darwinists with his stopwatch.

ID IS OBVIOUSLY LEGITIMATE.  IF YOU CAN'T SEE THAT MUSIC EXISTS, THEREFORE JEBUS, YOU SIR ARE A MORON AND SHOULD KILL YOURSELF.  HEIL DEMBSKI.

Also:

   
Quote
New Zealand journalist Susan Mazur


Who is this Susan Mazur chick?  It's not good for your career when someone Googles your name and the only relevant instance to pop up is a link to an Uncommon Descent throwaway article that Johnny Wells wrote about you.

I suppose it's not all bad though; it's gonna sting when D'OLeary figures out her reporting is so shitty that her fellow contributors have to quote other journalists for their information about why Darwinism is evil.

Date: 2009/12/27 20:19:14, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Alan Fox @ Dec. 20 2009,02:32)
Site traffic does seem to be down recently.


Emphasis mine:

   
Quote
Telicthoughts.com users come from these countries:

   * 32.1% Canada
   * 67.9% OTHER

More


Mmmhm.  That explains it.

Oh and is it just me or does it seem like Bradford has more sand in his vagina than usual?  Hide your irony meter:

   
Quote
olegt and Zachriel ran away. :cool:

They couldn't stand the fact that I showed that they were wrong about nested hierarchies. :mrgreen:

And most likely they are frustrated by the fact that they cannot support their position. :lol:

Also most criticisms of ID can be reduced to "You cannot show me the designer so I do not accept ID." :roll:


I'm not too sure what our good friends over at TT don't get about "You cannot show me the designer fairies so I do not accept ID fairy worship.

Who wants to volunteer to be the poor bastard that breaks the news to IDGuy / Joe / Joseph about his diagnosis of severe brain damage?  Srsly.   :p

Date: 2009/12/27 20:24:33, Link
Author: RDK
Oh and what's up with Canada being the breeding ground for such robust tard recently?  Dear old Canadia has given us such gems of intellectualism as Granny O'Leary, Dr. Robert Byers, 32% of Telic Thoughts....

Isn't Vox Day a Canadian too or something?  Jesus knows I'm too lazy to waste Goodle-fu on that shaken baby.

Date: 2009/12/27 20:31:56, Link
Author: RDK
Great job, steve; if we're lucky enough we can get Gordo to recreate the Big Bang for us.

Date: 2009/12/28 13:08:59, Link
Author: RDK
Quote
"Susan Mazur writes beautifully and intelligently.  For anyone who hasn't studied the science of evolution, her book is a thoroughly enjoyable journey of discovery into this relevant and controversial subject."  Douglas Valentine, author, The Strength of the Wolf: The Secret History of America's War on Drugs and The Phoenix Program


Hot damn!  That's some deep-undercover trolling right there.

Quote (dmso74 @ Dec. 28 2009,12:36)
jerry gives us a late xmas present by showing off his deep understanding of science:

     
Quote
Every time I pick something up, I am violating a law of physics, namely gravity


that's the good stuff, thanks jerry

I don't get why he's trumpeting about this.  Breaking numerous laws is nothing new to Joseph; every time the man opens his mouth he breaks one or more laws of logic.

Date: 2009/12/29 20:58:41, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 29 2009,18:01)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 29 2009,17:58)
It's been 21.98 hours and some of Zachriel's comments are still in moderation. It's understandable that the moderator can't always be available. However, the long delay means that comments are buried deeper and deeper by newer comments.

Repeated requests for why Zachriel's comments are in moderation have been left unanswered. As anyone following this thread knows, our own equipment has been checked and rechecked.

It is hardly worth the effort to comment under these circumstances.

They're all for freedom of expression and teaching controversy, Zach. Must be a 'server glitch'.

PotW?

Date: 2009/12/30 00:50:54, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 29 2009,20:06)
   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 29 2009,15:56)
     
Quote (Advocatus Diaboli @ Dec. 29 2009,17:32)
The story unfolds. IDeists are up for a fight, for freedom!

Gotta love the fact that the LATimes put that story in the "Entertainment" section!

     
Quote
Intelligent design is the theory that an intelligent being, rather than impersonal forces such as Darwinian natural selection, is responsible for shaping life on Earth.


Somebody's going to educate Mike Boehm, right? Right?

Unfortunately it's a little late for that.  We should adopt the Disco Tute's strategy and get them when they're young and impressionable.  You know; train a child in the way he should go, yadda yadda yadda, all that good bullshit.

Ninja edit:

 
Quote
The AFA had planned an Oct. 25 screening of two films at the Exposition Park museum -- one a short Imax movie called "We are Born of Stars," which favors Darwin's theory


The fuck is this?  Seriously, Mike?

The next time Dennis O'Leary starts BAAWWWing about how the media and press are biased towards "Darwinism" I'm going to switch her arthritis pills with high-strength laxatives.

I quickly Googled "We Are Born of Stars" and this came up as the synopsis:

 
Quote
WE ARE BORN OF STARS is the first Anaglyph single projector 3D film created for IMAX/IMAX Dome projection. Using computer graphics, the film traces the development of life from the formation of atomic nuclei in stars to the molecular structure of water and DNA, zooming the audience through the five-billion-year evolution of our solar system.


I'm pretty sure Jebus will actually come back before the laymen get it into their heads that the origin of life has nothing to do with Charles Darwin.

Date: 2009/12/30 00:59:44, Link
Author: RDK
Quote
‘‘I was like ‘Oh my God! It’s Jesus on a banana!’’


Haha, priceless.

It's funny, though: kinda looks more like CHARLIE DARWIN TO ME.



It's most likely Satan or some other demon trying to corrupt the Australian youth by channeling Darwinian icons via healthy fruits.

 
Quote
25
Mung

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?


Just wow.

Well, it's been fun folks, but that's a good way to wrap up "TARDed for the Holidays '09".  I'll see you all again after the semester is over, or if I get extraordinarily bored on campus and need some UD nuggets to take me down a few notches.

Date: 2009/12/31 00:04:45, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 30 2009,22:17)
 
Quote (rhmc @ Dec. 31 2009,03:38)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 30 2009,08:33)
Otters vs. Crocodiles

from that link:  this one time, I was walking home and a gang of otters stole my wallet.

You should have pelted them.


Come on now, boys, we otter stop these puns before they get out of control.  You remember what happened last time?

Date: 2009/12/31 11:24:00, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 31 2009,08:37)
 
Quote (didymos @ Dec. 31 2009,08:36)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 31 2009,06:04)
   
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 31 2009,07:21)
   
Quote (RDK @ Dec. 31 2009,00:04)
     
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 30 2009,22:17)
       
Quote (rhmc @ Dec. 31 2009,03:38)
         
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 30 2009,08:33)
Otters vs. Crocodiles

from that link:  this one time, I was walking home and a gang of otters stole my wallet.

You should have pelted them.


Come on now, boys, we otter stop these puns before they get out of control.  You remember what happened last time?

Sure, just weasel out of it...

That was otterly uncalled for.

Objection! Badgering the poster!

That's Stoatally out of order..

The magnificent Richardhughes joins the fray!  May I be so kind as to ask for your ottergraph?

Date: 2010/01/01 21:20:00, Link
Author: RDK
Quote
That video has some major misunderstandings about the Dissent from Darwinism list. It's creator seems to be following what Michael Behe has called the “principle of malicious reading,” which “ignores (or doesn’t comprehend) context, ignores (or doesn’t comprehend) the distinctions an author makes, and construes the argument in the worst way possible.”


I laughed.

Don't these guys ever take a fucking break?  It's 2010 for Christ's sake!  We only have 2 years and 30 days left on planet Earth before Jebus comes back!

I think soon I'm going to pen a 600-page book entitled "Uncommonly Dense: The Neverending Story".

Date: 2010/01/02 01:56:48, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Robert Byers @ Jan. 02 2010,01:52)
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 30 2009,13:06)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 30 2009,03:55)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 21 2009,05:37)
 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 21 2009,03:50)
       
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 19 2009,05:51)
         
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 19 2009,04:06)
There is no need today for speed

Why is that?

       
Quote
Well after the flood there was a great need to quickly refill the earth.

And how did the animals know of this need? Was it some kind of quorum sensing? Or did your god whisper in their ear "mutate"?
       
Quote
Today there is no need.

Sounds to me like it would be possible to artificially recreate that "need" and so reproduce the circumstances and cause the animals to mutate rapidly.

Are you proposing such an experiment?

       
Quote
So I speculate innate biological triggers just allow a basic reproduction.


Again, how do you access the "triggers" that were active when there was a need to "refill the earth"? Is your speculation based on anything material or are you just trying to explain the evidence on the basis of what you prefer to believe rather then any actual facts?

       
Quote
Yet this is beside the point that classification systems on these matters I see as clearly wrong and even strange.


Then what you need to do is quite simple. Publish your work, provide evidence and change peoples minds.

Will you be doing so? As it won't be happening here.
       
Quote
I think if the historic marsupial creatures like, cats, dogs, bears, had been right away seen then there would not of been the quick conclusion that marsupials were a different collection of creatures related by their reproductive system.

Think it all you like. Proving it is a different matter.
       
Quote
After all they don't do this with snakes who have have types that deliver the young live or by egg.

Who are this "they" you speak of? Again, if you've spotted something obviously wrong then you can correct it by writing up your findings, provide an idea that better explaining the current facts then the current idea and await your Nobel!

The creatures were told by God at creation to fill the earth. After the flood this command, not verbal, would kick in again and so the creatures would fill the earth quickly and in so doing fill every niche. They were not to be just "business as usual" but a new speed was called for.
So creatures farthest from the ark would easily adapt a faster production.
Insects are very fast because they must be to maintain their objectives of filling the earth.
after this reached then creatures would cease to be so fast or adaptable to niche.

The evidence is that diversity was fantastic right after the flood and so triggers can be speculated to occur in bodies.
Evolution must also have innate triggers but uses the concept of mutation.
The trigger for change is from a mutant gene.
Instead no mutants are needed. Triggers can affect genes while in the host creature and in offspring.
Genes can change.

Seriously WTF?  Again.

"no mutants are needed" and "genes can change" - do you even know what a mutation is?  A quick google for a definition gets to one site Learn Genetics - University of Utah has "A mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a gene."

Genetics Home Reference lists a mutation as "A gene mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene."

Do you even think before you speak (aka write)?  How is a change in DNA (IOW a gene) not a mutation?  Trigger genes and related things do not change the genes themselves (to the best of my knowledge) but they do change whether a gene is on or not, or affect the way a gene is expressed (evo-devo, etc).  Do you mean to say that the genes for marsupials are still present, but are turned off?  That should be easy to prove with the gene sequencing we have today.  

So, if this is what you mean, then we have a relatively easy way to determine if this is true.  We can have a testable hypothesis and confirming or disconfirming evidence!  

Pre-post edit - maybe you are misusing "trigger" in the genetic sense, but even if that is correct, it's still wrong.  Species change in combination with mutations and selective pressures (and non-selective from neutral mutations).  Your statement of "no mutations are needed for speciation" is still wrong since genes have to mutate for the variety to be present (barring the whole front-loading non-issue - do you believe that creatures have all the DNA they need for whatever changes they will go through under YHVH's Plan?  Do you believe the laughable "no new information" claim of IDiots?  Or that there can be no new, novel mutations - they all have to be present in the DNA already?)

I'm saying the evidence of life and fossil life insists upon marsupials being just placentals with pouches etc.
so the genetics is a minor detail to deal with.
There is no reason to corral genetics to modern observations or processes modern research deals with. I say genetics etc did need to act quickly and so it did. innate triggers is my speculation on how. I see no problem with genetic diversity being a very easy thing to occur and not this clumbsy mutation thing they now push.
The variety in dog breeds alone shows the great potential for variety.
I see no reason not to speculate this variety can be triggered by need and not just happenchance being selected on.
Anyways my point and essay is that the anatomical evidence is king in how to classify biological relationships.
so the genetics needs reform.

Bobby, where does the variation of dog breeds come from if there is no such thing as "mutation"?

Date: 2010/01/02 02:54:01, Link
Author: RDK
The problem is that Ignoramo here fails even with his whole "they look similar / different" schtick.  Saying the anatomy - or "the way an animal looks" - is the only thing that matters in determining taxonomy doesn't help his rail against genetics anyway because the phenotype of an animal is just the expressed genotype on a visual level.

Unfortunately Bobby didn't pass his middle school biology class so we'll just have to continue kindly letting him know just how little he knows.

Date: 2010/01/02 02:55:43, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 31 2009,19:54)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 31 2009,19:48)
Jerry:
   
Quote
I am a Stanford graduate and was watching the Stanford Oklahoma game. It is starting to look grim for Stanford.

If Jerry is representative of Standford graduates he is right to be concerned.

Well, at least this settles the question of whether Jerry is Ras' sock puppet!

As another Stanford grad (and long-time OU-hater), I was less than impressed with that game as well. I hadn't seen too much of Stanford this year, but their offense seemed to resemble the old Woody Hayes style (run it up the middle and hope for the best) rather than the Elway years!

Unfortunately Ras is too busy posting under "Robert Byers" to defend himself.

It's okay Ras, we've found you out.  You can crawl out of that sock now!  Isn't it moldy enough already?

Date: 2010/01/02 14:07:53, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 02 2010,10:26)
Meanwhile, Joseph teaches taxonomy.
 
Quote
Zachriel: As for Joseph, let’s try a very simple example of biological classification. Do whales group best with mice or fish?

Joseph:

A whale is a whale because it has the defining characteristics of a whale.

Mice are mice because they have the defining characteristics of mice.

And fish have the defining characteristics of fish.

Well that's a whale of a tale.

Someone still alive over there ask Broseph if my stuffed animal whale can be classified in the whale taxon because it shares the defining characteristics of a whale.

Date: 2010/01/02 17:33:31, Link
Author: RDK
Looks like Dennis's alternate blog is getting more hits than expected!  With a grand total of 3 comments so far I think she's doing just fine, nevermind the fact that all 3 seem to be from someone at AtBC.

Before it disappears:

 
Quote
January 2, 6:28 PM
Anonymoose says:

Denyse, does it sexually excite you to constantly skew facts and misrepresent arguments? Because I can't imagine writing freelance for an obscure backwater blog pays very well, so it can't be about the money.

Date: 2010/01/03 17:11:29, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (EyeNoU @ Jan. 03 2010,14:52)
Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2010,10:30)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 03 2010,18:06)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2010,10:38)
   
Quote (EyeNoU @ Jan. 03 2010,14:32)
   
Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2010,02:43)
     
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 03 2010,05:56)
     
Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 02 2010,19:25)
       
Quote (EyeNoU @ Jan. 02 2010,17:40)
         
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 31 2009,23:41)
         
Quote (sledgehammer @ Jan. 01 2010,03:45)
           
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 31 2009,10:48)
             
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 31 2009,09:47)
                 
Quote (RDK @ Dec. 31 2009,11:24)
                   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 31 2009,08:37)
                       
Quote (didymos @ Dec. 31 2009,08:36)
                       
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 31 2009,06:04)
                         
Quote (afarensis @ Dec. 31 2009,07:21)
                         
Quote (RDK @ Dec. 31 2009,00:04)
                           
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 30 2009,22:17)
                             
Quote (rhmc @ Dec. 31 2009,03:38)
                               
Quote (Zachriel @ Dec. 30 2009,08:33)
Otters vs. Crocodiles

from that link:  this one time, I was walking home and a gang of otters stole my wallet.

You should have pelted them.


Come on now, boys, we otter stop these puns before they get out of control.  You remember what happened last time?

Sure, just weasel out of it...

That was otterly uncalled for.

Objection! Badgering the poster!

That's Stoatally out of order..

The magnificent Richardhughes joins the fray!  May I be so kind as to ask for your ottergraph?

Hmmm. I'll have to mink about that one.

Okay...

Ferrets better to give than recieve at this time of year.
< snip Lee Majors>

He was married to Ferret Fossa-Majors, wasn't he?

Furry interestink, but not very punny.

That's because you're pussy footing around

That was a catty remark. Was it done on purr-pose?

Oh noes, notter anotter one.

Alright, clam up youse guys.

Where's your muscle, chowderhead?

Oy.sterring up trouble still?

He's in for a shellacking.

Concha give it a rest?

I was relion on you

Shucks. They're just pearls of wisdom.

Goddammit private, what did I say about those jokes?  Just wave and kiss your ass bi,son.

Date: 2010/01/04 16:09:14, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 04 2010,13:11)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2010,13:01)

He's gone off half cocked.

Does that mean it's nothing to crow about?

I would say so.  Unfortunately though, our boy Bobby has the brain capacity of a dollar-store manakin.

Date: 2010/01/04 22:03:53, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 04 2010,18:42)
Unpleasant Blowhard's paraphilia:

   
Quote
A red plastic ball is a physically inert object. Certainly all of the hydrocarbons contained in the ball are obeying the physical laws that govern this Universe, but there is nothing in those physical laws that says “dye yourself red and form a sphere”. That requires a physically inert something else – a result beyond what the molecules must do themselves.

And...
   
Quote
As I’ve stated before, a red plastic ball is a physically inert object. Certainly all of the hydrocarbons contained in the ball are obeying the physical laws that govern this Universe, but there is nothing in those physical laws that says “dye yourself red and form a sphere”. That requires a physically inert something else – a result beyond what the molecules must do themselves.

And...
   
Quote
The existence of red plastic ball is an anomaly to physical laws, but does not break them. The physical matter within a red plastic ball acts within the Laws, but there is nothing in those Laws that says that the matter should form a sphere and dye itself red. That takes something outside of mere physical laws, does it not? Do you know what that something is?

And...
   
Quote
May I ask a question? A [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/uncommon-descent-contest/uncommon-descent-contest-19-spot-the-mistakes-in-the-following-baffflegab-explanation-of-i



ntelligent-design-theory/#comment-344138]red plastic ball[/URL] does not exist outside the physical laws that govern the carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and sulfur that make up its constituent matter. But neither does that matter explain its existence. Not only is the material itself a synthesized compound (requiring many indpendent steps to create it) but there is nothing in its physical atomic properties that would cause it to form a sphere and dye itself red.

And...


I assumed he was into some sort of masochism, the way he comes back to UD day after day for a verbal ass-kicking...

Date: 2010/01/05 15:16:53, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 05 2010,03:12)
   
Quote
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?

I once attempted a simple Turing Test with Bobby Byers as the subject during his brief stint over at PT, but unfortunately he could not handle the rigors of that particular gauntlet.

If I had to make an educated guess I'd say he's some sort of weird program someone has written that takes a copy of the words you've posted to the board and jumbles them up into a word salad that has something vaguely to do with the original topic.  IMO that's the best explanation of the sheer intellectual prowess we've seen come forth from the entity that is Robert Byers.

If someone has an alternate explanation, please don't hesitate to present it.

Bjarne says:

 
Quote
I just want to make sure that I did get the core of his idea right. After all, I am no native speaker of English.


And yet your comprehension and use of English is still superior to Robert's by several orders of magnitude.  I salute you.

Date: 2010/01/05 15:39:33, Link
Author: RDK
Emph. mine:

Quote
As I point out in the debate, the arrangement of stones can signify design even if the stones themselves can’t be said to be designed. The same point can be made for chemistry — basic chemistry may be undesigned (I don’t believe this) but chemical arrangements might be.


The fuck?

Is there an explanation for this other than Dembski's been hitting the appletinis a little bit harder than usual?

Date: 2010/01/05 23:18:09, Link
Author: RDK
Quote
Curses, foaled again!


I wish I can be just like Nakashima when I grow up.

Seriously though, I think Nak deserves an on-duty PotW for his continuation of our animal name puns even in the midst of TARD battle, while singlehandedly smearing Joseph's face in his own detritus.

Date: 2010/01/06 11:18:24, Link
Author: RDK
My favorite part is where Blowhard accuses Zachriel of being "over-educated".

What a maroon.

Meanwhile, Barry Arrington drops his pants and bends over:

   
Quote
…if all individual human beings possess dignity, then they should not be viewed simply as resources that we can treat however we please. To take an example then, it may be that we could achieve rapid and significant progress in medical science if we were to conduct wide-ranging medical experiments on groups of human beings. However, because human beings have dignity, so it is argued, this means that they possess a particular quality that grounds certain moral obligations and rights. These obligations and rights restrict what we may permissibly do to them. As such, inflicting great harms on individual humans, as would be inflicted in medical experiments, is impermissible on the grounds that human individuals possess dignity. The dignity of individual human beings prevents us from doing certain acts to them, even if those acts would lead to great social benefits.


Arrington translated:

"Since my favorite color blue is, in fact, not objectively the best color of them all, then I'm not going to allow anyone to have a favorite color of their own.  Your taste in color is invalid and indeed doesn't exist since there is no objective standard for which certain colors are better than the other ones."

Date: 2010/01/07 13:09:27, Link
Author: RDK
Quote
Clilve Hayden: In response to a comment that I will not approve, you have to actually answer the questions, not retrofit them to some previous post. Timaeus is asking you specific questions, and your re-heated answers don’t really answer them. You’re just being passive aggressive, as if Timaeus shouldn’t be asking, given that you think you’ve already answered his questions, when you haven’t. I won’t allow this comment. Answer the questions and/or stop resubmitting your answers if, according to you, they have already been given.


Clivebaby is a douchebag of galactic proportions.

Date: 2010/01/07 16:20:50, Link
Author: RDK
Quote
That's the corrected line - check comment #1 to see Barry's Freudian slip.

 
Quote
A possible typo in the last paragraph: “…because ID gives up hope for freedom.” I assume you meant ‘us’ instead of ‘up’, but the word change definitely changes the meaning.


A single character in a sequence of characters changes the entire meaning of the sequence?

Who would've thunk.

Of course, ID predicted this, too, as well as 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and the fall of the Roman Empire.  It just likes to say so after the fact for an "I told you so" effect.

Date: 2010/01/08 15:04:36, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Reg @ Jan. 08 2010,13:44)
Gil gets all probabilistic and biochemical:
     
Quote
The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Durer’s “Melancholia” is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform.

Great; now he's a philosophizer.

Glad to see he's fired up the Dodgenator, though; at the very least we can never accuse the poor bastard of being inconsistent.

Date: 2010/01/08 18:35:21, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 08 2010,18:05)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 09 2010,07:56)
From Josh at SciBlogs - Bill Dembski Friday Meltdown!

Dembski Kisses Jesus Out Loud


   
Quote
Billy Dembski is concerned. His latest book, The End of Christianity, was attacked by a Baptist minister as a work of theistic evolution, and Dembski defended his honor by charging that windmill:


Go and read the whole thing!

Read the original review as well. It must have hurt Dembski that the reviewer had never heard of him.
Also the second last comment is good with a YEC taking him to task for being dishonest

It's hilarious that Dembski would be hurt by that, especially with his big-ass ego.  He fails to realize that, even within the realm of science, he's a nobody.  Plenty of normal people don't know who Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne are, so why in god's name would he expect people to know who he is?  He's as obscure as can be; literally a shitstain in the footnotes of science history, if that.

Date: 2010/01/09 23:22:15, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Maya @ Jan. 08 2010,17:44)
 
Dembski believes in the Noachian flood.

I'm sure if you asked him directly he would believe something different.

Or he might run away.

Date: 2010/01/12 13:18:22, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 12 2010,12:15)
     
Quote
Maybe cars are like Bacteria and have lateral transfer?


May sound stupid, but it's true.

I recall a scandal some years ago where Cadillac was short on engines and installed some Chevy engines at the factory. The design was identical, but Caddy charged a lot more for engines with their badge. I don't recall if they were ever manufactured in different plants.

Not to mention, many innovative features jump from the original brand to other brands.

Therefore, Jebus.

Fixed for moar justice.

Dear Christ, I just read Dennis's latest rant.  Someone mail the Nobel to O'Leary for her achievements in the study of both snails and felines:

 
Quote
Yes, cats are definitely more intelligent than snails, but everyone knows that.


Women belong in the kitchen; everyone knows that!

Make it a gyro, Dennis; I'm feeling Greek today for some reason.

Also, David Anderson continues the age-old UD tradition of bitching at evangelical Christian Darwinists, a la Francis Collins and Denis Alexander:

 
Quote
He argues that Alexander has mangled Scripture, managing to harmonise it with Darwinism only by using methods which are distinctly and disastrously contrary to evangelical orthodoxy. Moreover, he finds Alexander’s methods in handling of key scientific issues to be logically flawed. In this book he shows us how weak the new Darwinist evangelicals’ arguments are, and why Bible believing Christians can continue to place strong confidence in the Scriptures and the church’s historic understanding of them.


Needless to say, I laughed.

Date: 2010/01/12 13:28:59, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 12 2010,13:16)
Brian Switek has a post on the "marsupial lion" (Thylacoleo) here - pay attention to the skull and foot (the hind foot reconstruction).  Robert, you can look at that, and read what it says, and claim that lions and the Thylacoleo are similar?

Of course, you will say that, but for once try to be intellectually honest.  The skulls are nothing alike, and the hind feet show that the entire structure and method of walking is different.  Throw in the reproduction method (will all attendant physiological differences - hormones and such, plus anatomy), and there is no comparison.  Only someone completely blinded and slavishly dogmatic to their dogma would claim otherwise.  Sadly, we know what you will say.

This is what you Darwinitwtis don't realize; internal anatomy and genetics are only a small issue; it's the external anatomy that counts.  The truth of creation and the political lie of Darwinism will be revealed.  America deserves the truth.

Equal time.

Bioturgitation.

Jebus.

Date: 2010/01/12 13:30:02, Link
Author: RDK
Oh and I forgot about the all-powerful "innate triggers"; can't forget those.

Date: 2010/01/12 13:33:25, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 09 2010,07:51)
In the midst of a reasonably (for TT) technical discussion good old Daniel Smith pipes up with this
     
Quote
If we strip away all the scientific mumbo-jumbo, isn't this argument really about whether or not God created life? The positions set forth here reflect the underlying beliefs of the posters; with the believers supporting that view, the atheists rejecting it, and the agnostics undecided.

I predict that the discussion will continue in this vein until all the parties tire of it. Nothing will ever be resolved. This is why it's silly for believers to try to argue materialist science. Why not rather acknowledge that ID IS all about God and get about the business of learning all we can about Him from His creation?

Scientific mumbo-jumbo? It seems Mr Smith prefers his mumbo-jumbo straight and unmixed.

Good old Denial likes his TARD shaken, not stirred.

Date: 2010/01/12 14:47:12, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Maya @ Jan. 12 2010,14:21)
Denyse shows off her research skills again:
   
Quote
Flu kills millions every year

Well, maybe not:
   
Quote
Regular flu in the United States kills about 30,000 people in an average year.
. . .
A regular year worldwide is for 250,000 to 500,000 people to die from the flu.

Where did she print receive her journalism diploma again?

She could have meant outside of the United States, but I doubt Dennis thinks there is such a thing as "outside of the United States", even though she's apparently from Canada.  Oh well; fight blog with blog, I suppose:

Quote
23
Leviathan
01/12/2010
3:39 pm

Mrs. O’Leary,

Quote
Flu kills millions every year


Really? This is news to me….according to this source, the figure is quite different:

 
Quote
Regular flu in the United States kills about 30,000 people in an average year.
. . .
A regular year worldwide is for 250,000 to 500,000 people to die from the flu.


[URL=http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/.....-2009.html]


I wouldn't expect this to come out of the moderation queue anytime soon, though; Barry has me on his shit-list after that last load he dropped in the morality thread.

Date: 2010/01/12 15:07:39, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Maya @ Jan. 12 2010,14:47)
 
Quote
23
Leviathan
01/12/2010
3:39 pm

Mrs. O’Leary,

     
Quote
Flu kills millions every year


Really? This is news to me….according to this source, the figure is quite different:

       
Quote
Regular flu in the United States kills about 30,000 people in an average year.
. . .
A regular year worldwide is for 250,000 to 500,000 people to die from the flu.

I'm not sure I know you well enough to have my hand in your sock.

Perhaps if I take you out for a nice dinner?  I hear the Baylor cafeteria makes a mean sloppy joe.

Date: 2010/01/12 15:26:48, Link
Author: RDK
Coincidentally Broseph trots out the "how many mutations" argument:

Quote
58
Joseph
01/12/2010
3:48 pm

Lenoxus,

The very definition of “transitional” and “intermediate” says that a nested hierarchy is not expected from descent with modification.

Darwin “explained” the distinct categories by calling on well-timed extinctions.

As for whales being descended from land animals- how can we test that?

How many mutations did it take?

How can it be measured?

How many transitions were required?


In case my post magically un-creates itself in the near future:

Quote
Leviathan
01/12/2010
3:59 pm

Joseph, before I go about answering those questions you’ve posed, would you mind answering a few of mine?

I have a creeping suspicion that you are not a descendant of your proposed grandfather. Unless you can show, with plain and direct evidence, each step in the development process from the fertilization of the egg, all the way through the fetal stages in the womb, and in addition each phase of childhood up through adulthood into this very day, I refuse to believe the silly notion that you are a product of a simple sperm and egg coming together in the body of a female human.

Date: 2010/01/12 17:31:33, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 12 2010,17:24)
 
Quote
the slug does not have to eat again for the rest of its life. All it has to do is sunbathe.

But that could lead to a sluggish lifestyle for the creature!

Henry

The heathen!  Don't the 7 Deadly Sins speak out against being a sloth?

Date: 2010/01/12 21:21:58, Link
Author: RDK
Joseph denies a common grandfather:

Quote
61
Joseph
01/12/2010
6:58 pm

That is not a question and I never proposed a grandfather.

...

And why should I care about your ignorance pertaining to reproduction?


I think I peed my pants a little.

Date: 2010/01/12 21:23:51, Link
Author: RDK
For posterity here's my follow-up post.  It took a Herculean display of willpower for me to restrain myself from outright calling Broseph a fucking retarded moron; my comments have been getting through moderation lately and I don't want to fuck it up.

Quote
It is indeed a question. How can we test your lineage?

How much development did it take?

How can it be measured?

How many transitions were required?

Quote
and I never proposed a grandfather.


Correct me if I’m wrong, but I take out of this that you don’t believe your existence is due to your mother and father’s parents on both sides mating in order to bring about your parents, and then your parents mating to bring about you? You expect everyone here to believe you magically “poofed” into existence as a fully-formed adult male?


Can't wait for his reply!  Dumbass.

Date: 2010/01/13 11:32:08, Link
Author: RDK
Poseidon-dammit, site's down.  And as soon as I was typing my coup-de-grace to Broseph.

Wednesday.....afternoon meltdown?

Edit: I'm almost tempted to upload a Jebus-bashing video to that Godornot site and see how quickly it gets taken down.

Date: 2010/01/13 11:48:55, Link
Author: RDK
Moar astute journalism from the Citizen Kane of our times:

 
Quote
Leviathan at 23 and Seversky at 24, I would never assume that the reported causes of death are the same as actual ones.  Many people die with no reported cause of death, or no seriously examined one.


Right, so that's a perfectly justifiable reason to overshoot the figure by a factor of millions.

 
Quote
If it kills many people in Canada (where we have a reasonably competent health system for emergencies), I must suppose it does so elsewhere – especially where one might question the health care policies (self-prescription, non-scientific medicine, etc.).


Yep, all science so far!

 
Quote
I don’t have a problem with the vaccines. They either work or they don’t.


Hey, just like gravity!  It either works or it don't; no further investigation or explanation needed.

 
Quote
Estimates can be way over or way under. In a panic, who knows?


Date: 2010/01/14 14:45:40, Link
Author: RDK
Moar from the TARD mine frontlines, and fresh too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5TE99sAbwM

Thursday's heartwarming story of the day was brought to you by Pat fucking Robertson, and the letter F.

Date: 2010/01/14 14:47:21, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (RDK @ Jan. 14 2010,14:45)
and the letter F.

--as in "I got F's in every class in high school so I decided to become a TV evangelist".

Date: 2010/01/15 11:01:20, Link
Author: RDK
dinosaurs bones are the tools of beezlebub

Date: 2010/01/15 12:49:09, Link
Author: RDK
Quote
because it will confirm the truth of Darwinian evolution and win him a Nobel Prize in chemistry or physiology.


I love the trigger-finger "NO U!!11!!" response by creotards about peer review research.  When I tell them to publish evidence for intelligent design in a real scientific journal and that the Nobel Prize awaits, it's because if someone actually did overturn Darwinian evolution and come up with a better theory they would no doubt win the Nobel Prize.

Evolution doesn't need to be verified the same way IDC does; it's already verified.  IDC doesn't have jack shit, which is why people pull out the Nobel Prize joke.

Unfortunately there seems to be a brain cell count requirement on that one because I can hear the overhead whooshing sound from over here.

Date: 2010/01/15 22:13:29, Link
Author: RDK
Quote
Finally, the long-awaited update to the Morris/Whitcomb classic, The Genesis Flood!


HAHA, wow, that shit had me rollin'.

The "finally" always gets me, though; it's like even the creotards themselves know that they're god-awful with deadlines.  I suppose the old xian adage about how, to Yahweh, a couple seconds is an eon and an eon is a couple second is yet another projection from the fundies onto their imaginary friend.

Date: 2010/01/16 10:56:59, Link
Author: RDK
Broseph catches on fast, doesn't he!:

Quote
113
Joseph
01/16/2010
11:40 am

h.pesoj is a troll.

h.pesoj is just my name spelled backwards. :cool:

Could be a sock-puppet for Zachriel.

But I will answer the backwards me:


Then he proceeds to stick his head farther up his ass, proving that it is indeed possible.

Date: 2010/01/21 12:25:03, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 21 2010,07:15)
Joseph is asked how "life" is defined. His answer?
   
Quote
metabolism, reproduction- and whatever else differentiates living organisms from non-living matter.

There you go. Life is whatever is alive. Water is wet. etc.
Cakeboy IDiocy.

aren't you aware?  x is x because it's x-ish

dumbass atheist scientists don't know nothin'

Date: 2010/01/21 12:27:11, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 21 2010,11:58)
Tribune7
 
Quote
Science is Christian.

Yep. There are no Muslim scientists. Or Jewish scientists. Or Atheist scientists. None whatsoever.

well he linked to a Francis Bacon and Lord Kelvin quote, so it must be true

however i'm inclined to believe tribune isn't on his A-game today as he never provided supporting evidence via youtube vid

dude's slipping

Date: 2010/01/22 11:10:54, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 22 2010,00:15)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 21 2010,18:30)
 
Quote

I DEMAND RECOMPENSE OF 1 CAMERAS!


While I have some serious covetousness toward the Nikon D700 and especially the D3s, and I have no shortage of online disparagers to choose from, I've never figured out how the disparagement might justifiably be linked to demands for a cool photographic instrument.

What about one of these:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3ICET846BGS4N

gets good reviews!

i have the creeping suspicion that Kwokkers reviewed the camera before Amazon even shipped it out to him, but i'm not sure why

oh and i reserve the right to plagiarize your "x-ish" argument and use it in any of my presentations

however if you expect to use anything even vaguely associated with me i'll see you in court, buddy

*fart noises*

Date: 2010/01/26 12:28:55, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 26 2010,07:00)
If I only had a sock: Gill runs out of time thread        
Quote
The numbers don’t add up. They don’t add up even by orders of magnitude, and they don’t add up even by many orders of magnitude raised to exponents with many orders of magnitude, when one considers all of the finely orchestrated functional integration required to make even a “simple” cell survive and reproduce.

What's really amazing is that all of the so-called scientists have been completely fooled by this for a century and a half.  Even the Nobel prize winners, even the ones who worked on the Manhatten Project, even Gil's Sainted Father, they were all fooled!  

Thank Dog we have Gil Dodgen, Boy Genius, to finally realise the simple, obvious truth about this and remove the wool from over our eyes.  Now if we could only get the professional scientists to realise this.  But many of them are paid from our taxes, according to Denyse.  I've also heard that many of them have tenure.  That must rot their brains or something.  

The world owes Gil so much.

Don't you know?  Using only simple common sense logic and pre-middle school maths, Dodgy toppled the towering monolith that is Darwinism as a mere teenager.

Of course it always seems like he's taking a bathroom break or something when pressed about exactly what maths were used.  Show me the Weasel Gil!!!111!!1

Date: 2010/01/26 12:45:38, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 26 2010,09:31)
Bilbo dances towards the exit.

   
Quote
Bilbo: And I woke up at four this morning, and went for a walk in the newly falling snow, and decided to dance a jig with God. And since then, realizing every few moments that I am alive because God is sustaining me, suddenly I lost the need to argue with anyone about anything, and all I want to do is dance with God.

Don't know if I'll be back. I hope you all learn to dance with God, too. And especially you, Professor Hitchens. It's fun.

I'm so happy

'Cause today I found my friends

They're in my head

Date: 2010/01/27 11:27:59, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 26 2010,20:49)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 26 2010,17:26)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 25 2010,20:45)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 25 2010,18:38)
 
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 25 2010,18:23)
Of note is that chunkdz feels the need to respond...

But not here, one notes.

Maybe if we gave some homoerotic economics stories?

There's no way we could come up with a strong homoerotic lure than Bilbo's dancing story.

Maybe put something in about how their eyes met across the newly fallen snow, he felt a stirring in his loins, er, heart...maybe put somethign about the way god licked his lips as he sasheyed towards Bilbo...

How's that?

It seems the TARD has gone to your brain.  Take a break, soldier.

Date: 2010/01/27 11:46:12, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (someotherguy @ Jan. 26 2010,19:56)
   
Quote (khan @ Jan. 26 2010,19:27)
   
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 26 2010,19:58)
Ouch - the stupid hurts! O'Leary:
       
Quote
What I don’t understand is, if ecology is that fragile, how come life has existed continuously on Earth for about four billion years?

That much stupid should be painful, to the disseminator.

I'm pretty sure that there's a strong, positive selection pressure at UD for anything that can weaken one's ability to experience stupidity-induced pain.  Call it lack of sense as survival strategy.

Reverse natural selection?

Apparently UD lives in some strange backwards ecology where the most weak-minded are selected for, as only the stupidest of the stupid survive at UD.  Just look at the cream of the crop we have left.  The denizens have been steadily whittled down until we're left with the likes of Jerry, Batshit, Tribune, Joseph, etc.

Similar events seem to take place in private high schools and Bible colleges, only slightly more magnified across a larger scale.

Date: 2010/01/27 11:51:14, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 26 2010,20:57)

And elsewhere Clivebaby provides:        
Quote
Seversky,

       
Quote
   For creationists there is a very big problem. Think about it. If we find one other planet with life, especially if that life has reached a similar stage of development, then we are no longer unique. If we find many other life -bearing planets then we are not even special. It then becomes a lot harder to justify the claim that we are God’s chosen people or special favorite.


Quantity doesn’t negate quality. You cannot assume as fact a notion of quality by virtue of a quantity.

SLAVE TRADE....IN SPACE!

THE MOVIE

Dr. Clive: "Go ahead and dissect the specimen at the basal ganglia."

Ensign Borne: "But sir, isn't using extraterrestrial lifeforms as a means to our own ends a tad bit unethical?"

Dr. Clive: "Of course not, ensign; we are God's favorites."

*STRIKES HEROIC POSE*

Date: 2010/01/28 12:24:03, Link
Author: RDK
I'm not sure I understand Utunumsint's argument.

Is he disputing the idea that three newly created proteins can co-opt to a new function by binding together?

Has anyone asked this guy if he's ever taken a biology course?

Date: 2010/01/28 12:54:00, Link
Author: RDK
Obvious Poe is obvious.

However I figure I'll wait a few hundred pages for the FL-like apocalypse before I cast judgment.  Don't start the wailing and gnashing of teeth before I grab my popcorn!

Date: 2010/01/29 11:09:29, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (afarensis @ Jan. 28 2010,18:35)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2010,17:49)
YOU GUYS ARE TEH MEANIES

HAHAHAHA this is Richard!

I found our boy FL:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm

Byers would fit nicely here too.

Date: 2010/02/04 13:12:20, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 03 2010,18:34)

On reflection, I agree.  It was a cheap shot.  Writing at this level consistently takes years of application.  Writing like this, and getting paid to do so, requires a truly special combination of skill and determination.

Denyse, if you're reading this, I withdraw my questioning of your pre-eminence.

By "application" I'm assuming you mean years of vociferous application of a jackhammer to his forehead.

Because yes, then I would agree with you.

Also, greetings from education-land!  How goes the tard mining, all?  I'm trying to stay away as much as I can to focus on growing my brain instead of degrading it via exposure to harmful chemicals.  A.K.A. anything that's ever been written on UD.

Date: 2010/02/04 13:13:16, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 04 2010,02:52)
Gordon clarifies the immaterial mind:
 
Quote
25 –> In support of immateriality of mind, we note that qualia, intensionality, logical abstractions such as propositions and numbers, etc etc are credibly real but radically different from physical, material entities and processes.

Yep, that really is point 25. Of 30.

Jesus.  Gordo's in full gear.

You know he's serious when he whips out the "double etc.".

Date: 2010/02/04 13:32:51, Link
Author: RDK
Man you guys are silly.

Nobody has noticed yet that Ut is clearly FL?  The pseudo-neutral, innocently disingenuous way he words his arguments are what made me suspicious at first, but the pedo-smile emoticons are what put the final nail in the coffin.

*SITS BACK AND EATS POPCORN*

Date: 2010/02/05 11:16:09, Link
Author: RDK
That article makes me wonder whether or not our boy Vox has ever seen a female IRL.

Date: 2010/03/05 13:20:06, Link
Author: RDK
Bubba's still goin at it, eh?

However I do admire him for his ability to type up entire paragraphs without actually saying jack shit.

Date: 2010/03/05 13:25:19, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 04 2010,20:52)
 
Quote (someotherguy @ Mar. 05 2010,15:33)
Sweet Jesus, that is deeply, deeply stupid.

Heh. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, I try not to think with my toes.

I don't even know why she would need to, being the intellectual heavyweight that she is.

I mean just look at this grammar:

Quote
I lost my toenails some years ago in Ottawa. They grew back, but never very successfully.


Why hasn't she won a Noble for journalism yet?  This is a sick, crazy, messed-up world we live in where genius like that of Dembski and O'Leary can go unnoticed by the general populus.

IS THERE NO GOD?!?!

Date: 2010/03/05 13:28:14, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 05 2010,13:17)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Mar. 05 2010,11:38)
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 04 2010,15:01)
Denyse's toes weigh in on global warming:
 
Quote
Well, the first thing I should say, is that I am not a disinterested witness. I lost my toenails some years ago in Ottawa. They grew back, but never very successfully.

If the planet is warming up, my toes would be the happiest local items to hear it.

It is a sad day when media generally do not see the point that teaching both sides of a question means teaching students to “theenk”. (Blackwood’s first rule of bridge: “Theenk.”)

How do we know we are right? Well, we don’t. We might be wrong. My toes think that the global warming people are wrong. Do I know? No. But I sure wanna hear both sides.

And I think the students should too.

Given that to really understand global warming one needs to know the quantum theory of black body radiation, absorption and emission, fluid dynamics, numerical integration of differential equations, what are these students going to accomplish with their "theenking" ?  Yes, you can have students learn, but not by presenting good stuff and crap to students lacking the tools they need to identify why the crap is crap.

Denyse, why don't you bone up on these prerequisites, then see whether there is a second alternative with any merit?

<insert obligatory "bone" joke here>

For Densy to do that means she would have to (a) read, and (b) understand what she reads.  I doubt she wants to, or is even capable of, doing either.  But I am in favor of "teaching the controversy" over her religious beliefs.  When do we start, Denyse?

What?  That's now how "teaching the controversy" works at all.  It can't be applied to ID because ID is the correct view, duh.  That's the point.

Don't fix what ain't broked.

"Teaching the Controversy: attempting to savagely sling mud at any and all viewpoints........except those held by myself"

Date: 2010/03/05 13:40:12, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 05 2010,13:21)
Quote (RDK @ Mar. 05 2010,13:20)
Bubba's still goin at it, eh?

However I do admire him for his ability to type up entire paragraphs without actually saying jack shit.

He's like a Weeble - he may wobble, but he won't fall down!

I always picture him as Boppo.  Full of air, and just keeps on coming back!

Date: 2010/05/27 19:02:09, Link
Author: RDK
Most recent post at UD, courtesy of Cornhole:

 
Quote
What do bacterial resistance to antibiotic drugs and the universal genetic code have in common? They both have been explained by horizontal gene transfer, a mechanism that evolutionists are increasingly using to explain the origin of the species. And what’s wrong with that? First, it makes evolution superfluous and second, it makes evolution ridiculous.






Moar, from Cornhole's blog:

 
Quote
But while such explanations make sense, they also make evolution vulnerable to Occam’s razor. For when evolutionary predictions fail, as they often do


Date: 2010/06/07 18:25:00, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (dogdidit @ May 21 2010,08:48)
Edit: okay, so I don't really understand what a "Poe" is. But Joe's exchange with olegt, wherein he inadvertantly reveals his not-so-hidden identity as "ID guy", was priceless. So I'll leave the linky.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe%27s+Law

Joe the Hoe Poe.  Has a nice ring to it!

Date: 2010/07/06 05:03:04, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 05 2010,17:01)
gpuccio:    
Quote
Again, this is not science, but ideologically driven research.

Ah, yes.  The core of the creo argument.  Because they can't go toe-to-toe with the scientific community using science, they attempt to use pure logic and bullshit philosophy to deduce the existence of god.  In a purely logical argument, there is no room for debate.  Either your argument works or it doesn't.  So then we're left with two options:

1) Creotards are right.  They have just have proven that god exists.  They should be in talks with the Nobel Prize committee and will be remembered throughout human history as the most significant thinkers that have ever graced this plane of existence.

2) Creotards are wrong.

Which is more likely?

Shove those odds up your arse Dembski.

Date: 2010/07/06 05:14:03, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 03 2010,05:28)
While sitting in your armchair presumably.

But the real question is: was his armchair Intelligently Designed?



Submit your essay of at least 506 words (but no more than 7,103) now for the chance to win 10 copies of Denyse O'Leary's latest book!  Just send in the small shipping and handling fee and bask in the glory of temporary stardom on an obscure backwater blog that nobody but butthurt creotard sociopaths read!

Oh and the 7,103 word-cap was laid down so that at the very least the smallest of Gordon's posts could qualify for the contest.  I'm sure they don't want him getting an an aneurysm trying to cram all his thought nuggets into a written essay that doesn't require the destruction of a rainforest.

Date: 2013/08/15 22:13:48, Link
Author: RDK
PZ was wrong in the way he went about it.

It's kind of sad to see how low-quality Pharyngula has become over the years.  If the comments section on his latest "grenade" debacle are indicative of his blog's fanbase, the kind of feminists and social justice warriors he's attracted are many orders of magnitude worse than the nutcases at Uncommon Descent.  Full of people who don't understand law, consent, or even how to form a logical thought properly.

The biggest problem seems to be inability to understand that advising people to be safe when alcohol is involved is not the same as "blaming" the victim, if the victim even exists in this case.  Nobody can stop a rape from happening but the rapist, but at the same time the world is a scary place so to not take precaution opens yourself up for some pretty nasty things to happen to you.

It's like getting into a car without having a seatbelt on and then acting indignant when some asshole crashes into you and you go flying through the windshield.  No shit the other guy should have been a better driver, but you also didn't take a necessary precaution.  This is the real world we live in, not fantasy feminism land.

Date: 2013/08/16 19:48:22, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Driver @ Aug. 16 2013,15:54)
The Slymepit... exists.

Why is this some kind of revelation?

How is the Slymepit not an acceptable response to the comment section of Pharyngula in the same way that this place is an acceptable response to the comment section on UD?

Where else are the topics going to get discussed free of the reckless shunning and banning of people with dissenting views?  Certainly not on Pharyngula.

Also I find your horror at the activities on Reddit to be humorous.  Being shocked at that is like going to 4chan and expecting to come back with a positive view of humanity.  How is that even close to being representative of the skeptic community?

Date: 2013/08/17 09:52:22, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Driver @ Aug. 17 2013,08:58)
RDK, my point was that rather than the story that PZ Myers wants to divide the American skeptic and atheist communities, a divide already exists.  

How many users on reddit? We're not talking about a handful of people.

I'll continue this conversation in the Hints and Allegations Thread.

Also is the title of that thread a Collective Soul reference?

Date: 2013/08/17 09:55:41, Link
Author: RDK
Quote
How many users on reddit? We're not talking about a handful of people.


The userbase of Reddit is not indicative of anything but the shitty userbase of Reddit.

What does Reddit have to do with this conversation?  I'm truly arguing in good faith.

Date: 2013/08/18 15:04:08, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Driver @ Aug. 17 2013,17:50)
 
Quote (Badger3k @ Aug. 17 2013,21:41)
       
Quote (Driver @ Aug. 17 2013,10:15)
       
Quote (RDK @ Aug. 17 2013,15:55)
         
Quote
How many users on reddit? We're not talking about a handful of people.


The userbase of Reddit is not indicative of anything but the shitty userbase of Reddit.

What does Reddit have to do with this conversation?  I'm truly arguing in good faith.

What is the biggest subreddit? How many subscribers?

How many  subscribers to r/skeptic?

I already mentioned, in the post that got lost, the 15 year old girl who posted  a picture of herself with Demon Haunted World. The reaction to her was not acceptable to many atheists. There is the divide. It exists because significant numbers of atheists and skeptics are publicly homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, and/or rape-endorsing. That is not an exhaustive list, but it will do for starters.

That's one of the things that I am skeptical of.  The automatic assumption that anyone who posts is an atheist and/or skeptic.  That assumes that no one who is not one of those things would read or post on the forum/reddit/thread/YouTube channel/etc without being one of those things.


Okay, let's pretend I am not familiar with those subreddits, and go so far as to say maybe only 10% of commenters on r/atheism are atheists.

We would still then be talking about probably the largest atheist venue on the internet. A venue with a culture of rape and homophobic jokes.

Unless you have a reason for thinking that those 10%, atheist redditors all, are disgusted by the culture at r/atheism (and generally throughout reddit), and are unlikely to participate in sexism, homophobia, and the like, your immaculate skepticism gives birth to the same conclusion as the less meticulous of us have already made: A significant number of atheists on the internet embrace minority-bashing and misogyny.


       
Quote
I have seen no evidence that the problem is worse than in society


It probably isn't. What is your point?

Reddit is 4chan-lite.  Anyone who believes that an online community with a notorious penchant for trolling and fuckery is representative of the skeptic community at large is a fool.

Does internet anonymity allow people to post purposefully mean-spirited content for shock value with little to no consequences?  Yes.  Does that necessarily mean the people who post these things have and act on these beliefs away from their keyboard?  I would think not.

Date: 2013/08/20 11:54:49, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Driver @ Aug. 19 2013,20:18)
No True Scotsman fallacy.


I don't think you know what these words mean.

 
Quote
It isn't just reddit either.


What is it then?  The internet?

Date: 2013/08/20 21:06:24, Link
Author: RDK
Quote (Driver @ Aug. 20 2013,14:42)
         
Quote (RDK @ Aug. 20 2013,17:54)
           
Quote (Driver @ Aug. 19 2013,20:18)
No True Scotsman fallacy.


I don't think you know what these words mean.


What you think about it doesn't matter.  It's not a matter of opinion.

It would be an example of NTS if I were to state that no skeptic would act in a misogynist way.  That's clearly not the case and I clearly never said that unless you can quote otherwise.

It's extremely odd that I should even have to explain this to you on this forum.

       
Quote
How many users on reddit? We're not talking about a handful of people.


Reddit is not just /r/atheism or /r/skeptic.

http://stattit.com/subredd....reddits
http://stattit.com/r....at....atheism

Now I wonder how many of those people would self-identify as "skeptics" or part of the "skeptic community"?  /r/skeptic barely even registers on the activity list.

Not to mention the fact that you can be an atheist without necessarily being a skeptic, and that the two communities may or may not have significant overlap.  It remains to be seen.

But that's not even the main point.  You seem to still be conflating troll culture with the skepticism community.  You asked this:

       
Quote
What is the biggest subreddit? How many subscribers?

How many  subscribers to r/skeptic?

I already mentioned, in the post that got lost, the 15 year old girl who posted  a picture of herself with Demon Haunted World. The reaction to her was not acceptable to many atheists. There is the divide. It exists because significant numbers of atheists and skeptics are publicly homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, and/or rape-endorsing.


What percentage of the entire population of /r/atheism acted this way?  You said yourself it's a fairly big subreddit.  How many people acted in an overtly sexist manner?  How many people is that compared to the entire population of the subreddit, or even simply the people who posted in that thread?  Now factor in how many of them were trolls or sockpuppets.

This type of behavior is largely indicative of the 4chan / Reddit culture of trolling and shock value and not necessarily indicative of the skeptic community.  Reddit existed before /r/atheism and it's debatable as to whether or not that particular community even makes up a significantly large portion of the site's entire userbase.

Again, you act as if untoward behavior found in an internet community notorious and famous for untoward behavior is somehow representative of everyone who calls themselves a skeptic.  And honestly, if anonymous internet trolling is something you would truly consider "public" then I would say you're acting like you just discovered the internet yesterday.

I reiterate: only fools go to these communities expecting to find people who do not explicitly attempt to offend you.  That is a main theme of these sites.  You have this odd view of /r/atheism as a skeptic stronghold and not simply a troll den with an atheist flavor.

 

 

 

=====