AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: Raevmo

form_srcid: Raevmo

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: Raevmo

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


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2007/01/06 10:13:32, Link
Author: Raevmo
Here's a good paper:

Author(s): QUELLER DC
Source: AMERICAN NATURALIST 139 (3): 540-558 MAR 1992

If you have Web of Science: check out the papers that have recently cited Queller. There's been a bit of a debate going on about the role of kin selection and group selection in the evolution of altruism. I don't have time to post all the links right now.

Date: 2007/02/17 09:48:46, Link
Author: Raevmo

Joseph didn't provide a cite, but naturally occurring random numbers (such as from quantum effects or white noise) can be used rather than computer-generated pseudo-random number generators. Evolutionary algorithms work just as well at generating specified complexity. The order is imposed by the selection criteria — which is rather the point.

You jus don get it do you Zach? To messure quantum effects or white noise it takes suffisticatet designed machines! Ha!

Date: 2007/03/09 08:08:38, Link
Author: Raevmo
the fact remains Darwin and math don’t mix. Darwin viewed math to be repugnant, and his lack of mathematical insight permeates his illogical ideas about the evolution of life.

The level of math in a random copy of Evolution is way over that pathetic scumbag Scordova's head.

Date: 2007/04/15 17:31:22, Link
Author: Raevmo
There was this little gem in Denyse's rambling post:

Beliefs are supposed to sound like foolishness; that’s what makes them faithful.

Could she be an ultra-deep-cover troll?

Date: 2007/07/06 18:25:37, Link
Author: Raevmo
I thought the great bustard (otis tarda, recorded up to 46lb) was the biggest flying bird. I've seen them in Spain while studying kestrels in the Cota Donana national park. Awesome birds. Awesome park too if you're into birding.

Date: 2008/02/29 08:26:36, Link
Author: Raevmo
Turncoat = Tom English

Date: 2008/02/29 10:59:05, Link
Author: Raevmo
Turncoat: Only five other posts since October 2006. And identifying me rose to threshold. I am flattered.

It was your remark concerning sunspots that gave it away for me. I recalled you saying something about predicting sunspots with genetic algorithms on UD at the time, and I looked up your paper back then.

Date: 2008/03/04 15:26:00, Link
Author: Raevmo
Hi Allen, you said

In other words, natural selection (i.e. differential survival and reproduction) can have outcomes that are opposed to sexual selection (i.e. differential reproduction alone), and vice-versa. If one defines natural selection broadly enough it subsumes sexual selection, but I believe that there is utility in analyzing them separately.

I disagree. Sexual selection is "natural" and I would classify it as a (distinct) subset of natural selection. Sexual selection is not just female choice - there's also intra-sexual selection due to competition between males or females over access to mates. This blurs into competition over territories and food, so there's no clear demarcation between sexual selection and what you call "natural" selection.

Date: 2008/03/08 19:58:37, Link
Author: Raevmo

I would love to hammer this challenge out with you to prove that in an ideal world a new mutation actually can catch on.  I would also love to see the sim prove that a mutation is more likely to fix in a large population.  So far my sim isn't doing any better with a large population (its a dog by about 50,000).

Why don't you believe the mathematics? As far as I know, it's fairly basic population genetics that Ns>>1 is required for selection to significantly "outweigh" drift (N is effective population size, allele "a" has viability 1, allele "A" 1+s) . Clearly then, a larger population improves the odds that a beneficial mutation A goes to fixation.

Date: 2008/03/08 20:06:52, Link
Author: Raevmo
Hmmm, on second thought. Fixation probability is proportional to s, for small s, regardless of population size. Result of Kimura I think. Sorry about that.

Date: 2008/04/18 10:26:12, Link
Author: Raevmo
Rumor has it on the movie can be downloaded (search "expelled", bottom 2 results allegedly good quality copies). Please don't break the law though.

Date: 2008/05/05 08:22:15, Link
Author: Raevmo
Here's an approximate formula for the probability of fixation of an allele with selective advantage s, initial frequency p, effective pop size N:


In Oleg's example, s=0.02 [51/50-1], let's say p=1/N (a single mutant at the start), then as N->infinity, f->0.0392, pretty close to Oleg's 0.038.

[edit: for p=1/N and small s, f->2s as N->inf]

Date: 2008/07/17 16:25:32, Link
Author: Raevmo
What's so special about page 1000?

Date: 2008/07/17 16:26:16, Link
Author: Raevmo
I mean 999

Date: 2008/07/17 16:28:01, Link
Author: Raevmo
Oops, 1000

Date: 2009/04/29 13:34:49, Link
Author: Raevmo

For example, I do not think Bin Laden is a hypocrite. I think he really believes what he professes and acts on those beliefs. I'm not sure who I find more dangerous or distasteful- Bin Laden or a congressmen interested solely in advancing his political career.


Date: 2009/04/29 13:40:16, Link
Author: Raevmo
Because, you see, Bin Laden is a religious man with a moral compass, while many congressmen are closet atheists pretending to be religious. Clearly Bin Laden has the moral high ground.


Date: 2009/05/01 04:40:51, Link
Author: Raevmo

With all due respect, you missed the point Bradford was trying to make. Bin Laden's values and his actions are aligned while the hypothetical congressman looking to advance his career does not (says one thing, does another). Bradford clearly does not approve of Bin Laden's values and actions.

I disagree. According to Bradford this hypothetical (atheist) congressman might be as dangerous as Bin Laden. That's just plain nuts. I think Bradford has some issues concerning his atheist father (as he regularly brings up) that distort his views in a rather unhealthy way. Some professional help might be in order, with all due respect.

BTW, I would have posted this at TT if Bradford hadn't banned me from several relevant threads.

Alan: I'm fairly certain Chunkdz edited your smiley. Nothing seems too low for him.

Date: 2009/06/28 13:40:03, Link
Author: Raevmo
Does anyone have a link to Joe G/ID guy/etc declaring himself to be muslim?

Date: 2009/07/02 11:55:54, Link
Author: Raevmo
Onlookers, TT's resident closeted homo chunkdz is now deleting all posts with the slightest reference to his erotic gay fantasy prose.

For shame.

Date: 2009/07/07 00:11:18, Link
Author: Raevmo
Hey Todd,

It's a shame Bradford banned you across the board. I'm just banned from most threads.

TT has been getting more stupid (yes, it's hard to believe) and more boring since Mike Gene left and let the intellectually challenged Bradford run the circus. It's unfortunate that Bradford - with his right-wing political brain vomit - even managed to alienate master of tard Joy. Ah, I miss Joy.

Bradford has been increasing the frequency of summarily deleting and banning, like his creepy buddy and connaisseur of man-love chunkdz has been doing all along. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that OOL research has been making some remarkable progress lately, thus destroying Bradford's main shtick?

Date: 2009/08/24 04:04:47, Link
Author: Raevmo
Anybody here going to ESEB?

Date: 2009/08/29 05:25:40, Link
Author: Raevmo
Is there any evidence that chunkdz is not a pedophile preying on little boys?

Date: 2009/08/31 01:25:14, Link
Author: Raevmo
Seems like I was silently (or preemptively) banninated from nullasalus' thread.

I enjoyed how he declared himself with lots of fanfare and self-importance to be no longer a Darwinist. Who gives a shit?

Date: 2009/09/01 05:18:43, Link
Author: Raevmo

Was null’s banning of zachriel ethical? If there is no objective basis for ethics then that is a pointless question, isn’t it?

In other words: if you don't believe in the baby Jeebus, then you can have no legitimate reason to question the ethics of banning.

What a moron.

Date: 2009/09/01 18:50:12, Link
Author: Raevmo
That didn't take long. New TT contributor Alexei got comments deleted and was silently banned very quickly, despite being quite civil.

Date: 2009/09/08 17:44:43, Link
Author: Raevmo
Try to get into a serious population genetics argument with Sal at TT (link) and you get silently banninated.

I know they can't prove* that JarrodF was Raevmo's sock, so apparently they prefer to risk banning "innocent" contributors rather than to give the benefit of the doubt and see wherever the discussion may lead.


*Or can they? At most they can prove you're using a proxy server, right?

Date: 2009/09/08 18:12:55, Link
Author: Raevmo

Fitness functions are intrinsically teleological. The best an anti-telican can do is argue for a causal source for an initial, stable replicator that is grounded in "brute forces of nature." IOW, predefined as non-telic.

Anti-telican? A mutant anti-pelican?

Whenever (i.e, always) Bradford is losing an argument, he brings up the OOL if he doesn't ban you outright.

Date: 2009/09/09 15:28:57, Link
Author: Raevmo

To the contrary, the mind is the explanation. It is nueral activity that is superfluous in addition to being poorly understood and not linkable to an explanation for consciousness.

Good lord. This is stupid on so many levels. But then again, I guess in Bradford's case neural activity is really superfluous. And yet - yet I crave this kind of tard. What is wrong with me? (don't answer that please)

Date: 2009/09/10 12:12:38, Link
Author: Raevmo
Sal is still talking to my sock, even though it was silently banned days ago.

Maybe someone (Alan?) can go there and invite Sal to continue the discussion here. Is there a Walter Remine/Haldane's Dilemma thread?

Date: 2009/09/10 13:39:39, Link
Author: Raevmo

"My name is Raevmo, and I'm a tardaholic." Do they have 12-step programs in the Netherlands?

Yeah, but not for tardaholics. Perhaps I should start one. Hmmm, or maybe better a commercial tard-rehab facility for rich tardaholics. Why should only the tard-dealers get rich on tard?

Date: 2009/09/10 13:48:50, Link
Author: Raevmo

so, can you tell me in seven sentences or less why you do the TT?

as opposed to the UD?

I started out with UD but got banned quickly. So I moved on to TT, the next richest tard mine as far as I knew. It's too much trouble for me to focus on more than one mine. I try to have a life sometimes and I can read and laugh about UD here. Besides, much better miners than myself are making fools of the tards there. But perhaps I will go back to UD - which is much more fun now than it used to be - having mastered the art of hiding behind proxy servers.

Date: 2009/09/23 12:00:26, Link
Author: Raevmo
Sorry, but I don't think that's evidence of bannination, Alan. I've been banninated several times at TT, and what happens is that posts simply disappear into thin air.

Try something slightly more insulting (but at the same time more realistic) and see what happens then. May I suggest simultaneously bringing up Bradford's rock bottom IQ and chunkdz's fondness for hairy men?

Date: 2009/09/23 12:18:34, Link
Author: Raevmo
I guess I was wrong then. Congratulations! I am on a few fixed IP's (home and work), and I can log in but posts never see the light of day.

They have become quite sensitive at TT lately. I wonder what made them change policy. Now they have become a more boring version of UD with only a few "critics" allowed to comment.

Date: 2009/09/23 15:33:26, Link
Author: Raevmo
Unfortunately for tard addicts, as Dr Dave points out, you can now use Google sidewiki to keep commenting even if you're banninated. I wonder if site owners can do anything about that.

Date: 2009/09/24 14:17:31, Link
Author: Raevmo
I see that Slimy Sal is still spreading his usual bullshit about population genetics on the Weasel Thread, despite having been corrected numerous times. Perhaps someone can point him to this link.

Could someone also try to leave a sidewiki comment on that thread? A really friendly one as a control. I tried some more nasty ones, but they seem to disappear. Perhaps I did something wrong. I hate to think they can just delete such comments. Or maybe Google accepts all claims of abuse and deletes automatically. They couldn't possibly investigate all claims.

Date: 2009/09/24 14:59:45, Link
Author: Raevmo
It's weird. Alan, maybe you could try it again, but not on a link to a specific comment, but rather on the link to the entire thread. I'll have a look to see if that works (just in case one cannot see one's own comments for some bizarre reason).

I did manage to see the sidewiki comment left by Wes on the UD Weasel thread.

Date: 2009/09/24 15:22:30, Link
Author: Raevmo
Nothing, Alan. I just posted one myself ("I really like this thread"), reloaded, and saw my comment. I also saw a recent regular comment by Oleg. Then I reloaded again, and both my comment and Oleg's "real" comment had disappeared.

Date: 2009/09/24 15:26:02, Link
Author: Raevmo
How about posting a sidewiki comment on this thread and reporting abuse. Maybe it will disappear automatically as well.

Date: 2009/09/24 15:27:50, Link
Author: Raevmo
I don't know, Oleg. I did see your comment for a few seconds. It seems it was deleted actively.

Date: 2009/09/24 15:35:25, Link
Author: Raevmo
Don't see yours either, Alan. You still see yours?

Date: 2009/09/24 15:58:57, Link
Author: Raevmo
Il marche dans ton site.

Date: 2009/09/24 16:02:27, Link
Author: Raevmo
Tried again. Still works. How come I can't see your sidewiki at the Weasel thread at TT?

Date: 2009/09/24 16:07:23, Link
Author: Raevmo
Hmmm, "Guts" just wrote this:

Tell Raevmo/Jure/JarrodF/Hammerstein and the rest of his multiple personalities I said hello as well.

Is it possible that he can remove sidewiki's based on the originating IP ?

Date: 2009/09/24 16:11:24, Link
Author: Raevmo
mais tu peux enrégistrer chelquechose aussi?

Ben oui. You didn't see it?

Now I did see your stuff on TT and UD, via your links.

Date: 2009/09/27 12:34:43, Link
Author: Raevmo
StephenB is a blowtard

ellazimm: “The [evolutionary] scientists working on evolution research are trying to find the details of how it all happened.”

SB: No, actually they are not. They are working hard to stop ID from finding out what happened, because we now know that the Darwinists almost certainly got it wrong. They work hard at protecting their paradigm. That’s about it. Darwinists have discovered nothing more than that which we already knew without their help—–things change. The theory of evolution has not given us one good thing in 150 years. Most of the real advances come from medical specialists and molecular biologists, neither of which need the ToE to do their work.

ellazimm: “Surely the ID researchers are doing the same. Yeah?”

SB:  Life was designed. That is a big scientific discovery. Why do you not celebrate it? There may be more to come, but maybe not. We may never know about life’s origins from a scientific point of view. If, however, ID does prove how the designer designed life, you may be sure that the Darwinist academy will respond the same way they responded to the news that life was designed. They will persecute the messenger.

What kind of bizarro world does this creep live in?

Date: 2009/09/28 17:13:41, Link
Author: Raevmo
SpitfireIXA is a dumb fuck:

ID has been a better predictor of the fossil record results over the past 160 years.

Darwinism predicted an extended, gradual, smooth transition that would nearly erase taxonomy due to the vast number of necessary transitional forms.

ID predicted species stasis and stable taxonomies. The creationism extension predicts sudden and staged appearance of designs.

In the 1850’s, Darwin said “we’ll see.” In 2009, we see. The fossil records shows atasis, stable taxonomies, and sudden, staged appearance of designs.

Hence the Darwinist need for such contortions as PE, convergence, and the newfound love for Lamarck.

The poor guy doesn't understand that predictions have to follow logically from hypotheses.

And he's a homo: he likes to photograph Shetland ponies. (link).

Or maybe he's a she?

Date: 2009/09/28 17:39:42, Link
Author: Raevmo
Maybe a Limey Poofter... not that that's wrong...

No not really, unless it's Louis and he's been making up all those stories about his kid...

Date: 2009/09/29 16:44:41, Link
Author: Raevmo
TT closet case chunkdz:

FMM, I feel compelled to remind you that you are arguing with Zachriel, a man who believes that witnessing a 900 foot tall Jesus over the skies of Manhattan would be positive evidence for the existence of God.

I think he confuses Zach with Jerry Coyne. Or are you Jerry Coyne, Zach? Fess up!
chunky continues:
These are not rational people we are dealing with. I simply can't stress this important fact enough.

This from one of the most retarded TT contributors. Hey chunk, I know you're reading this, why don't you admit you'd love a 900 foot Jesus to show you some really hard positive evidence up yours.

Date: 2009/09/29 16:59:04, Link
Author: Raevmo
More sick stuff from chunky
Bilbo, God has found many inventive and creative ways to destroy humans in the past with no help from Satan. Why is it such a stretch to imagine that God might also be creative in making humans sick as well?

No stretch at all.

Date: 2009/09/29 17:03:49, Link
Author: Raevmo
Angryoldfatman adds:

I feel dirty now after having to contemplate religion on the same level of Raevmo's puerile theological comprehension. Or his demonstrated comprehension, which may or may not be facetious.

Um, I have been banned long ago from TT.

Date: 2009/09/30 04:45:13, Link
Author: Raevmo
Clive is a tard:

I agree with you. When nature fell along with Man, death was introduced, and in my opinion, the whole of nature changed to such a degree that we cannot even reconstruct the original creation. It’s theoretically possible that the very repetitions of nature (what some people call laws) were very different pre-fall than how they behave now. But I think it is safe to say that pre-fall, God didn’t create anything that killed, because there wasn’t yet any death.

It's also very safe to say that Clive didn't really think this one through. He must think that there wasn't any need to eat before the fall. What kind of paradise is that, where you can't have a juicy burger?

Or maybe he thinks that there was some kind of magic non-organic food-stuff that didn't require killing plants or animals. Well, come to think of it, you don't need to kill the entire plant to eat from it. Actually, I realize now that you could still eat lizard tail burgers before the fall.

I guess I didn't think this through myself...

Date: 2009/09/30 06:36:16, Link
Author: Raevmo
Denyse rambles
(= “God will just LOVE you if you blow yourself up in order to murder and maim others”? Yeah really. And if your parents think that is okay, please find a new set of parents. In all believable theistic traditions, only God chooses martyrs; it is NOT a matter for private judgment. Private judgement [sic] is too easily corrupted by local or personal issues.)

In unbelievable theistic traditions on the other hand...

How does Denyse know that God did not choose suicide bombers? Is that her private judgment?

Date: 2009/09/30 11:44:36, Link
Author: Raevmo
That has to be one of the weirdest threads EVER.

Somehow Clive still manages to pile up the tard even higher:

I think you’re pet theory may be right. The derivative of the original creation was changed as a result of the fall, and as a result death was introduced into the world. Remember also that prior to the flood, there were no carnivorous animals, so two dispensational changes have occurred (fall and flood) to get to the present, both of which had physiological impacts on the very created order of nature and all of life.

(my bold)

WTF? Prior to the flood? I thought it was prior to the fall, which is weird enough.

Note how he says "remember" -- as if Clive and his deranged YEC buddies were actual witnesses.

Date: 2009/10/01 02:24:52, Link
Author: Raevmo
chunky-the-closet-boy just can't help hisself. He had to graphically express his desire to nail don provan from behind.

Date: 2009/10/01 15:05:27, Link
Author: Raevmo
Alas, clivebaby is not a sock. I share Oleg's utter amazement, being from the sophisticated Ole Urup and all, but I believe Clive really is that stupid. I suspect he is one of Dr^n Dembski's student-fans from his retarded babble college that sucked up to him for so long that the good Dr^n had to give him a bone or people would start to talk about that weird boy hanging on to his pants all the time.

Date: 2009/10/01 15:30:19, Link
Author: Raevmo
My guess is that the Drrrrrrr  allowed this simply to get more traffic and more sales of his pathetic books.

Date: 2009/10/02 03:04:21, Link
Author: Raevmo
fifth monarchy man speaks for the rest of the world:

You only think so because you begin with the assumption that it’s possible that God does not exist. You have not presented one iota of evidence that this is the case. You just assert it and expect the rest of the world to agree.

We don’t

What a lunatic.

Date: 2009/10/04 13:56:05, Link
Author: Raevmo

Not so fast, Eurosnob: Dutchman's Noah's Ark Opens Doors

Homo ignoramus is a widely distributed species.

I resent that jealous swipe at our creationists. Our Dutch Ark is much more realistic than your American Creation Museum. It doesn't have dinosaurs!

You, sir, are a moral monster.

Date: 2009/10/04 14:36:26, Link
Author: Raevmo
Salvador Cordova once again unwittingly flaunts his maths ignorance, amidst other nonsense:

Example: "do all the square roots of the numbers in a set obeying field axioms exist in that field? Yes or no?"

That statement cannot be answered yes or no deterministically from field axioms alone. One must make a free will choice of what additional faith axiom one wishes to invoke.

If one chooses a field like the rationals, the answer is "no". I one chooses the field of the reals, the answer is yes. There is not deterministic answer to the question if ones starting point is field axioms. Free will is needed to resolve the mathematical question: "do all the square roots of the numbers in a set obeying field axioms exist in that field? Yes or no?"

Um, what's the square root of the real number -1 again?

Is free will needed to resolve the question: "Is Salvador Cordova a pompous idiot? Yes or no?" Yes or no?

Date: 2009/10/05 12:47:47, Link
Author: Raevmo

I'll just have you know that I've been citing Szostak on obscure blogs and newsgroups long before he won the Nobel Prize.

We know you are Szostak, Zach. Congrats!

I bet those Swedish Academy members must have been reading those blogs. What blogs, pray tell? So I can cunningly lobby for my own Nobel as well...

Date: 2009/10/05 15:26:24, Link
Author: Raevmo
Alan, you're saying guts = Nelson Alonzo? Never heard of him. What are his "creodentials"?

I read your exchange with Mike Gene. Same old tired Mike accusing anyone of being "closed-minded" whenever they don't buy his front-loading "clues". Any idea who Mike is? He's clearly not a scientist working in a, let's say, quantitative field, since he doesn't have the first clue about data analysis and probability. He might be some second rate psychoanalyst or dentist I'm guessing.

Date: 2009/10/05 16:41:38, Link
Author: Raevmo
IDguy did the "Ya see" many times already on TT. There is no doubt (p<1/10^150) he is Joe G, despite his silly lies that he is "Jim". Sorry, I'm too lazy to dig up a link to a "ya see" moment.

Date: 2009/10/08 08:02:41, Link
Author: Raevmo
Jeez, olegt & Zachriel, don't you guys ever get enough of "debating" nested hierarchies with poor old masochistic Joe?

(edit: haha, Joe is calling olegt trollegt)

Date: 2009/10/08 15:29:41, Link
Author: Raevmo
Zachriel asks
(But why doesn't the Telic Community protest his inane babbling?)

Beats me. Tardmaster Bradford, who is only slightly less stupid than Joe G, seems to support anyone on his side, no matter how rude and/or stupid. I can't recall a single counterexample out of dreadfully many. Maybe they think a black knight is better than no knight?

Date: 2009/10/12 18:24:27, Link
Author: Raevmo
The latest from quite possibly the most deranged TT commenter, the self-proclaimed fundamentalist fifth monarchy man:
Please understand I have no problem in folks claiming that some dinosaurs perished in the flood as long as they affirm that Noah had two brontosauruses on the Ark.

WTF? He appears to be entirely serious though. Is there an accurate description of brontosauruses in the babble?

Date: 2009/10/13 03:43:13, Link
Author: Raevmo
and what is he going to do if he has a problem?  turn you into a pillar of salt?

no, because that would make him a rich man. Camels, needles and all that. Roman soldiers used to get paid in salt, hence the word salary, remember?

More likely, he'll turn you into lobster.

The Google says that he's not alone in believing Noah had brontosaurs on his vessel. Some idiots even argue that they were stored as two eggs to conserve space. Then how the fuck did they know they had a male and a female, huh? Did they run samples in a PCR to pick up W or Y-linked signals? Or can we deduce that Noah knew about temperature-dependent sex determination? Or did he allow same-sex dinosaur couples, and does this really explain their extinction? Inquiring minds want to know.

Date: 2009/10/13 03:47:52, Link
Author: Raevmo
Bradford has a good question:
Olegt, are you so bored with real science that you need to make foreys into and analysis of OT passages?

The privileges of tenure...

Date: 2009/10/13 09:08:48, Link
Author: Raevmo
Ubermoron tribune7:
Our poor are richer than the rich in a lot of countries using metrics such as appliances, automobiles, caloric intake, clothing etc.

Hahaha. Our poor have more appliances that your rich, and and... they are fatter too!

Date: 2009/10/15 17:50:33, Link
Author: Raevmo
Yes it is. All was can truly say and not become self-referentially incoherent is that some dogmas are wrong, and some right.

Excuse me? That is simply incoherent, both self-referentially and allo-referentially, even inter-referentially.

Date: 2009/10/17 18:32:51, Link
Author: Raevmo
If we know the universe consists of N<inf objects, and we don't know what proportion of those objects are ravens, then it is true that observing a yellow banana is evidence supporting the proposition that all ravens are black. However, if we know the proportion of objects in the universe that are ravens, then observing a yellow banana is not evidence. But since we are unlikely to know the proportion of ravens, it's reasonable to accept that a yellow banana adds evidence to the black raven hypothesis. Of course, if N is large - and it is very large - observing a yellow banana has almost no effect at all on our posterior (O(1/N))

Date: 2009/10/18 03:39:19, Link
Author: Raevmo
you're right, mr yankee-nekulturny keiths, I should have said if the proportion of ravens and N is known then observing a yellow banana is not evidence.  :angry:

Date: 2009/10/18 06:13:43, Link
Author: Raevmo
Jesus, America is fucked.  Is there any country that has a decent science program, educational program, and let's me keep my guns?

Finland comes to mind. They even have school shootings to make the Yankee immigrants feel right at home, and almost
everybody seems to be a hunter. Personal observation: even some biologists go shooting grouse after spending their working day observing them.

Warning: do not walk in the forest on the first day of the moose hunting season without wearing fluorescent garb. Drunk hunters will mistake you for a moose.

Date: 2009/10/18 13:31:06, Link
Author: Raevmo
Consulting "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science", by E.T. Jaynes, I found that the black raven/yellow banana situation is apparently a famous paradox, known as Hempel's paradox. But instead of bananas and ravens the original uses crows and shoes:

"Now the hypothesis that all crows are black is logically equivalent to the statement that all non-black things are non-crows, and this is supported by the observation of a white shoe."

Jaynes doesn't buy it and refers to a paper by Good (1967), entitled "The white shoe is a red herring". Good gives the following counterexample: In world 1 there are 1 million birds, of which 100 are crows, all black. In world two there are 2 million birds, of which 200,000 are black crows and 1,800,000 are white crows. We observe one bird, which proves to be a black crow. Which world are we in?

Well, the odds ratio is (200,000/2,000,000)/(100/1,000,000)=1000, hence we're 1000 times as likely to be in world 2 (where not all crows are black) rather than in world 1 (where are crows are black).

Jaynes argues that the general premise "A case of an hypothesis supports the hypothesis" is false.

Date: 2009/10/18 13:39:26, Link
Author: Raevmo
Is this sig-worthy or what?

I am no mathematician and don’t use well-defined terms, as I don’t know any.

Date: 2009/10/19 04:57:29, Link
Author: Raevmo
Fully agree with keiths' analysis. It's a bit ironic that Jaynes didn't fully get it, seeing as he was an early champion of Bayesian thinking. I wonder what the local Bayesian thinks. I'm talking about -- of course -- Bob O'H.

Date: 2009/10/20 17:43:00, Link
Author: Raevmo
Morally deprived moron Denyse O'Leary manages to write:
If the provenance of the programs addressed is questionable, it is entirely due to Dawkins’s unwillingness or inability to provide the original. And why, exactly?

Am I supposed to believe that he just somehow lost or can’t remember a program that helped make him rich and famous?

Aw, come on, tell me another one. It’s comedy nite, right?

If I needed any further evidence that neo-Darwinism is bust and can’t be fixed, this would sure convince me.

Added: I don’t know a single reason at this point to think that the original code ever existed, so I would just forget about it.

What a sad cunt.

Date: 2009/10/21 02:35:52, Link
Author: Raevmo
Gil and David met before and chatted in no less than two different languages:
I met David at Biola University shortly after the first edition came out. We chatted in both English and French.

Luckily, I overheard their chat. It wasn't just the first edition that came out that day.

Gil: You are my favorite genius, mon amour. Well, except myself bien sure.
David: Oh Gil, quelle jolie frillee shirt you are wearing ajourdhui. What is your numero de room?
Gil: Does vous mindez if my good but dim buddy chunkdz joins us for la fun?
David: Mais non, but let's make sure he doesn't say anything. Il faut stuffer his petit mouth with something. But with what? Hmmm, wait...I have an idea...

The rest of the conversation is unfit for a family values board like this.


Date: 2009/10/21 14:09:56, Link
Author: Raevmo
GilBaby used to be an evil atheist darwinist, right? Could it be he took the lard jeebus into his heart in order to expel teh geyz demonz? I mean, let's examine the multiple lines of evidence here. The man (1) studied french, (2) studied french literature, (3) studied classical piano, (4) poses in frilly shirts, (5) has the hots for David Berlinski, (6) rides a Harley. Each piece of evidence on its own is already quite damning, if not entirely conclusive, but together... QED.

Date: 2009/10/21 14:20:53, Link
Author: Raevmo
Good questions. Has anybody ever seen Gil while the Dr^2 was wearing his famous huge sweater? There is room for an entire orgy in that sweater.

Date: 2009/10/23 17:34:21, Link
Author: Raevmo
What is wrong with Allen MacNeill?
And thank you, Sal; despite our differences, you have always treated me as a gentleman as well. That's how such debates should be conducted, and I appreciate both your commitment to your ideas and your commitment to courtesy. Take care!

Sal is a despicable liar for jeebus and he refuses to learn anything from the numerous serious corrections to his bizarre claims. Bah!

Date: 2009/10/25 04:45:55, Link
Author: Raevmo
I noticed the sidewiki comments at UD have disappeared. Same story at TT. Do site owners have the power to make that happen? If so, sidewiki is utterly useless.

Date: 2009/10/25 08:01:08, Link
Author: Raevmo
Mark Frank explains -- with a politeness that must be very hard to muster -- why he ignores the deranged drivel of bornagain77:


I am aware that you have been posting a lot of comment directed to me. I apologise for not responding but

1) they are typically long and include several external references which makes them extremely time consuming

2) we have such different ideas on almost everything that I feel we will never find enough common ground to make for an interesting debate

I am sure others will benefit from your comments but I wanted to explain why I am not responding.

Who benefits from his comments? I want names!

Date: 2009/10/25 09:06:49, Link
Author: Raevmo
the fucking nutjob replies to Mark with gems like this:
Is it that you find the thought of God distasteful to your lifestyle? Surely this can’t be for of what ultimate reward is it to you to be so biased to the point of denying reality? I surely can see no reward in denying the truth of reality (i.e. I would call it being delusional) and in fact in the long run, I deeply believe your stubbornness to face the reality of God dead on very well may lead to you being separated from the living God eternally, Yes, separated from The Living God who is the source of all Life and all that is good! (John 1:1)

Completely devoid of any self-awareness.

Date: 2009/10/25 13:30:09, Link
Author: Raevmo
bornagain77 is an asshole, too
ELL, IF you had truly done your best to understand the evidence so far then you wouldn’t be an evolutionist anymore would you? So why should I trust you anymore than I trust that paradigm of atheistic virtue: the non-debating and blatantly deceptive Dawkins: or even the Eucharist desecrating militant Meyers??
For you to “so graciously” offer to sit on the sidelines and take potshots at arguments, without ever truly considering the merits of the issue, is a little less than forthright with the matter and has not enhanced my opinion of your debating style, or inherent honesty, in the least.

The lunatic now seems have his own blog as well:

Moderated of course.

And just a single post, dated October 19, 2009. It reads almost exactly as any of his crazy UD screeds, except it's 100 times as long. He probably uses it as a convenient online source for his cut-and-paste jobs. Maybe he even uses a random sampler to generate automatic posts. What a maroon.

Date: 2009/10/25 18:04:03, Link
Author: Raevmo
Good lord, it turns out that ID guy is not Joe G after all. How could we have been so wrong? By ID guy's own admission - and why shouldn't we believe him? - he is in fact James Hartley.

Date: 2009/10/26 18:13:55, Link
Author: Raevmo
Great post by Seversky

I love the Ranger Marcus Cole quote!

Date: 2009/10/29 03:16:36, Link
Author: Raevmo
vjtorley has an answer to everything, no matter how ridiculous:
(I am taking Adam here to have been the acknowledged leader of the human race, in its original state, regardless of how many human beings there may have been at the beginning of human history.)

Assume the babble is absolutely true, then engage in mental gymnastics to make the fairy tales (a) maximally logically consistent, (b) minimally departing from scientific understanding of the world.

Shame how religion rots the brains of people who are obviously not stupid.

Date: 2009/10/30 09:13:13, Link
Author: Raevmo
It is not just the origin of nature that must be explained but also its continued existence.

That's a major assumption right there. Perhaps the universe actually disappears every nanosecond and is then almost* exactly re-created approximately half an hour later (enough time for Jeebus to grab a sandwich and a cup of coco).

*I say almost exactly, because the memories of StephenB being proven wrong over and over again are obviously removed from his brain at every re-creation event.

Date: 2009/10/30 09:24:24, Link
Author: Raevmo
The morphodyke plays the persecution card, again:
If you are not a Christian, you can even hold “death to the Jews” marches in the streets of Toronto.

No Christians I have ever heard of would hold one anyway, but others do

I guess there were no True Christians among the Nazis. Well, at least they didn't go marching in Toronto.

EDIT: ha, again first on a new page

Date: 2009/10/31 04:54:36, Link
Author: Raevmo
Does anyone (keiths?) remember (and have a link to) that embarrassing post by Gil where he asked for assistance doing a simple summation (in his mind a Herculean mathematical effort)?

Date: 2009/10/31 12:20:14, Link
Author: Raevmo
With all due respect Gil, coding simulations does not a scientist make. Evolutionary models (e.g. population genetics) are often mathematically quite sophisticated, far beyond your credentials I believe.

How will Gil handle this provocation? Prediction: finite element methods, blablabla

Date: 2009/11/01 11:08:35, Link
Author: Raevmo
StephenB is a sick fuck:
As a general rule, atheists cannot bear the idea of self-disclipline with respect to sexual activity, and that is the basis for their anger.

Date: 2009/11/04 06:05:09, Link
Author: Raevmo
ID Guy (aka Joe G) is trying to be funny:
So if I find a child that doesn't resemble either parent the "theory" is falsified?

Ever seen a child with downs syndrome? :mrgreen:

Or did the storks just miss Mongolia by a half of planet?

And if a child born in Mongolia has downs, would anyone know?


Rock is shocked - shocked!
Go fuck yourself, ID guy.

Sorry, TTers, but that is about as dignified a response as I can muster to such stupidity.

It's your business Bradford, or whoever is in charge of this asylum, but if that's what its going to be, then this is a waste of my time.

Bradford appears to be reading this thread. Hi Bradford!
Remedial measures for incivility have been relaxed of late. To some extent this can be attributed to a tendency by some to take their more uncivil comments off-list and direct them at other TT commenters.

Be advised that closer scrutiny will be directed at comments as of this morning. Direct your comments at the OP or at an argument being made by a commenter. Do not get personal. If you do not like uncivil comments directed at you, minimize the sarcasm and mocking tones in your own comments. Focus on issues, not people. Nuff said.

The dumbass seems incapable of directly criticizing ID guy. Joe obviously knows something that Bradford doesn't want to be made public. But what? My best guess: Joe has a video of Bradford and chunkdz engaging in unbiblical "wrestling".

Date: 2009/11/04 09:22:22, Link
Author: Raevmo
Wow, here is some heavy duty uncut Tard, delivered by Frost122585.

Be careful! Do not read all at once. Here's a small but potent sample:    
In the 2001 movie “Swordfish” staring John Travolta- there is a scene in the beginning of the movie (which is actually a flash forward to near the end of the story) where he is talking to these cops about his plan and demands involving the money he is trying to steal and the hostages he is using for extortion and leverage. And the character Travolta is playing is critiquing all these “real” heist movies (that is his fictional charter is talking about actual movies) that he has watched and enjoyed- and then the cops critique his critique by saying that his plan would not work because in the movies there is always a “morality tale”- as which point Travolta says

“well some things are stranger than fiction.”

The theme of the movie is about “misdirection.”

The application or analogy to physics might be “is a universal theory of physics correct if it proves true but is not about what it claims to be about“?
[my b]
Ahhhhh! That's the good stuff.

Date: 2009/11/04 09:38:43, Link
Author: Raevmo
The mines are rich in pure Tard nuggets today. Here's one by Brent, a relatively new commenter I think, but not even dumb.
It would be funny if it weren’t so sad. Atheists have to, and do believe in God . . ., they must in order to have something to throw their stones at.

It would be sad if it weren't so funny.

Date: 2009/11/05 08:42:50, Link
Author: Raevmo
Frosty has a great idea:
I agree with you O’leary [about no "Darwinism" in schools of course]. I think they need to focus more on objectivity than speculation. But as far as useful useful information- schools need to teach early classes regarding economics and investing- because that is one of the most useful subjects that students will have to deal with their entire lives.

Date: 2009/11/06 07:17:07, Link
Author: Raevmo
boreagain77 refuses to back up his crazy claims, and is being a total asshole too:  
Nak, still enamored with all deceptions Darwin? Do you have a little shrine of Darwin in your room that you bow down to,,,sort of like a little bearded Buddha thing?

If I listed the reference what difference would it make to you Nak?, you would just ignore it as you do everything else and move on to some other piece of crap darwinists evidence. As far as I can tell, You have absolutely no interest in being fair and objective with the evidence ,,so why should I even give you the time of day much less references?

Nakashima nails him politely:
You regularly give references to many things unasked for, but you can’t supply one for an idea that is very basic to your whole argument? Just one peer reviewed article showing photons are destroyed during quantum teleportation, is it too much to ask of you? Your reticence is uncharacteristic.

Date: 2009/11/06 11:24:37, Link
Author: Raevmo
Hahaha, Nakashimi is still on a roll making boreagain77's head explode.

Well Nak , but of course, IBM Research is not even good enough for you! Your dogmatism is pathetic!!! And sickening!!!

I suggest you, in all the glory of your unfounded self-deluded genius,,, write IBM Research and inform these brilliant men that the original photon was not destroyed, and that the photon certainly still existed, so that they can make the needed correction to their blatant typographical error on their Research Page,,, I am sure they will stop all the important work they are doing right now when they find that the infamous pest of UD fame, Nak, has caught them in a severe error. How they will ever be able to live down the shame I do not know,,, but if you console them, and pull some strings for them, I am sure, after a long bout of depression, they may be able to pull themselves together and get a job at McDonald’s or something. They would forever be in your debt! (Or else they could have a good belly laugh for the day?)

A job at McDonald's is at least a job. I doubt boreagain77 has a job, seeing as he has the time to be posting his drivel almost full time. Didn't he admit before he was a controlled substances junkie, until Jeebus saved him (or was Jeebus doing us a favor by providing entertainment)?

Date: 2009/11/08 10:38:03, Link
Author: Raevmo
A new sock has popped up in the Ken Miller in Birmingham thread, for those in the know with a very familiar style.

Actually, they [molecular phylogenies] do agree with stunning precision. Nobody expects them to agree perfectly, because the reconstructions are probabilistic. However, the congruence between them is comparable to the precision of our best scientific theories, such as quantum electrodynamics.

Grab the popcorn. Joe G on 1..2..3..

Date: 2009/11/09 02:49:07, Link
Author: Raevmo
Thanks for the link, Ogre. Great stuff! One of the socks should post it in a UD thread where StephenB is claiming the moral high ground.

Date: 2009/11/09 06:53:50, Link
Author: Raevmo
Oh no!
In fact there is now overwhelming evidence to suggest evolution cannot occur (Behe, Sanford).

Says raving lunatic boreagain77. So the evidence is overwhelming, but it only suggests that evolution cannot occur. All those scientists who have seen evolution happen in real time are therefore deluded or lying.

boreagain77 says it, I believe it, that settles it.

Date: 2009/11/09 15:36:09, Link
Author: Raevmo
Almost proudly, annoying moron jerry touts his ignorance:
PPS – in the 120-150 million years that birds have been around why haven’t they developed tools or are essentially the same as when they started. Oh we have lots of varieties but birds are essentially the same. Not much action in Birdland.

Yeah right. In fact,
The New Caledonian Crow is the only non-human species with a record of inventing new tools  by modifying existing ones, then passing these innovations to other individuals in the cultural group.


Date: 2009/11/09 17:02:57, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 09 2009,16:57)
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 09 2009,14:36)
PPS – in the 120-150 million years that birds have been around why haven’t they developed tools or are essentially the same as when they started. Oh we have lots of varieties but birds are essentially the same. Not much action in Birdland.

So in his world, penguins, ostriches, hawks, pigeons, vultures, and roadrunners are all virtually identical to each other?

Why care about this world, when the next world is all that counts?

Date: 2009/11/09 18:04:57, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 09 2009,17:09)
If they don't care about this world, why do they worry about what other people say about the diversity of birds?

Because they don't want evolution to be true.

Date: 2009/11/10 13:54:16, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2009,12:37)
jerry: it takes over 20 million years to form a new species

Mark Frank: Where did you get that figure?

Most likely by reading a quote-mine somewhere.

Prager & Wilson, Slow evolutionary loss of the potential for interspecific hybridization in birds, PNAS 1975:

Birds have lost the potential for interspecific hybridization slowly... it is inferred that the average hybridization species pair diverged from a common ancestor about 22 million years ago. The corresponding period for frog species pairs capable of hybridization is about 21 million years, while for hybridizable placental mammals it is only 2 to 3 million years. Thus birds resemble frogs in having lost the potential for interspecific hybridization about 10 times as slowly as have mammals.

The key phrase is interspecific hybridization (meaning between different species).

A plausible explanation is that in mammals there is more scope for mother-offspring genetic conflict while the offspring are in utero. Offspring genes (especially those inherited from the father) are selected to suck lots of resources from mom, while maternal genes might prefer to spread them around more evenly over multiple litters. This might lead to a kind of genetic arms race that might in turn lead to interspecific genetic divergence and incompatibility. This wouldn't work in frogs or birds, where the offspring have much less opportunity to 'force' the mother in handing out the good stuff.

Date: 2009/11/11 08:31:13, Link
Author: Raevmo
What a terribly sexist picture. As if blond girls are stupid.

For shame!

Date: 2009/11/11 12:22:48, Link
Author: Raevmo
nested hierarchies [consult Joseph],

How very revealing. Even StephenB can see that Joe G is a total idiot. To claim that Joe G has ever refuted anybody´s argument betrays his utter dishonesty.

Date: 2009/11/12 10:26:47, Link
Author: Raevmo
Joe G the ID gay:

Anytime Scotty.

I could be at Norwich U in a couple of hours.

Looking for a date, Joe? With grease or dry?

Date: 2009/11/12 17:43:08, Link
Author: Raevmo
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?

Date: 2009/11/12 18:13:39, Link
Author: Raevmo
I was despondent over the fact that all ravens aren't black.  Learning that Richtard is my father pushed me over the edge.

I hate to break it to you, but Richard isn't your father. I hacked into the Canadian birth registry, and it turns out that you're the unwanted child of Denyse O'Leary and Bornagain77 (created when they shared the same rehab facility). They gave you up for adoption, and you were raised by StephenB.

Date: 2009/11/12 18:36:42, Link
Author: Raevmo
I forgot to mention that StephenB and Richard were very close friends, so it's possible that you think Rich was your actual daddy.

Date: 2009/11/14 16:25:16, Link
Author: Raevmo
Great that Sal is back. Let's nail him and his stupid model. O man, I wish I had a sock at UD.

Date: 2009/11/20 12:43:05, Link
Author: Raevmo
Dear Dr. W. Dembski –
à propos publication of a seminal work: what’s the status of the peer-review of your article “The Search for as Search?”

Dr^n replies:
DiEb: It was accepted at a peer-reviewed journal that was a year behind in its publication schedule. We waited and waited … and waited, and now the journal is two years behind. So we withdrew it and resubmitted to another journal.

Yeah, right. Bwahahaha.

Date: 2009/11/20 13:58:01, Link
Author: Raevmo
Hahaha, water bears are tardigrades.

But it gets even better! They are also eutelic!

That's a great sock name on multiple levels.

Date: 2009/11/20 14:11:32, Link
Author: Raevmo
Ah, so that's what the whooshing noise was.

Telic, as in Telic Thoughts. Eu as in eusocial. Really.

Is it too nerdy to be funny?

Date: 2009/11/23 11:53:48, Link
Author: Raevmo
Good to see that annoying prick jerry getting his ass handed to him on multiple threads. Not that any of the UD regulars will take note...

<back to work>

Date: 2009/11/25 04:54:17, Link
Author: Raevmo
Why is it so important to the fundies that climate change (let alone AGW) isn't happening? Would it somehow reflect badly on Jeebus? Can someone please explain?!?

Date: 2009/11/28 08:37:50, Link
Author: Raevmo
O'Leary in OP of same thread:
Many people today routinely make a living misrepresenting facts

Not a trace of irony.

Date: 2009/11/28 09:30:08, Link
Author: Raevmo
Not gone yet.

Anybody else find this claim by O'Leary hard to believe?
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.

Date: 2009/11/28 09:38:22, Link
Author: Raevmo
Vjtorley is exhibit A in the case that religion rots the brain of people that would otherwise be classified as very intelligent.

Scoff if you will, but I have read that mammals and birds – the only two classes of creatures generally considered to be sentient – differ from other animals in one important respect: they are capable of visually tracking moving objects.


Date: 2009/11/28 09:58:52, Link
Author: Raevmo
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?
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".

Hey, don't blame me - my genes made me say it.

Date: 2009/12/01 08:23:48, Link
Author: Raevmo
Good lord, is there no end to Joe's stupidity?

As I said there isn’t any evidence that genes determine anything.

And you can’t provide any data that supports the claim of determination genes.


Doesn't Joe have a Y chromosome?

Date: 2009/12/03 09:25:21, Link
Author: Raevmo
IOW, 10^200 as an expression is computable only by intelligence, not by the physical universe. You can’t even write the number out because there aren’t enough quanta in the known universe to do so.


Date: 2009/12/09 15:03:49, Link
Author: Raevmo
What's a pH.D. thesis? A thesis about the pH of Deuterium?

Hahaha! Gotcha! Seriously though, what a piece of crap. How is it even possible to get a PhD degree with that?

<eurosnob>Only in America!</eurosnob>

Date: 2009/12/10 04:21:41, Link
Author: Raevmo
Bradford in the same thread:

I have a question for all of those who for the last few years have been playing up threats to science. Where are you? Is the silence an admission of hypocrisy?

No, moron, you banned them.

Date: 2010/01/25 13:34:47, Link
Author: Raevmo
A well-deserved bannination. Zachriel politely cleaned Bradford's clock on basic economics, Bradford's field of "expertise". After all, he sells quality biotech products from home, as he once confessed. Whatever that means. Selling viagra over the internet?

Meanwhile, on another thread, William Brookfield vomits great uncut tard
On what basis are we to believe in the existence of a material world? On material evidence? That's circular. material evidence cannot use to prove the existence of a material world.


Date: 2010/01/28 06:01:55, Link
Author: Raevmo
Looks like Bradford finally managed to single-handedly (with a little help from gay porn addict chunkdz) destroy TT with his stupidity, fascist rants and relentless bannination of critics. Apparently, the unfair bannination of Zachriel made Bilbo, the last remaining slightly open-minded TT poster leave the asylum. It is noteworthy that some TT regulars said farewell to Bilbo, but Bradford remained silent. Since then, a full day without comments, despite two new posts by Bradford.

Well done, Bradford!

Date: 2010/02/15 17:09:42, Link
Author: Raevmo
I wouldn't worry too much about Joy. She's mostly harmless and on our side in the culture wars, and she can be quite entertaining. I bet she used to be a hot chick 50 years ago.

Thing is, she's a pathological liar, making up stuff all the time. Like being a scientist, or that crap about her grandson knowing the dinosaurs. She's a wannabe.

Date: 2010/02/18 01:28:10, Link
Author: Raevmo
Why did Dembski bring up Dahmer in the first place?

In the PNAS paper referenced in the thread below Dembski's quotemine fest:
In fact, the successful application of the insanity defense is quite rare, both in the United States and elsewhere. An example where such a defense was not successful concerned the case of Jeffrey Dahmer, who was found guilty and sentenced to 957 years in prison (where he was subsequently murdered) for the death of seventeen young men from 1978 to 1991. Dahmer was a necrophiliac, performing gross sexual acts on the dead bodies, as well as performing frontal lobotomies and boiling their skulls in acid. The rationale for the guilty verdict was that it was claimed that he knew what he was doing was wrong, as evidenced by the fact that he lied to the police about his activities. I raise this case to illustrate two points: First, the legal system assumes a capacity for individuals not only to distinguish between right and wrong, but to act according to those distinctions—that is, an integral component of individuals who have this capacity of free will from those who lack it (32).


Date: 2010/03/12 18:02:23, Link
Author: Raevmo
Happy birthday, Alan!

I did a postdoc in Montpellier. Love the French way of life. Why do you even communicate with US nekulturny like keiths?

Date: 2010/03/13 09:37:25, Link
Author: Raevmo

Date: 2010/03/18 12:39:33, Link
Author: Raevmo
Sheldon is just bluffing:

Your objection that Gaussian–> “probability distribution clustered about a mean” is of course true in a very general way, but doesn’t distinguish between say Gaussian, Cauchy, Levy, and Poisson distributions. In other words, if you understood statistics, you wouldn’t be making the accusation.

2) Every distribution has a mean

My bold. The idiot doesn't know that the Cauchy distribution doesn't have a mean, or indeed any higher moment.

Edit: Bob is right. What Allen is saying about Gaussians is mostly a load of bollocks too.

BTW: nice story about Gaussians by ET Jaynes right here

Date: 2010/03/19 09:48:15, Link
Author: Raevmo
But this kind of semi-racist crap from Slimy Sal goes unchallenged:
HusseinCare does not equal compassion for the sick and afflicted. Certain Catholics don't realize they just made a pact with the devil.

My parents are Catholic (dad was a catholic until the day he passed away). They rejected socialism. Catholic institutions should not be speaking on behalf of all Catholics. They should not be encouraging socialism in the name of justice. They should be encouraging justice in the name of justice, and not empower the likes of President Hussein who deep in his heart likely has more regard for anything but Jesus Christ.

Date: 2010/04/03 03:46:34, Link
Author: Raevmo
Mr BA^77,

Did uncle Darwin promise you anything?

As you know, all the atheist boys and girls write letters to Santa Charles just before Darwinmas (Feb 12) asking for gifts. The legend goes that Santa Charles arrives at midnight on Darwinmas, riding a beagle pulled through the sky by eight finches, all slightly different.

Now if the boy or girl was good that year (but not in an absolute or objective moral sense of the word), Santa Charles would look at the phylogenetic tree they had decorated and leave a present under the branches, down near LUCA. But if the child had been bad that year (in a strictly relative and socially or culturally determined sense), then they got a piece of metamorphosed Permian vegetation instead.

My letter was always the same:
Dear Santa Charles,
How are you? I hear it is hot in the Galapagos, where you spend all year making presents for children with the help of some very dexterous pandas and an outsourcer in Hong Kong.
A randomized telephone survey of my grandparents concluded that I was good this year, with an error band of plus or minus 3%. So I thought I would share with you some gift suggestions.”

I always asked for the same two things, peace on earth, and a pet shark with a laser on its forehead. I never got either one. But I never got the metamorphosed Permian vegetation, so I think it was just the margin of error that was my problem.

Date: 2010/04/07 06:20:26, Link
Author: Raevmo
The Darwinistic Formula:

int_{Big Bang}^{End Times} (Evolution + Materialism)dt != Baby Jesus

Date: 2010/05/05 07:52:08, Link
Author: Raevmo
A poster going by the name JoeGB spotted on The Guardian's Cif

Date: 2010/06/24 01:17:18, Link
Author: Raevmo
StephenB sets a new record:
Because O’Leary knows how to write

My distance-from-the-truth metric just went way beyond infinity.

Date: 2010/06/24 01:27:14, Link
Author: Raevmo
Clive in the next post:
So, the obvious truth is that morality doesn’t evolve; it may improve, but improvement implies a steady standard that is not changed, for if all were changed, there would be no improvement, no judgment could be made comparing two things to themselves. This seems obvious to me.

Let's strip the "argument" to its bare bones:

- It's obvious that A
- Maybe not-A, but not-A implies A, for if not-A then A.
- Therefore B
- Obviously

Date: 2010/06/25 16:29:07, Link
Author: Raevmo
Clive-baby, spoken like a true theologian:    
But things like love and mercy, justice and dignity, mathematics and morality, are just as solid as they ever were, for we understand their makeup. We understand what makes them what they are, whereas we have no equivalent understanding of what makes up matter, or why two things connected physically should be connected philosophically.


Date: 2010/07/07 16:03:37, Link
Author: Raevmo
Damn you Spaintards for stealing our revenge on Germany!!!

Hup Holland hup!!!

Date: 2010/07/12 17:35:23, Link
Author: Raevmo
The end of gravity?

Now is the time to buy those mcdonalds stock options, before the rest of the world learns that weight is just an illusion...

Date: 2010/07/16 15:38:44, Link
Author: Raevmo
Just an FYI, but when I clicked on the links above an hour or so ago, I got a pop-up for some malware trojan called "Your Protection". Both seemed to redirect to the site where I got a message like "Warning: Your computer could be infected! Would you like to run a scan now?" There was no "no" choice". I just Went to Task Manager and shut down my browser, though it still tried to load.

Same here.

Date: 2010/07/28 15:00:38, Link
Author: Raevmo
Isn't it interesting that almost none of the usual macho UD crew (StephenB, DonaldM, GordonM, Unpleasant Blowhard, etc.) care to comment on Corny's own blog, where moderation is minimal? DonaldM even attacks on UD comments made by NickM on Corny's blog. AFAIK only BA77 has shown up a few times at Corny's blog, but quickly fled when his "arguments" were demolished. What a bunch of pathetic cowards.

Date: 2010/08/09 13:06:23, Link
Author: Raevmo

I had Google translate your post into French, then from French to German, then from German back to English.

Some of it is lost or garbled, but it is certainly better than no translation at all.

I must have been soooo tempting to say that the translation O'Leary -> French -> German -> English actually improved the original considerably...

Date: 2010/08/15 18:08:41, Link
Author: Raevmo
Nothing on UD yet about "Hausergate". Seems right up O'Leary's, um, alley. <shudder>

Date: 2010/09/11 04:27:52, Link
Author: Raevmo
I'm a big BarryR fan. He wrote to StephenB:
—You say you know graph theory. Great. What are the universal laws of graph theory and how do you know they’re universal? I’ll bring home my Scary Yellow Springer Book o’ Graph Theory tonight and we can compare notes.”

To which StephenB replies:
We don’t need a discussion about Springer’s Graph theory

Of course StephenB doesn't know that the publishing company Springer published a well-known series of yellow-colored books on mathematical topics. Instead he thinks there's such a thing as Springer's Graph theory, a subject of which he claims to "know  enough about it". Bwahaha. What an ignorant liar.

Date: 2010/09/12 15:50:26, Link
Author: Raevmo
Clive is such a pathetic little drooling Lewis fan:
If I had to compare a computer programmer and an Oxford don who received three firsts in his education and who Cambridge invented a chair for him, I think I’d choose the latter, if you’re going to play the credentials game. Yours is nil compared to Lewis’s.

First he claims Lewis was a professor in philosophy at age 26, was subsequently shown wrong and didn't apologize, now he calls BarryR, PhD in computer science, a "computer programmer" with nil credentials. I have to puke.

Date: 2010/09/13 10:33:20, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 13 2010,06:18)
No better place than the Bathroom Wall for this one. If you are near South Bend, IN, you might consider attending this conference on Galileo was wrong; the Church was right in early November.

Oh, and buy the book. And the t-shirt. And the coffee mug...

Is this for real?

[European superiority]
Only in America!
[/European superiority]

Date: 2010/09/13 11:28:30, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Sep. 13 2010,11:18)
Quote (Raevmo @ Sep. 13 2010,10:33)
[European superiority]
Only in America!
[/European superiority]

Ahem ...

Link 1

Link 2

Aw, come on, that isn't really Europe.

Date: 2010/09/14 05:37:10, Link
Author: Raevmo
If the ICR says so, it must be true! Oh no!

In the name of "fairness", the Netherlands has state-sponsored religious TV channels, including the "EO" (Evangelical Broadcasting Company) and the Muslim Broadcasting Company. Hilariously, last year or the year before, the boss of the EO publicly denounced YEC and ID and confessed on TV that the evidence had convinced him that evolution is true. He even signed a document to that effect. It sent shock waves through the Dutch bible belt.

Date: 2010/10/23 10:14:11, Link
Author: Raevmo
It's not natural selection unless there is a tendency towards differential reproductive success due to heritable variations.

Minor point, but *evolution* by NS requires the variation to have a heritable basis - NS per sé just requires differential reproductive success due to phenotypic variations.

dR = h^2 dS

Date: 2010/10/23 10:35:15, Link
Author: Raevmo
Hey, Sal, is that why you are studying physics and not biology? He's nothing left to learn in biology I guess, he knows it all. That must be it...

Is Sal really still studying physics? Haven't seen him bragging about it for a while. Wouldn't be surprised at all if he flunked...

Date: 2010/11/02 15:39:01, Link
Author: Raevmo
OMG!!! Now gpuccio is really losing it:

The point with Windows or Linux is that those systems have certainly not been conceived by the author of the simulation. That is the important requirement. The environment must not have been designed thinking of the simulation.

His bold.

Happens to me all the time: "oh shit -- I just thought of the simulation -- now I have to start all over again designing a new environment."

These guys just cannot wrap their minds around the concept of a model. They really are retards.

Date: 2010/11/02 16:40:50, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 02 2010,16:28)
gpuccio asks a profound question:        
Could you explain for example why bacteria would have evolved to eukaryotes and then to multicellular beings, when they still are the most successful reproductors on our planet?

Food-chains -- another concept beyond his grasp. I'm starting to feel sorry for him.

Date: 2010/11/08 07:07:44, Link
Author: Raevmo
Typical (and very pathetic) how on his blog Abel tries to create the impression he has very many peer-reviewed publications by recycling the same publications over and over again under different "subject" headings.

For example: I counted 34

"Abel DL: The capabilities of chaos and complexity. Int J Mol Sci 2009, 10:247-291 Open access at"

Date: 2010/11/11 13:33:10, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (keiths @ Nov. 11 2010,13:04)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 11 2010,08:13)
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,08:02)
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 11 2010,09:26)
Quote (BillB @ Nov. 11 2010,08:43)
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 11 2010,14:34)
Quote (dogdidit @ Nov. 11 2010,08:15)
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,07:43)
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 11 2010,07:39)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 10 2010,17:45)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 10 2010,14:03)

Quote (olegt @ Nov. 10 2010,15:57)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,15:52)
Quote (KCdgw @ Nov. 10 2010,15:45)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 10 2010,15:41)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Nov. 10 2010,13:19)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,15:00)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 10 2010,13:51)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2010,12:49)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:41)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,13:34)
Quote (Zachriel @ Nov. 10 2010,20:24)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2010,14:20)
The modified salmon includes a gene from an eel. Any explanation has to explain that fact.

That requirement is apt to leave them floundering.

Cod happen.

Gentlemen, is this really the plaice for this sort of behaviour? Louis

Well, not if people are gonna carp about it!

I can't believe what I'm herring. LOLer-Skates.

I shall not be reeled into this undignified pun cascade.

So this then will be your sole reply on this matter?

You all have finally jumped the shark.

I knew something smelt fishy about this thread.

I'm getting a haddock over all this

Are you having a wet bream?

I am afraid this is eel-conceived.

I am dolphin*-ly not impressed. Methinks it's just time to clam up. * fish, not the mammal

It all smells of, ick, theology!

Makes me want to tuna-out.

And its a crappie thread, besides.

Stop this, you bass tards!

Go fish.

Oh Cod, not again!

For the hallibut, get off your perch and sucker your asp!


You all mako me sick.

Walleye think this has gone on long enough.

Ik snapper niks meer van

Date: 2010/11/17 09:16:14, Link
Author: Raevmo
Scary sample from that VJ screed:
How, then, should Intelligent Design proponents who believe in a personal God respond to environmental crises? If our government tells us that there is an urgent environmental crisis that we need to fight, which imperils the very future of humanity itself, and that it will require a great deal of time, money and effort to combat this crisis, our first reaction should be one of deep suspicion. We’re probably being conned. After all, we know beyond reasonable doubt that there is a God, and God wouldn’t make the world like that. If there are any genuine environmental crises, we would expect them to be problems where the correct course of action is clear, and which can be attended to in a quick, no-nonsense fashion, and at an affordable cost, which doesn’t interfere with our duties to other human beings.

What a nutcase. VJ almost perfectly exemplifies how religion can screw up an otherwise fine brain.

I like the "at an affordable cost" part. How much did the clean-up after The Flood cost?

Date: 2010/11/21 09:13:09, Link
Author: Raevmo
VJ on cleaning up the environment:
Here’s another fact to consider. The task you propose is a task that by definition could never be finished. No matter how much you worry, no matter what precautions you take, there’s always another one you could take to make the world even safer. If you kept thinking like that, you’d have no time for human interactions with people around you, let alone prayer.

This guy has a PhD in philosophy?

Date: 2010/11/28 10:23:54, Link
Author: Raevmo
Slimy Sal has delusions of grandeur
Casey Luskin reports the passing of our colleague and member of the National Academy of Sciences, Phil Skell.

Date: 2010/12/03 15:31:13, Link
Author: Raevmo
Wow, look at Borne's reponse to VJ's rant:
The whole “gay” activist political movement disgusts me to the very core as do the perverse sexual practices of “gays” – like golden showers, fisting, sodomy and worse.

His craving for man-love almost jumps from the screen.

Date: 2010/12/12 16:33:00, Link
Author: Raevmo
VJ has a few "closing remarks" (5387 words, 11 A4 pages in Word) on The Gay Thread. Including
The immorality of homosexual acts can also be known from the nature of the male and female sexes. The complementarity of the two sexes was stressed by various contributors to this thread: “Male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). Man and woman are “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). This vital element of complementarity is absent from gay relationships. Two men or two women cannot complement each other, and can therefore never truly be “one flesh.”

So I guess VJ defines "one flesh" as "one penis in one vagina". Does it say that in the bible? I don't think so.

What kind of philosopher would say that without giving clear-cut definitions of "complementarity" and "one flesh"? Yes, a lousy brain-washed one.

Perhaps he means a penis necessarily "fits" better in a vagina than in an anus? Or is he perhaps referring to "natural lubricant"?

In the end it just comes down to "the babble says gays are bad. I believe it. That settles it."

Date: 2011/01/19 22:19:39, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 19 2011,21:14)
Clive waxes eloquent:
Do you think science is conducted outside of humans doing it, and using the power of inference, thus common sense, when doing it? Science is a tool for descriptions of nature, not real explanations behind the curtain of why nature is the way it is. We can’t get behind the curtain, we can only use our powers of inference and describe nature, we cannot explain our descriptions as we can explain the logic behind driving on the right side of the road or the necessary usage of a notary public. The only knowledge we uncover about the world through is inductive descriptions, not real explanations of the ideas behind nature. What science is in itself, which is nothing but a consensual agreement of a methodology, is not the same as the thing studied. You seem to equate natural occurrences with the methodology used to describe the occurrences. The methodology is a convention, what it hits up against, what everyone encounters everyday, that is, the natural world, is not science, it is the natural world. The methodology to describe the natural world is absolutely a convention, and we call that conventional methodology science. The thing studied is not the thing you use to study it. Science is a consensual methodology of the best way to describe nature, which is itself a value judgment, and value judgments, like methodologies, don’t physically exist. You shouldn’t equate the thing worked on with the methodology with which you work. If science discovers a tree, the tree is not science, and science is not the tree.

More! More!

BTW, I think we have an unclaimed signature:

"If science discovers a tree, the tree is not science, and science is not the tree."

Oh, but there is more. You lucky man -- you've hit upon an extraordinarily rich vein of tard, almost entirely free from rational impurities.

From the same vein, a little upstream:
No, I was designed by two intelligent agents, my parents, and they were designed by four, etc., until you get back to an intelligent agent that can imbue life like itself, not machines like itself. Top down, not bottom-up.


The discovery of the Clive Hayes Sequence: 2,4,...,1

I guess Clive just realized that there was rampant inbreeding among his ancestors.

Date: 2011/01/27 07:34:03, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (dvunkannon @ Jan. 27 2011,07:26)

If only BA^77 had thought to ask DRG's opinion of YEC instead of evolution.

There must be a Law of Attraction that applies to tardons, like the strong nuclear force but with a higher exponent. The tardons form the nucleus of a personality, and easily capture more tardons when they are emitted from DI, Fox News, or WingNutDaily.

At long last, we know whence 77!

Date: 2011/02/02 11:38:47, Link
Author: Raevmo
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (Bob @ Feb. 02 2011,11:09)

Any comments?

Breaking news from 2006. Thanks.

Date: 2011/02/02 12:44:00, Link
Author: Raevmo
Dumbest argument ever for dualism? Courtesy of StephenB:
It is clear that two entities possessed by the individual must be involved for the placebo effect to work. If B [the changed state of an organ called the brain] is influenced, then it is also clear that B did not change itself, and therefore, A [a different kind of entity had to change it]. Further, A must be more powerful than B, which again, shows then A must be a different kind of entity than B.

Only two possible candidates exist as the changing and more powerful entity: the suggestion itself or an immaterial faculty of mind, or both. In either case, the materialist explanation fails. [A] must be a different kind of entity than B if A is to change B or if it has more power than B. Put another way, if A is MORE POWERFUL than B, or can override the impulses of B, then A must be a different kind of entity than B. The most reasonable explanation for this state of affairs is that a non-material FACULTY [mind] changed the state of a material ORGAN [brain].

Materialism tries to say that A and B are one and the same entity, and that this singular entity changed itself and is MORE POWERFUL THAN ITSELF. It is a ridiculous argument. You are free to provide your own modifications, and you have been asked many times to do so.

Date: 2011/02/02 17:12:30, Link
Author: Raevmo
StephenB's "argument" is utterly bizarre.

A changes B, therefore A is "more powerful" than B? Therefore A is of a "different kind" than B?


If I send an email to B. Hussein Obama (joke), and he reads it, I will have changed his state of mind. Therefore, I am more powerful than BHO. That makes so much sense. And since I and BHO are both part of the universe, that means teh universe is MORE POWERFUL THAN ITSELF, and therefore it doesn't exist, QED.

Date: 2011/02/03 12:58:12, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 03 2011,11:45)
Quote (Raevmo @ Feb. 02 2011,18:12)
StephenB's "argument" is utterly bizarre.

A changes B, therefore A is "more powerful" than B? Therefore A is of a "different kind" than B?


If I send an email to B. Hussein Obama (joke), and he reads it, I will have changed his state of mind. Therefore, I am more powerful than BHO. That makes so much sense. And since I and BHO are both part of the universe, that means teh universe is MORE POWERFUL THAN ITSELF, and therefore it doesn't exist, QED.

sheeeeeeeeyit that moffucka ain't readin ur emails bitch please roflmcopter

<kwok>Of course he is - Barry and I went to the same high school</kwok>

Date: 2011/02/05 02:13:38, Link
Author: Raevmo
Dumbest comment ever - anywhere?
Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.

Date: 2011/02/11 16:11:19, Link
Author: Raevmo
The crap Sal is spouting about diffusion equations in population genetics is just so annoyingly wrong.

Oleg, please be a bit harsher on that clown. At least point out that (1) Kimura is not the pioneer of diffusion equations in popgen, but Fisher (1922) and Wright (1931) were, as Kimura of course acknowledges. (2) The (deterministic) selection part of the equation dominates the (random) diffusion part when Ns>>1. (3) He's a lying SOB with wet dreams about Jeebus taking him in the arse.

Did Sal flunk his physics studies at John Hopkins by now? It's hard to imagine that such an idiot would be able to get a degree in physics.

Date: 2011/03/07 13:03:11, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 07 2011,12:52)
Speaking of Sheen...

I got 8 out of 10!

I got 4 out of 10, which is statistically no worse than 8 out of 10!

BTW, has anyone ever seen Sheen and Gaddafi at the same time in the same room? I thought not.

Date: 2011/03/11 05:37:14, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 10 2011,11:59)
for a freind, actually:

"I’ve got one population that is a sub-set of another. I know the counts in both, the means and the standard deviations. What stat test can I use to teel if the mean of the sub-set is statistically different from the known mean of the whole? I think a t-test assumes two independent sets of data which these are not."


If the mean (say mu) of the total population is known (say mu=mu_0), and the "counts" in the total population are normally distributed (the word "counts" actually suggests that the data are count data. i.e. non-negative integers, rather than continuous normal data), then a one-sample t-test could be used to test whether the sample is from a population with mu=mu_0.

Alternatively, take bootstrap samples from the sample and see how far out  mu_0 is in the bootstrap distribution of the mean.

Date: 2011/03/11 07:16:31, Link
Author: Raevmo
The problem is a bit weird. Suppose it turns out that a t-test says it's very unlikely that the sample was taken from a population with mean mu=mu_0, i.e. has a very small p-value, even though we know for sure that the sample was taken from a population with mean mu_0. Then what? The only sensible conclusion then seems to be that the sampling procedure was "non-random" in some sense. Does that make sense, Oh Bob?

Date: 2011/03/11 07:23:22, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (George @ Mar. 11 2011,07:15)
Another thought: counts data are often Poisson distributed and not suitable for t-tests / ANOVA.  However, a simple transformation should work the trick.  IIRC, a square root transformation is often best for counts data.

Or a log-transformation. Or run a glm with a log-link and family=poisson option [R code: glm(counts~1,family=poisson,data=teh.sample] and test whether the intercept is significantly different from what's expected: |intercept - exp(mu_0)|/se(intercept)~N(0,1).

Date: 2011/03/11 07:43:28, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 11 2011,07:26)

Here in the modern day Sodom (the Netherlands) we consider that perfectly acceptable. (Admittedly, we sometimes add 1 to the counts to prevent plugging zero-counts into the log).

Date: 2011/03/13 09:16:16, Link
Author: Raevmo
Frilly Gil is back:
Darwinism is the greatest threat to true scientific investigation and integrity ever devised and propagated.

How can this not be obvious, and how ironic is it that the exact opposite is claimed, that is, that any challenge to Darwinian orthodoxy stands in the way of true scientific investigation and integrity?

Um, what exactly is contradictory between the claims that (1) Big Bad Darwinism is a big threat, and (2) any challenge to Darwinism stands in the way of The Truth?

That guy is such an insufferable moron, forever angry that he's far more stoopit than his genius daddy. But at least daddy will burn in hell and Frilly Gilly will suck Jebus' dick.

Date: 2011/03/13 13:20:36, Link
Author: Raevmo
In her unrelenting self-promotion campaign (well, who else would promote her?) O'Leary brings to our attention an interview with her in the Dutch Catholic newspaper "Katholiek Nieuwsblad" (a weekly with circulation of about 10,000).

Interestingly, there is this description of Denyse:
De 60-jarige gelauwerde wetenschapsjournaliste uit Canada

Meaning, the 60-year-old laureled science journalist from Canada.



Date: 2011/03/13 15:34:42, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 13 2011,15:24)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 13 2011,20:39)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Mar. 13 2011,14:28)
Quote (Raevmo @ Mar. 14 2011,06:20)
In her unrelenting self-promotion campaign (well, who else would promote her?) O'Leary brings to our attention an interview with her in the Dutch Catholic newspaper "Katholiek Nieuwsblad" (a weekly with circulation of about 10,000).

Interestingly, there is this description of Denyse:
De 60-jarige gelauwerde wetenschapsjournaliste uit Canada

Meaning, the 60-year-old laureled science journalist from Canada.







Date: 2011/03/14 15:58:55, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (REC @ Mar. 14 2011,14:12)
I just noticed Cornelius Hunter has been posting at his own place, but not cross-posting to UD. This started around the time O'Leary stole his thunder, and blogged twice on his post.

Dissension in the ranks?

UR Thorton?

Date: 2011/03/20 17:47:15, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (tsig @ Mar. 20 2011,17:00)
Quote (khan @ Mar. 18 2011,15:48)
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 17 2011,19:56)
UD's resident philosopher Vincent Torley insists that ID is good theology:
The charge that Intelligent Design theory is tied to an anthropomorphic conception of God has been made before, and repeatedly refuted. Recently, Professor Michael Tkacz made this claim in a paper entitled Thomas Aquinas vs. The Intelligent Designers: What is God’s Finger Doing in My Pre-Biotic Soup? and again in a revised version of his talk, entitled Aquinas vs. Intelligent Design. I wrote a devastating five-part rebuttal, to which he has not yet responded. In Part Four of my reply to Professor Tkacz, I demonstrate that Tkacz completely mis-represents the theological claims of the Intelligent Design movement, that his charge of anthropomorphism is completely false, and that he personifies Nature in a most un-Thomistic fashion, treating it as One Big Autonomous Agent. Here’s another question for Professor Feser: has he read Part Four of my reply to Tkacz?

What kind of cretinous yahoo self labels his ignorant yammering as 'devastating' (to reality)?

ETA: bolding is mine

i seem to have lost the plot. What does arguing medieval theologies have to do with science?

It seems puzzling that these idiots have such high esteem for ancient thinkers like Aquinas and Aristotle. No matter how smart these old heroes were, their musings are almost entirely irrelevant to science because they simply knew far less about nature than we do today. Garbage in, garbage out. That simply doesn't even occur to the IDiots, I suspect, because they consider ancient fairy tales the final word on almost everything. That's why they call themselves "Thomists" and stuff like that without the slightest embarrassment.

Date: 2011/03/21 18:17:47, Link
Author: Raevmo
Uptight Bipederast is classic Dunning-Kruger material (except for his immaterial soul of course).

Date: 2011/03/25 13:46:14, Link
Author: Raevmo
Anybody else think QuiteID is a sock? (S)he has been slowly building up some credibility with the inmates, but seems to be slipping.
His/her latest:  
PaV, I think a solution for this dilemma — and I do think it would be a real solution — would be for someone to publish a description and defense of CSI in a top-flight applied mathematics journal. So far, the mathematics of CSI hasn’t been developed with that degree of mathematical precision.

A sneaky reference to the 2LOT paper debacle?

Edit: also of note perhaps: "real solution" - as opposed to complex solution? QuiteID knows more about maths than letting on?

Date: 2011/03/27 12:59:11, Link
Author: Raevmo
Joe G hitting the sauce early today? From a pretty funny thread
Judging from your posts here tht wuld be due to the fact you have a one-track and very narrow mind. And you obviously have reding issus.

Anybody else would have been banned for the "uncivil" language Joe uses in that thread. Yet for some reason the blog administrators seem to feel that there's something about Joe's posts that outweighs his unwitty profanities.

Date: 2011/03/29 01:17:04, Link
Author: Raevmo
Gil is a fucking liar:
I was once in Moran’s camp, but fortunately I am also a mathematician and engineer, which he is obviously not.

Mathematician my well-formed ass. From past posts (link?) we know you are incompetent at high school-level maths, Gilly boy.

Date: 2011/03/29 09:41:41, Link
Author: Raevmo
Here's an old embarrassing display of Frilly Gilly's failure to solve a high school level math problem.

The fact that the thread hasn't been deleted demonstrates conclusively that Gil's doesn't even realize how incompetent it makes him look.

Dunning-Kruger much, Gil?

Date: 2011/04/01 07:01:30, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (CeilingCat @ April 01 2011,06:39)
Is this O'Dreary's dumbest post ever?

Nah, par for the course

Date: 2011/04/03 08:17:33, Link
Author: Raevmo
Lewontin alarm!

Date: 2011/04/11 12:14:17, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Hermagoras @ April 11 2011,11:50)
Clive Hayden has something to say  

Bruce David,
I have shown that the scriptures themselves, based on the results of Biblical research universally accepted by Biblical scholars, simply cannot be trusted to convey Jesus’ life, death, and teachings accurately. It is logically contradictory to use the Bible itself to refute this fact.

The Bible is a collection of books, so how is it logically contradictory that the books should be evidence for the proper history of Jesus? You may as well say that since the Encyclopedia has been collected into one volume, it is logically contradictory to use any part of it as evidence for any other part.

Words fail me.

It's hard to believe that unguided forces and nature operating freely could have created someone as dumb as Clive - therefore he is right!

Date: 2011/04/14 11:55:22, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 14 2011,11:27)
Harry Barrington is both stupider than davetard and more vicious and nasty.  I would like to go camping with this man.

Broketard mountain, coming to a cinema near you soon!

Date: 2011/04/14 12:07:36, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 14 2011,11:58)
it wouldn't really be a love story.  more like sexgore.  followed by me changing my phone number so he quits calling

ah, more like Tard Fiction then. Barry the bully in black leather and on a leash.

Date: 2011/04/14 14:40:11, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (didymos @ April 14 2011,14:24)
The real Barry:

Barry sure is an ugly little turd. I suggest to 'ras that he down a full bottle of his local moonshine before engaging in his planned sexgore with Barry.

Date: 2011/07/14 09:55:49, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Zachriel @ July 14 2011,09:37)
It's been a week since Telic Thoughts exhibited a heartbeat. We're going to call it.

Telic Thoughts died at 2 o'clock GMT, some 37 minutes ago. The Vice Telic Thinker has left the morgue, but we do not know to where...

We can thank a certain nasty little blowhard with a hard-on for third rate homo-erotic prose for that.

Date: 2011/09/06 17:48:10, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 06 2011,14:03)
I don't know if this has been posted, but the new Koonin book is available free for download At Amazon. If you non't have a Kindle, you can download a free reader.

The News at UD is rather stupidly touting it as an ID friendly book.

Details here:

That is putting is mildly. Quote from Koonin's book:

"Of course, ID is malicious nonsense"


Date: 2011/11/12 07:00:59, Link
Author: Raevmo
Just in case you have any lingering doubts that Vincent Torley still has some small measure of sanity left, read this.
Or imagine that the family member opts for a head transplant. Which would you value as the person you loved: the head or the body? And what if the body their head is transplanted onto is robotic? Now imagine that this person wants to load their all their personal memories onto a CD, before they die. Assuming it were doable, would you ascribe any ethical value to the CD? If you’re self-consistent in your ethics, you’d ascribe value to the head and the to the CD. But I wouldn’t. I’d identify more with the loved one’s body, and I’d attach zero importance to the CD. In my book, anything that doesn’t have a body, isn’t even an organism, and therefore isn’t an individual.

Commenter goodusername is shocked.

Date: 2011/11/18 09:04:21, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 18 2011,08:36)
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 12 2011,07:00)
Just in case you have any lingering doubts that Vincent Torley still has some small measure of sanity left, read this.
Or imagine that the family member opts for a head transplant. Which would you value as the person you loved: the head or the body? And what if the body their head is transplanted onto is robotic? Now imagine that this person wants to load their all their personal memories onto a CD, before they die. Assuming it were doable, would you ascribe any ethical value to the CD? If you’re self-consistent in your ethics, you’d ascribe value to the head and the to the CD. But I wouldn’t. I’d identify more with the loved one’s body, and I’d attach zero importance to the CD. In my book, anything that doesn’t have a body, isn’t even an organism, and therefore isn’t an individual.

Commenter goodusername is shocked.

I'll see that and raise you this:      
Looking at your post, I think your most serious philosophical mistake is to regard the mind as some sort of “thing”. Because you view it as a thing, you are prepared to argue that it possesses importance in its own right. But where’s the evidence that the mind is a thing? The only thing I can see is the human body. And that thing begins at conception. What about the brain, you ask? That’s just a part of a thing, not a thing as such.

The craziness of that thread is rapidly approaching the Universal Craziness Bound, aka the Madness Event Horizon. Theoretically, once that boundary is crossed, there is no going back and the universe will implode into a tiny clump of pure tard with infinite density, the dreaded Kairosfocus.

Date: 2011/11/25 01:28:39, Link
Author: Raevmo
For a moment I thought Kairosfocus had hijacked this thread, but a search for Lewontin came up empty...

Date: 2011/11/25 12:02:39, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2011,05:55)
Quote (rhmc @ Nov. 25 2011,10:19)
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 25 2011,02:28)
For a moment I thought Kairosfocus had hijacked this thread, but a search for Lewontin came up empty...


{Golf clap}

Well done. Here's a cookie. You've made a complaint about the length of someone's posts. You must be so proud.


Edited for more snark

Not just the length. Numbered lists of points; declarations of having "corrected"; dismissing as straw men. Above all the pompous sanctimoniousness, and the patronizing. Like this

"Everyone should read the Letter From a Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King."


Date: 2011/12/21 09:08:26, Link
Author: Raevmo
In a rare display of honesty, G Pooch admits he is simple minded.
You don’t understand the fundamental difference between the conscious I that represents, and the things that are represented. The things represented are certainly complex, but the conscious I that represents them can well be simple. Indeed, I firmly believe that it is simple.

Date: 2012/01/18 06:16:34, Link
Author: Raevmo
Peter Griffin wipes the floor with GPooch' "dFSCI".


Date: 2012/01/18 11:43:58, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 18 2012,11:27)
Joe, internet tough guy:
DLH I am sick of false accusations


Hahahahaha indeed.

He's begging DLH to banninate Peter Griffin because he knows he is being humiliated. Yet he calls Griffin a coward. What a pathetic loser.

Date: 2012/01/19 10:22:20, Link
Author: Raevmo
F/N: if PG means me by that [though due to his misbehaviour there is now only correction for record . . . ]

I take that to mean that Peter Griffin has been silently banned, even though his tone has been quite civil in comparison with the inmates.

Link to deranged blowhard.

Date: 2012/01/19 11:52:59, Link
Author: Raevmo
Meanwhile, the clueless gpooch  keeps responding with more dFSCI drivel to the banninated Peter Griffin.

Date: 2012/01/19 14:08:35, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 19 2012,13:26)
I guess having friends who are former murderers transformed by grace helps.

So, Darwin, object of hate. Nazi enabler.

A murderer who has seen the light? Gordon's best mate.

Yeah, wtf? Note it's multiple murderers, and former murderers, as if accepting jeebus in your life wipes the slate clean.

Basically, what he is saying is, he's surrounded by a bunch of former gang-banger killers that are now his private Army of the Lard.

Date: 2012/01/20 05:43:23, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Febble @ Jan. 20 2012,05:26)
Quote (Raevmo @ Jan. 19 2012,10:22)
F/N: if PG means me by that [though due to his misbehaviour there is now only correction for record . . . ]

I take that to mean that Peter Griffin has been silently banned, even though his tone has been quite civil in comparison with the inmates.


ddle/comment-page-1/#comment-415934]Link to deranged blowhard.[/URL]

Apparently not.  I just asked.

Gordon said he didn't ban PG. Doesn't mean he didn't ask Bully Arrington or someone from the huge "News" crew to do it.

It's a bit odd that PG hasn't returned since Gordon's suspicious remarks.

Date: 2012/01/20 07:43:12, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 20 2012,06:45)
Oh Joy!!  A Testable ID Hypothesis!!

Kairosfocus has found somebody with the nom-de-tard of Genomicus who has provided a Testable ID Hypothesis.

Here it is:      
Thus, we can make this prediction from a front-loading perspective: proteins that are very important to eukaryotes, and specific to them, will share deep homology (either structurally or in sequence similarity) with prokaryotic proteins, and importantly, that these prokaryotic proteins will be more conserved in sequence identity than the average prokaryotic protein.

Emphasis in the original.

Looks fool proof to me.

He gives a few more predictions, which appear to be safely untestable for now.  Things like the first living thing must have been highly complex, complete with DNA and protein synthesis machinery.

He's also very impressed with The Design Matrix by Mike Gene.  How do you nominate someone for a Fellowship at the Discovery Institute?

When I first saw "Genomicus" at UD a while ago, I wondered whether that is another pseudonym of Mike Gene. Now he's pushing Mike Gene's "frontloading" and pretends that Mike Gene was the first one with that "idea". What are the odds?

Date: 2012/01/20 07:49:30, Link
Author: Raevmo
Joe's deep thinking in action:
No, it isn’t testable. If it was then I wouold still be an evolutionist and you would be telling us how to test it.

IOW: if it were true I would believe it. Since I don't believe it, it can't be true. QED


Date: 2012/01/20 08:29:44, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 20 2012,08:24)
Quote (Raevmo @ Jan. 20 2012,05:43)
It's a bit odd that PG hasn't returned since Gordon's suspicious remarks.

Perhaps if someone knows how to get in touch with Peter Griffin, we can find out whether he has been, in fact, banned.

I wonder if he is this Peter Griffin:
Peter Griffin is the founding manager of the Science Media Centre and co-founder of Sciblogs. Prior to joining the Royal Society to set up the New Zealand arm of the Science Media Centre empire in June 2008, he was tech columnist, reporter and blogger for the New Zealand Herald, the Herald on Sunday, Idealog and PC World. He was also tech correspondent for Radio Live, TVNZ Breakfast and can still be seen on Good Morning and heard on BFM’s Dear Science slot onThe Wire and talking tech with Simon Morton on Radio New Zealand’s This Way Up

From here.

I'll ask him.

Date: 2012/01/20 08:41:24, Link
Author: Raevmo
Peter Griffin is back at UD.

I am so ashamed that I wrongly accused Gordon E. Mullings of Montserrat of something he didn't do. <bows head in shame>

Date: 2012/01/30 15:21:48, Link
Author: Raevmo
Chas D throws pearls to the swine:
Take a population of N organisms. Allow them to breed completely at random. The chance of any individual not being the parent of the next offspring born is (N-1)/N. The chance of it not being the next parent either is ((N-1)/N)^2. And the next ((N-1)/N)^3 and so on. Once you have N offspring, any individual from the parent generation has the chance ((N-1)/N)^N of not being the parent of ANY of those offspring. For populations in double figures and above, this approaches 36.78%. That means that 36.78% of any randomly mating population leaves no offspring in the next generation – by stochastic processes.

The next generation is formed from this second population. Again, you find that 36.78% leave no offspring. This concentrates successful individuals from the ancestral population even further. The next generation does the same. And the next. And the next … Can you see where this is heading? The statistically inevitable result is that one ancestor (and all its genes) becomes fixed in the population.

Now, real populations recombine. This means that ancestry is fixed at allele level, not at individual level. They also don’t mate completely at random – but this actually concentrates some ancestors even more than the 36.78% baseline. Nonetheless, the argument – the inevitability of fixation from a blind stochastic sampling process – remains.

This very nice comment was directed at Joe. What are the odds he understands, much less see that 36.78..% = 1/e?

Date: 2012/02/08 08:43:14, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 08 2012,04:22)
Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 07 2012,20:42)
Quote (Bruce David @ ,)

[T]he only known phenomenon that is capable of violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics is intelligence. And we don’t need to be Shakespeare, Beethoven, or Leonardo da Vinci to do this. I am doing this right now as I write this. We do it any time we figure out how to repair something, or speak a meaningful sentence longer than 20 characters or so. What does that say about us human beings?

It says that some of us are incapable of understanding the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

(Edited to remove (even more) evidence of stupidity.)

I learned aeons ago that blood flow to the brain increase when a person is performing some intelligent action like kopfrechnen. (Got kopfrechnen from Duden, couldn't find an English translation of 'hoderegning'.) "Head calculation"? doesn't look good to me.

It's "hoofdrekenen" in Dutch. "Hoofd" is head and "rekenen" is "doing arithmetic" (or reckoning?). Seems a bit closer to the Norwegian than the German version. But then again, Dutch does have the word "kop", which means head of an animal. Yes, that's right, Dutch has separate words for human and animal anatomical features. A human leg is "been" whereas an animal leg is "poot". An exception is made for horses, whose head is also "hoofd" and leg also "been". They're noble animals after all.

Date: 2012/02/09 06:23:24, Link
Author: Raevmo
Chas D sets Bruce straight on his weapons-grade 2lotard.

He ends the lesson thus:
Your car runs on the fossil light of an ancient sun, trapped in a disordered molecular soup.


Date: 2012/02/09 06:29:49, Link
Author: Raevmo
And I would like to congratulate myself for inventing the term "2lotard".

Please donate $10 to your favorite charity upon future usage of term.

Date: 2012/02/09 10:42:01, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 09 2012,10:24)
Robert Sheldon admits to being uncommonly dense:
The derivative of a function has different properties than the function, which was a mistake that I made in the first paper I wrote after getting my PhD. (I had assumed that if f(0)–>0, then df/dx(0)–>0. It took the referee a year to straighten me out. The only time I can say that peer review worked.)

This guy used to be an associate professor of physics at the University of Alabama Huntsville.  If that quote is typical, I think we know why he isn't any more.

Amazing. A smooth curve can only cross the origin horizontally? And it took him a year to see that is not necessarily true? He has a PhD in physics?

Wait a minute... That is a miracle! Praise Jesus!

Date: 2012/02/10 09:56:45, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 10 2012,09:35)
Peter Griffin (who, he?) collects together some of Joe's recent insults and pastes them into a single comment.

KF says:
Joe: Pardon, but if you have been speaking in that way [and it looks like the clips are accurate, from your responses . . . ], I suggest you will find it best to dial back your tone a few notches. We in the main need to focus on issues not personalities. Controversial matters are best addressed in that way, otherwise the sidetracks will tend to derail serious discussion. KF

Barry says:
I agree with KF Joe. You are warned.

Funny how Joe get's a warning after dozens of "offences" and others are insta-banned after one...

What's the theory du jour on that? Do UD's ban-buttonmen really agree with Joe's stupidity and hypocritically accept his "incivility" because he's on their side, or do they have some evidence that banning him would decrease the number of onlookers at UD?

Date: 2012/02/10 11:17:20, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 10 2012,11:07)
Looks like I have been banned too.

Oh noooo!  How am I going to waste my time pretending to do science now?

Date: 2012/02/10 15:11:52, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 10 2012,15:02)
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 10 2012,15:17)
Let me also add that I applaud the double-standards of U.D.

Let's face reality here, ladies, gentlemen, and chubby guys with oddly-shaped heads: Darwinists are vitriolic monsters who have no problem with squashing dissenters. Take away Darwin skeptics livelihoods? They'd have it no other way.

My harsh-but-reasonable opinion is that these sorts of people don't deserve fair treatment until proven otherwise.

I think Liz was civil enough to warrant fair treatment, which I why I'm disappointed she was removed.

The rest of you? Trash that was kicked to the curb. I guess that would make this board the local dump. That seems about right.  :p

awwwwww look at it

Jared Jammer appears to be all over the internet recycling the same old garbage. He's even a big fan of John A Davison.

Date: 2012/02/10 15:44:52, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 10 2012,15:41)
Speaking of an oddly shaped head:

Barry even screwed up the swastika. What an idiot indeed.

Date: 2012/02/10 15:59:55, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 10 2012,15:48)

If you had to choose between spending time with your families or obsessing over the I.D. scientific revolution on message boards, you'd choose the latter with nary a second's hesitation. I have a hunch that quite a few of you face that exact scenario on a regular basis.

Says the guy who has left thousands of pro-ID messages all over the place in a few years.

Do tell about the "I.D. scientific revolution".

Date: 2012/02/10 16:39:47, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 10 2012,16:15)
Jonathan M:
Two years ago, I had the tremendous opportunity to travel to Seattle, Washington, and take part in Discovery Institute’s yearly summer seminar for undergraduate and graduate students. Truth be told, it was one of the most memorable experiences of my life.

Good God.

Can we pool our resources and get this poor sap a hooker?

Well, he did add:

I had the chance to interact at a one-on-one level with key ID scholars including William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson, Richard Sternberg, Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich, Michael Behe, Douglas Axe, Ann Gauger, Jay Richards, and Bruce Gordon (and more!).

Date: 2012/02/10 16:52:40, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 10 2012,16:41)
ahhh!  mano e mano, eh?

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if at these DI-sponsored meetings the senior researchers introduce the eager students to the fine art of fist-fucking.

Date: 2012/02/10 17:00:19, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Grunty @ Feb. 10 2012,16:56)
I haven't posted at UD for a long time, it was a waste of effort with those bozos. So when the decent posters were booted out by Colorado's answer to Ernst Rohm, I thought I would take a finla bow. Here is what I wrote - I doubt it will see the light of day.

"Arrington says:

"Bullwinkle says he is hopelessly befuddled as to the difference between the obscenity directed at me and the phrase “sad and pathetic.” In light of that I decided he would be happier not commenting on this site. Anyone else want to push me today?"


"UD: Doveton’s out. Anyone else?"

I was always taught that the way to handle bullies is to stand up to them. You are a bully, Arrington, so I'm taking you on. You are also a gutless coward, like DaveScot before you. It's typical of your sort, you're another pocket Hitler - give you a little power and it goes to your head. Dr REC turns out to be right, you are just an arrogant little prick.

All the decent posters have been banned now, so there's no point hanging around here. It's now just a squalid little ID ghetto. Carry on with your idiotic fantasies and incestuous theology."

I'm afraid the probability of that post seeing the light of day exhausts the "probabilistic resources" (God I hate that term) of the universe.

Date: 2012/02/10 17:25:12, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 10 2012,17:05)
Quote (Raevmo @ Feb. 10 2012,17:52)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 10 2012,16:41)
ahhh!  mano e mano, eh?

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if at these DI-sponsored meetings the senior researchers introduce the eager students to the fine art of fist-fucking.

yeah you look at bob marks, for example, and there is no doubt within my military mind that THIS is a man who can palpate a heifer

My gaydar nearly explodes for most of those DI senior researchers.

Date: 2012/02/11 07:38:56, Link
Author: Raevmo
It seems that my inference to fisting between Jonathan M and DI senior researchers has upset that sensitive soul nullasalus (whose handle boils down to "if you're not Catholic, you'll burn in hell forever, asshole"). He brings it up several times in the legendary "ya cant make this stuff up" thread. He even demands that markf take a stand on it:
Where do you stand on the fisting comment, Mark, or the rest?

The guy is a bully on par with Bully Arrington.

Date: 2012/02/11 11:35:20, Link
Author: Raevmo
Some thread that is. Gordon confesses to having Alzheimer's, making life even harder for his poor mum:
Women are more than half the population, and have a lot to say that is significant about many things. I deeply miss being able to have a serious conversation with my mom, due to steadily advancing Alzheimer’s.

[Edit: this thread]

Date: 2012/02/11 12:29:46, Link
Author: Raevmo
Fisting-gate continues:  
I actually read this morning one of the contributors to fantasizing about one of the UD personnel fist-f__ing a donkey. Science at its worst, coming from your side of the debate. I’m actually thankful it is in full view, especially to the young folks watching all of this. Very entertaining, I’m having a good time at it.

Did I miss something, or is he comparing Dembski to a donkey here?

Date: 2012/02/12 13:36:09, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 12 2012,12:28)
Quote (REC @ Feb. 11 2012,19:54)
Watching from a distance might be more fun:

From KF-
ES; If you have done any significant experimental work, you will know that we routinely trichotomise observed effects, on investigator intervention, random scatter and laws of necessity, just for one instance.

1) KF has done significant experimental work?
2) WTF is "trichotomise?" Is that like lobotimize X3? Or one more than a dichotomy?
3) How does one 'intervene' with a 'law of necessity?" The only use I know of for law of necessity is legal/ethical in terms of self-preservation

Random paragraph generator?

In response to number 1: NO.

I've done some serious digging to see if gordo has ever done anything besides spewing dictatorial sermons and condemning atheists/evolutionary materialists/methodological naturalists, etc., and I've found just one thing that he was involved in in any way. It's just a very basic outline for the next several years that the government of Montserrat drew up a couple of years ago and it has a list of contributors at the end and gordo is listed as a "consultant". Frankly, I think that they were just being nice by adding his name and that "consultant" sounded better than 'irritating, obnoxious, meddling asshole'.

If he were anywhere near as important as he thinks and says he is there would be papers, projects, plans, etc., that would have his name in them. I've looked at Montserrat and Jamaica government records, government employees, science projects in those countries, projects that have to do with the volcano and the environment in Montserrat, engineering and construction projects in Montserrat and Jamaica, and all kinds of other stuff including, but not limited to, the names of business owners, other business directories, phone books, and all of the news outlets, websites, and forums that pertain to Montserrat and other Caribbean Islands. He's virtually a ghost, except on some blogs where he has puked up tons of convoluted vomit.

I don't believe that he even has a job as a janitor, let alone a job of any kind in science. He also likes to call himself a physicist, yet he has no track record in that either. From what I've seen, I think that he must get his money from fleecing gullible sheeple, and/or from welfare. Chances are, he gets disability payments because he's way too aggravating and mentally deranged to be hired by anyone.

gordo is a phony baloney liar and bullshitter, and is nowhere near being a scientist or physicist. All he does is sit in his basement and spew his bile on the internet. And it's likely his mom's basement.

By the way, in case anyone is wondering, Montserrat has a population of about 4500 people. That's for the whole island. If gordo were prominent there, his name would be prominent there.

I believe Gordon really does have an MSc in physics from some Jamaican university. I once Googled him and found a link to his thesis - something about a multi-channel device of some kind if memory serves. He is obviously crazy but he is not entirely unintelligent. A bit like Hitler if you like.

Date: 2012/03/06 19:11:26, Link
Author: Raevmo
Folks, I have just made an important discovery that will affect you all.

I have discovered that both the ultimate question to life, the universe and everything and the answer to this question have been staring you all in the face for years. But you were too blinded by your nihilistic atheistic Darwinism to see!

Are you ready?

Jesus Or Evolution? God!  

[get it?  J.O.E.? G!  Joe G]

I know what you're thinking: how incredibly stupid of me not to have thought of that myself.

I for one welcome our new Tardistic overlord. [bows]

Date: 2012/03/18 04:24:43, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 17 2012,23:46)
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the odious fuckwitt, William J Murray

No, it's not that William J Murray, it's this one.

Date: 2012/03/18 06:11:35, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (Febble @ Mar. 18 2012,05:00)
Actually, it's this one:

Is that a different one? Is there a way on to tell apart different authors by the same name?

Date: 2012/06/26 13:16:36, Link
Author: Raevmo
Hmm, I have my doubts it's Joe.

No "there isn't any evidence", no "nature operating freely".

Maybe he added those mighty rhetorical weapons to his arsenal later on, but still.

Date: 2012/07/16 16:33:49, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (olegt @ July 15 2012,19:59)
I just had a eureka moment. All this nonsense Hunter has been pouring at us makes sense when you realize that he is not speaking to you (the evilutionist). He is talking to an invisible audience of students at Biola.

More on that here.

My theory is that Hunter is working on another book and he allows the "evolutionists" to comment on his crazy rants in order to analyze potential counter-arguments and develop counter-counter-arguments. It's obvious that he is not interested in dialogue.

Date: 2012/07/24 08:13:21, Link
Author: Raevmo
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 24 2012,08:05)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 24 2012,07:00)
Joe is still struggling with the basics:      
That said where are the humans with 48 chromosomes and the humans with 47? They must have existed. YOUR position requires it- so where are they?

Keep up the good fight, Joe! Eventually you will strangle Darwinism single-handed.

I think we all know where one of them is...

Hmmm, which chromosome is necessary for testicular development? Damn, why can't I remember...